Sentinel
Bionic Poster
You and Stephen sure share some unhealthy obsessions ! LOL.The black hole in Uranus?
You and Stephen sure share some unhealthy obsessions ! LOL.The black hole in Uranus?
Envy and jealousy, of course. :evil:
It's just brickhead jocks, who barely managed a C in HS math / science, getting in their still-impotent yuk-yuks at the eggheads. Same as it ever was.
Oh, what I was going to say before I got distracted was that Stephen Hawking's fears are surely misguided, even though he is a great man. Simply because AI is all about software, which runs on rather primitive inanimate objects. I think there is greater danger of his fears coming true if humans start creating computers based on biological or organic material which does not require explicit human programming, and uses something like DNA as its code... just thinking aloud here!
I'm afraid you are badly misinformed about the state of the art in AI.
On a related subject, Google up 'biomimicry' while you're at it.
That goes without saying!
Biomimicry looks like a developing methodology to mimic nature - for example, studying humming birds and butterflies so we can build better flying machines, and so on. But the modeling of nature seems to use the usual methodologies, which are finite and predictable, albeit encompassing huge numbers of states.
The way we currently model intelligence is through a combination of brute force methods - for example, natural language processing, exhaustive database look up, correlating data points, pattern recognition, ad hoc heuristics that are problem dependent, and logical inference, of course. Since all of these methods lead to predictable outcomes - even with non-deterministic problem formulations - I have difficulty believing that with these methodologies we will accidentally emulate a life form. Of course, we could end up creating something dangerous, like a drone that takes off and starts shooting everything in sight - but I am sure that's not what Hawking had in mind.
However, once we start fiddling with real biological stuff, which we don't understand fully anyway, all bets are off! That's what I meant to say.
That goes without saying!
Biomimicry looks like a developing methodology to mimic nature - for example, studying humming birds and butterflies so we can build better flying machines, and so on. But the modeling of nature seems to use the usual methodologies, which are finite and predictable, albeit encompassing huge numbers of states.
The way we currently model intelligence is through a combination of brute force methods - for example, natural language processing, exhaustive database look up, correlating data points, pattern recognition, ad hoc heuristics that are problem dependent, and logical inference, of course. Since all of these methods lead to predictable outcomes - even with non-deterministic problem formulations - I have difficulty believing that with these methodologies we will accidentally emulate a life form. Of course, we could end up creating something dangerous, like a drone that takes off and starts shooting everything in sight - but I am sure that's not what Hawking had in mind.
However, once we start fiddling with real biological stuff, which we don't understand fully anyway, all bets are off! That's what I meant to say.
Bear in mind that biomimicry is a new field. At this point it's essentially attempting as much as possible to duplicate evolved mechanisms in hardware. This starts with little dragonflies and robotic pack animals to carry heavy loads, but different groups are already revising artificial neural networks -- physical ANNs, not software -- to better model naturally occurring connectivity.
I hope science can do a better job with these "artificial neural netwoks" than they did with synthetic gut.
What does it say, in brief ?Sadly,
Religion is, and could be our worst mistake.
Making AI or any kind of science seem bad/scary, compared to Religion
is hilarious.
edit: specifically Religious fanatics and anyone convinced they know what happens when we die, as fantastically described
here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55h1FO8V_3w
Sky Cake!
Don't you think religion will be on the wane, now ? I see the young generations in my country quite free of it.
I hope science can do a better job with these "artificial neural netwoks" than they did with synthetic gut.
Comparison is not valid. All branches of science are not the same and do not progress at the same rate.
Is this where one is supposed to say "Lolwut?" ?^^^ Yep, technology exists now that allows tryanny to be extended to what thoughts you express.
I need one of these that says "Willful Ignorance" on the can.
Forget that hogwash. There is no way you can download your brain into something else. We won't be able to even record the exact state of your brain at any point of time. Even trying to do so will alter it.once we are able to download our mind into artificial positronic brain, will we still be the same person ? would we really transfer into the new brain ? will it be still us ?
Is this where one is supposed to say "Lolwut?" ?
Pardon me, but I was confused.If you combine the tip of the iceberg that Edward Snowden has documented with a historical review of tyranny and abuses of power...you might say "LOL WUT?" but I don't find it either funny or confusing.
No, the person in the body will still think it is him in the body.
Forget that hogwash. There is no way you can download your brain into something else. We won't be able to even record the exact state of your brain at any point of time. Even trying to do so will alter it.
I am not sure this is just a technical issue.
No, the person in the body will still think it is him in the body. That is even if you could get a perfect copy of each cell of your brain into some machine/computer/drive. The problem only is (if you saw Moon and various other flicks that deal with clones that have the same memories) that the clone will think it is you, and interfere in your life. For that you don't need to even download a copy, you only have to implant some memories.
