Time: 2045 - When humans and machines merge. (Immortality and the Singularity)

[Bliz]

Good weekend reading. Really interesting stuff.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2048138-1,00.html


The difficult thing to keep sight of when you're talking about the Singularity is that even though it sounds like science fiction, it isn't, no more than a weather forecast is science fiction. It's not a fringe idea; it's a serious hypothesis about the future of life on Earth. There's an intellectual gag reflex that kicks in anytime you try to swallow an idea that involves super-intelligent immortal cyborgs, but suppress it if you can, because while the Singularity appears to be, on the face of it, preposterous, it's an idea that rewards sober, careful evaluation.

[Switchgear]

That's a fantastic read. The cynical side of me (probably a result of being a skins fan) scoffs at the idea of machine enabled immortality, but... I'd be cool with it.

[Sticksboi05]

Won't happen.

[SnyderShrugged]

sorry for taking the lazy approach, but I'm running around a little and dont want to read the whole article. Did it mention why they chose 2045 specifically?

[Spec138]

If we decode the human brain as he suggests it should be interesting to find out what happens when we load the "brain" of someone into a computer of some sort. Is it possible for us to ever truly test if consciousness is created?

[Dukes21]

I for one welcome our new machine overlords

[Mooka]

Wow, that looks like a college for super geniuses and inventors. I bet they have some crazy ass labs in that place.



sorry for taking the lazy approach, but I'm running around a little and dont want to read the whole article. Did it mention why they chose 2045 specifically? Just his calculations based on Moore's Law:

Moore's law describes a long-term trend in the history of computing hardware. The number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit has doubled approximately every two years.[1] The trend has continued for more than half a century and is not expected to stop until 2015 or later. (from wiki)



(from article)
"Kurzweil then ran the numbers on a whole bunch of other key technological indexes — the falling cost of manufacturing transistors, the rising clock speed of microprocessors, the plummeting price of dynamic RAM. He looked even further afield at trends in biotech and beyond — the falling cost of sequencing DNA and of wireless data service and the rising numbers of Internet hosts and nanotechnology patents. He kept finding the same thing: exponentially accelerating progress."

[fullnelson9999]

Good read, but will never happen.

The human brain is (potentially) the most complex thing in the universe. We will never be able to replicate that.

We all know is is going to try, though.

http://cricketsoda.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/skynet-google-tshirt.jpg

[Spec138]

Good read, but will never happen.

The human brain is (potentially) the most complex thing in the universe. We will never be able to replicate that.



We can already evolve primitive neural nets to control virtual creatures. I don't think it's far fetched in the least.

[Darth Tater]

We can already evolve primitive neural nets to control virtual creatures. I don't think it's far fetched in the least.

Yep, in a 2-d environment with just 2 simple rules (only one virtual creature per pixel and all virtual creatures must be in continuous movement) and 4 movement directions (forward/back/left/right) with millions of virtual creatures, I can develop a fairly stable and complex "society" of those creatures. I've also seen goal-based programs also with very limited movement rules evolve relatively complex methods within those rules to attain those goals.

[No Excuses]

We barely understand our own genome.

Not even close to creating machinery that can develop living consciousness.

[Bliz]

We barely understand our own genome.

Not even close to creating machinery that can develop living consciousness.

That's true. But you also have to try to look 35 years into the future. 35 years ago (1975) the first PCs were coming out, with 1 KB of memory, and Basic was just being developed. 5" floppy discs hadn't been invented yet.

Then you have to account for the increasing speed at which technology is developing (as the article points out, computers aren't just getting faster. They're getting faster, faster)

I'm not nearly smart enough to opine whether it will or will not happen. But it's a fascinating topic.

[ixcuincle]

http://mkaku.org/home/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/physics_of_the_future_kaku1.jpg

[HA1LV1CT0RY]

This solves the issue of traveling within our own galaxy and others.

Can't wait.

[Sticksboi05]

We barely understand our own genome.

Not even close to creating machinery that can develop living consciousness.

Not to mention we barely understand how the brain works in-depth. What parts do what/neurons are the tip of the iceberg.

[Spec138]

Yep, in a 2-d environment with just 2 simple rules (only one virtual creature per pixel and all virtual creatures must be in continuous movement) and 4 movement directions (forward/back/left/right) with millions of virtual creatures, I can develop a fairly stable and complex "society" of those creatures. I've also seen goal-based programs also with very limited movement rules evolve relatively complex methods within those rules to attain those goals.

Completely false. There are plenty of examples of complicated motion in 3-D. I've seen simulations evolve to behave close enough to humans that I couldn't tell which was animated or which was evolved.

[Darth Tater]

Completely false. There are plenty of examples of complicated motion in 3-D. I've seen simulations evolve to behave close enough to humans that I couldn't tell which was animated or which was evolved.
Huh? You first say "completely false" then go on to basically restate with my second sentence? I thought it was clear that my first sentence was talking about simulations I've actually written, not just witnessed.

[Spec138]

Huh? You first say "completely false" then go on to basically restate with my second sentence? I thought it was clear that my first sentence was talking about simulations I've actually written, not just witnessed.

Lol I read your post completely wrong, my bad. I was reading it as we can only evolve simple 2d pixel creatures.