

Ray Kurzweil: A university for the coming singularity - quizbiz
http://www.ted.com/talks/ray_kurzweil_announces_singularity_university.html

======
ardit33
ok, wtf is all this circle jerk with singularity... can anybody explain me why
is this important that we need a whole university dedicated to it?

It just feels way too cultish

~~~
pj
It feels cultish, but it's not. It's the real deal. It's the real deal because
there will come a time in the future when computers _are_ "smarter" than
people. Computer analytical skills will progress faster than human analytical
skills. Computers will be asking _humans_ questions.

It's not a cult at all. You don't have to believe it is coming. You don't have
to associate with people who do believe it is coming.

It seems like a logical certainty to me. Unless there is some sort of a human
intervention or tragedy that stops us from progressing and innovating and
building more powerful computing systems, then what is the alternative? That
humans continue to outpace computers forever?

If you look around at the world already, most people have no idea what is
going on with the internet, cloud computing, artificial intelligence. Robots
are sweeping our floors and mowing our lawns and killing our enemies.

What is the alternative? How might The Singularity _not_ occur?

~~~
iron_ball
What if it's impossible to develop an autonomous machine intelligence? I know
that statement is equivalent to "what if it's impossible to develop heavier-
than-air flight," and I think that we definitely _should_ pursue AI research,
but it is by no means guaranteed that we will end up with anything that
behaves like a self-directed mind.

I'm choosing my words here, because obviously a Singularity situation would
not require a human-like intelligence. But as far as I know, neurologists and
psychologists don't really know how human minds work, and computer scientists
haven't built a computer mind that showed even a glimmer of "free will" or
"self-awareness," if you'll pardon the terms. How can we take it for granted
that we'll get there?

~~~
khafra
The Singularity doesn't require computer sentience. Researchers at the
Singularity Institute* refer to their goal as a "powerful optimization
process."* All that's required is that it's better at general-purpose goal-
seeking than humans; that would logically include the ability to wipe out the
human race and tile the solar system with little smiley faces if we set its
goal incorrectly.

* <http://www.singinst.org/>

* <http://www.sl4.org/archive/0512/13006.html>

~~~
iron_ball
And that's roughly what I meant by "self-directed."

Imagine a concrete goal: efficient fusion power, for instance. It's easy to
define, easy to establish success metrics, and it's even easy to propose
methods -- but success has eluded us for decades. A mind that could solve a
problem like that would have to have intuition, lateral and parallel thinking,
and creativity (or their machine equivalents; I'm open to an AI which might
think _utterly unlike_ a human).

My point is that we don't know where such traits come from in humans, and thus
have no idea how to even begin to attempt to replicate them in computers
except in the crudest and most rule-based ways.

Note: I would dearly like to be proven wrong, I'm just parroting things I've
heard.

------
Husafan
What we mean by "intelligence," must also be considered. As they are,
computers are most useful for solving problems where a solution is known,
theoretically, to exist.

For example, you know there are articles on the internet concerning
Javascript, and when you ask google to point you towards them, the relevance
of the returned results is often viewed as a measure of the algorithm's
"intelligence." But behind this intelligent response lies complex but defined
probability calculations that are provably correct given a known algorithm. On
the other hand, can you ever imagine asking the questions, "Computer, does
this shirt look good on me?" or, "Computer, what is the most ethical course of
action in this situation?" How a human responds to these questions helps
indicate that human's level of intelligence. But different people could also
disagree on the above questions and still be considered intelligent.

To me, it doesn't seem to make much sense to invest in computers that are
modeled after humans, as there are certain types of situations where even the
most intelligent of these machines could be wrong as a matter of opinion.
Rather, the more powerful computers become, the more sense it makes to have
them tackle finite problem spaces more efficiently. Because of this, I don't
really see the case where human intelligence and computer intelligence would
or should converge. Put simply, it would NEVER make sense to give Skynet
control of our nukes.

------
leecho0
hmmm, I'm curious about why people are against dedicating time and energy to
this. Technology is already growing at a faster rate than we can effectively
regulate it.

There will definitely come a point when technology will be able to improve the
ones improving technology, whether they're AI or cybernetically enhanced
humans. That's going to profoundly affect everything related to technology
(which is pretty much everything). Imagine if your neighbor can just think up
the plans to make a nuclear bomb by getting a cognitive implant, how would
that affect the world?

There is a lot of speculation, but kurzweil has been fairly accurate with his
predictions so far, so I'm curious to why people don't buy it.

~~~
jballanc
Well, one reason I don't buy it is that it all seems premised on the notion
that the human body is nothing more than a vehicle for the human mind, and
that ones thoughts are the essence of oneself. The problem is that all current
biomedical and neurological research points to the exact opposite: a human
mind without a human body is not human.

~~~
JulianMorrison
What makes you think an apparent body can't be simulated as easily as a mind?

~~~
runinit
Or even a simulated "super" body. Human bodies are quite limited in the amount
of information it can take in at once. I think you could potentially simulate
a "body" with a million times more senses than a human. It's all a matter of
sensory input.

------
keltecp11
$25,000 is a lot of money to attend. But I think it might be a valuable
educational experience.

