

Machines 'to match man by 2029' - cawel
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7248875.stm

======
gruseom
This kind of fantasizing gathers attention because some people would like it
to be true while other people fear it. Controversy results, but it's not about
anything. It's a conflict between two forms of wishful thinking.

~~~
dejb
Nice snappy comment but what exactly do you mean? Do you think this sort of
thing is impossible? Or that 2029 is way too early? Or are you just saying
that speculating about what will happen more than 20 years in the future is
folly?

~~~
gruseom
I don't know what's impossible. I'm saying this stuff is made up. Nobody
really knows anything about it, and there's no way to prove or disprove it
(except by waiting a long time). I think it gets attention not because of
anything to do with the future, but because it triggers emotions in the
present. Some people find it exciting and want it to be true, others find it
frightening and want it to be false, and so on. That leads to controversy, but
the controversy isn't really about anything, other than conflicting emotions
finding arguments to clothe themselves in.

~~~
dejb
Well you could to some extent make the same argument over any attempts to
predict the future. Global warming is an instance that comes to mind. The
point of it all is that your assessment of the likely futures can effect your
current actions. This sort of stuff can be particularly useful for tech
startups.

But to follow your style of argument - it can also be true that some people
would prefer not to think of a future that is radically different from the
past and present. So they will often reflexively turn away from that sort of
discussion, dismissing it as pointless. This is the sort of attitude a lot of
people displayed to the internet during its growth.

I personally think there is maybe a 20% change he is close to right which to
me makes it hugely significant and deserving of a lot more attention than it
gets.

------
mechanical_fish
I would think more of these predictions if they came attached to some concrete
goals. Could we have a list of specific tasks that will be accomplished by the
machines in 2029? "Win the world Go championship", perhaps? "Produce a
Russian-to-English translation of _Crime and Punishment_ that passes the
Turing test?" "Provide better color commentary than the average Fox Sports
announcer?" That should be an easy one, but I'm still not betting on the
machine.

And I marvel at the tremendous effectiveness of the typical futurist trick:
make the banal sound incredible and then predict it:

 _"We'll have intelligent nanobots go into our brains through the capillaries
and interact directly with our biological neurons," he told BBC News._

I've got those. They're called _cells_. I sneeze billions of them out every
day.

I suppose you might ask whether it's fair to call my white blood cells
"intelligent"... but they do have autonomous capabilities, and they do self-
organize via a body-wide signaling network. They're pretty talented. I
challenge you to produce a device on the same scale that is significantly
_more_ intelligent... by 2029.

~~~
dejb
Well I don't think any of your current cells can network your brain to say a
google search by thought alone. To say the capacity for rapid brain-digital
interfacing wouldn't have an impact on intelligence would be like saying the
internet is unlikely to effect society. Not saying I subscribe to the guy's
timetable though.

I agree about the goal part. I'd say GO would be gone way before then anyway.
It'll take a new algorithm and some more computer power but not general
intelligence. The actual Turing Test is always a good one, but if they passed
it computers would be way more intelligent than us to beat us at our own game.

------
icky
Human-level AI is always ~20 years from "now" (whenever "now" happens to be).

------
dejb
Ray Kurzweil's latest book about all this 'The Singularity is Near', was
released in 2005. It has some compelling arguments is definitely worth a read
if you are interesting in the longer term implications of computer technology
and networking. He hasn't said all that much new in the years since then and
this article doesn't really contain any new information.

~~~
nickb
Norvig doesn't think so: <http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9774501-7.html>

~~~
dejb
Doesn't think what? That the Kurzweil book is an interesting read? I think
what you are trying to say is that this guy doesn't agree with the notion of
the singularity. Fair enough. Though I think his assertion that we aren't in a
time of accelerating change is a minority view amongst recognized futurists.

------
jraines
These stories should be tagged "Kurzweil" or "non-Kurzweil". Kurzweil's next
book should be about how to get constant PR.

------
aswanson
I think it may happen, but not on his timetable. If you read his _Age of
Spiritual Machines_ , he dismissed many very difficult problems in AI and
material science with a bunch of hand-waving. He could just as well be off by
50-150 years.

~~~
Hexstream
"He could just as well be off by 50-150 years."

Well, that's not even a blimp in the history of mankind.

~~~
aswanson
True. Like I said, I had a problem with his timetable, which he did not
justify to my satisfaction. His premise may be valid. I would say it is almost
inevitable.