You will not transfer into something else.
Hawking is obviously underestimating the amount of human attention that silicon life needs to remain "alive".
Human programmers have an amazing capacity to create very simple programs that bring extremely complictaed systems to a halt.
And that's just the software side, the hardware challenges are also daunting, and I'm just talking about maintenance, let alone open sabotage...
Hawking is obviously underestimating the amount of human attention that silicon life needs to remain "alive".
Human programmers have an amazing capacity to create very simple programs that bring extremely complictaed systems to a halt.
And that's just the software side, the hardware challenges are also daunting, and I'm just talking about maintenance, let alone open sabotage...
That is true today. But when robots start writing software and making other robots, things will change.
And what about human-robot hybrids? These will be humans with computers attached to them which will make them super-intelligent. We are already there to some extent. People with prosthetic limbs would not have been accepted a few centuries ago. Even something as simple as a pair of spectacles or as complex as a pacemaker is a machine which enhances your natural capabilities. You are not the same person without glasses, because you see differently, which means your brain is processing information differently, which means it is altering your personality.
Oh of course these sorts of things are completely possible, but when? Human programmers can't even make virus proof operating systems. I think self aware, emotional, self repairing nanobot using, Rare Earth mining singularities that not only need zero human input but are immune to open human attempts at sabotage are not going to be available at WalMart for this XMas season...
labs in MIT are already experimenting with NAnobots and positronic brains.
Yes and many labs are experimenting with genetic modifications, yet XMen is still in the Fantasy/Fiction section...
yes. but we are very close to enhancing the human mind and body thru Genetic manipulations in our DNA and Gene sequences.
Meaning making a baby with IQ of 200 or very strong body with no genetic flaws. Might even be able to produce a Federer baby with his talent by manipulating the gene sequences.
Not sure if there will be law or regulations against this act, however.
Yes I get what you mean. so only way we can Truly transfer or Live forever is if we get a NEW BODY. and put the old brain into the NEW body, correct ?
but then we still have to re-generate the old brain since Brain cells get old too. I think this would be very possible in the future. Transferring the brain into new body maybe tricky but with New NANO tech, it could be done.
1. Clone a brand new body of yourself--- of course, fix any genetic defects while at it.
2. take out the old brain and put it in new body and re-attach all the neurons using the Nanobots.
3. then use drug or nanobots to re-generate the old brain cells and repair any damages.
4. Walla,,,,,,,,,you got a NEW life and still it is YOU.
Oh of course these sorts of things are completely possible, but when? Human programmers can't even make virus proof operating systems...
suresh, i have not read your post since i intend seeing Transcendence. I did see the later paras though.
nostra, the body part is not the issue. I don't mind even being in a robotic body (much better in fact, with replaceable parts). No need to clone me -- i have no idea of your nanobots. but i am told that it is quite easy to take aside a human heart and reattach it, but the human brain has millions or billions of connections. you cannot just connect it like that.
Brain cells do grow old, and perhaps one way i heard of is to store stem cells when young, and use them to regenerate fresh brain cells. Something like that.
suresh, your last para. what you are coming down to is a perfect or close to perfect copy of your brain. And then asking is it you ? Am i right ? If there is a technology that can make a perfect replica of you, atom by atom, at whatever level you want, while your are alive, will you still think that is you? If you don't know it was created, will you ever know it existed.
I think there is some process or activity or whatever, that is not my thoughts or memories that feels alive. You have it, I have it. By putting my/ your memories and other state into someone who feels alive (a computer does not), that person will suddenly not become you. So what to say of a computer.
Is Deep Blue alive ? Certainly not.
@Suresh, Sentinel, Nostradamus: And thus, my dear friends, you have all arrived at the philosophical problem known as the Paradox of Theseus, also called The Ship of Theseus!
@Suresh, Sentinel, Nostradamus: And thus, my dear friends, you have all arrived at the philosophical problem known as the Paradox of Theseus, also called The Ship of Theseus!
Sure they can. That's a long-solved problem. What they can't do is make one that's backwards compatible with all the software the masses already use.
In all my time studying philosophy, but in university and before, The Ship of Theseus is arguably my favorite thought experiment.
Hawking is just jealous that he was not part of the AI revolution. He is also afraid that future computers will make human geniuses like him obsolete. We are accustomed to thinking of scientists such as himself as some sort of great people, but in reality they are nothing more than people with more and better neural interconnections than other people, which can be easily achieved by artificial means in the future.
He is also probably one of those who cannot see the bigger connection here between AI and medicine. An AI system much superior to humans may come up with a cure for his disability.