

Noam Chomsky: The Singularity is Science Fiction [video] - a3voices
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0kICLG4Zg8s#t=37

======
noonespecial
There are 2 kinds of "science fiction". The first is the kind that doesn't
necessarily violate any laws of nature but is nevertheless inconceivable by
today's standards. The second kind clearly violates a physical law of nature
and so is extremely unlikely to ever occur. Its easy to accidentally place one
from the first category in the second because of a lack of imagination.

When I was young, the thought of a communicator with global reach that I could
pull out of my pocket, tap and then say the name of who I'd like to be
connected to seemed surely to be science fiction. I assumed it to be in the
second category as well, because I couldn't conceive of a radio transmitter
powerful enough to reach around the world that could fit in my pocket. I
completely missed the fact that there might be a global, semi-self-organizing
packet switched network involved. Sci-fi became real in my lifetime and it was
awesome.

Being a strict naturalist (no belief in supernatural "spirits" or "souls" or
what have you) I can't see how a hunk of meat that fits in an 11cm box, only
takes 20 watts to power, and is replicated in nature by the billions should be
fundamentally be un-simulate-able (and then improvable).

Its sci-fi because the technical challenge _seems_ insurmountable by today's
standards, but I'd place it firmly in the first category, not the second.

~~~
cscurmudgeon
What makes you think that this "unremarkable" hunk of meat can simulate
itself?

Btw, I believe in God (look up Godel's proof) and am a strict monist. I also
feel Human-level weak AI is possible.

~~~
noonespecial
Nothing in particular, but the same nothing in particular that makes me think
that it possibly can. I'm just saying that there's nothing in the known laws
of nature that make this impossible from a purely physics based standpoint.

I'd be much more surprised to encounter a ship that could fly me to Alpha
Centauri in 3 days than a super-human machine intelligence.

~~~
cscurmudgeon
You are forgetting that it is that meat which is doing the building. And
physics is subject to the laws of math. If ghat hunk of meat is simple,
shouldn't that simplicity stop it from understanding itself.

------
contextual
I like the way Chomsky breaks it down (and I'm paraphrasing): the programs
that machines execute are merely theories written in archaic notations to
accomplish specific tasks. Humans are eons away from writing and executing
theories that create theories.

I agree with Chomsky that progress is needed in the realm of morality. That's
where our priorities should be. It's where advancements in humanity must be
made.

Furthering his example of animal testing in science experiments, hopefully
animal testing will be abolished as the cruel act it is.

~~~
weavejester
"Theories that create theories" seems a completely arbitrary categorisation.
We have software that derive predictions from records of past data. How is
that not a machine creating a theory, albeit a simple one?

~~~
mythealias
I believe the difference is same as fitting a curve to a data and then
predicting the result versus figuring out the physics behind the data and
using that to predict the result. I would consider the latter as the AI. The
former is just deriving possible result from a set of rules and how to combine
them, which might be smart but is still lacks AI in strictest sense.

~~~
weavejester
If the prediction is good enough, and general enough, then I'd argue that _is_
figuring out the physics behind the data.

------
proksoup
Noam Chomsky is my favorite person. I will believe anything he says without
researching it further. :)

~~~
adestefan
Are you serious or is this sarcasm?

~~~
jgalt212
Chomsky is an HN sacred cow is what he may be saying.

~~~
warmfuzzykitten
This is the point where you realize that you're not going to get any points by
saying what you really think about Chomsky.

