backtop


Print 66 comment(s) - last by Soundgardener.. on Jul 24 at 11:32 PM


Dr. Nick Bostrom is fearful that superintelligent robots could destroy mankind in coming decades.

He doesn't look crazy; Dr. Ray Kurzweil says that by 2030 man will be less human and machine, with bodies filled with nanorobots and artificially enhanced to be much stronger and billions of times more intelligent.
New conference examines what risks super intelligent robots might hold and how man itself may merge with machine to the point where it is no longer recognizable as human

A group of the international community's brightest research minds will meet Thursday at the four-day Global Catastrophic Risk Conference at Oxford University in England.  The conference, the first of its kind, will aim to provide thought provoking discussion and analysis on how risks could lead to the end of human life or the end of our planet as we know it.

Topics at the diverse summit will include issues such as nuclear and chemical terrorism and what mankind could do if a large asteroid was headed towards Earth.  The final day of the conference will perhaps be the most exciting as it discusses how new technologies, including hypothetical super-intelligent robots, could destroy mankind and life as we know it.

Dr. Nick Bostrom, director of Oxford's Future of Humanity Institute, host of the symposium, is fearful that mankind may eventually create such a machine, capable of destroying its creators.  He states, "Any entity which is radically smarter than human beings would also be very powerful.  If we get something wrong, you could imagine the consequences would involve the extinction of the human species."

Bostrom leads a movement known as transhumanism, which dually aims to watch for potential threats in emerging technologies and conversely adopt radical emerging technologies to enrich human life.  Bostrom and other transhumanist hope that one day biotechnology, molecular nanotechnologies, and artificial intelligence will merge man with machine, yielding humans that have increased cognitive abilties, are physically stronger, and emotionally more stable.  This path, they say will lead to "posthumans", augmented beings so superior to traditional man, they are separate entity.

He describes, "We want to preserve the best of what it is to be human and maybe even amplify that.  We will begin to use science and technology not just to manage the world around us but to manage our own human biology as well.  The changes will be faster and more profound than the very, very slow changes that would occur over tens of thousands of years as a result of natural selection and biological evolution."

While Bostrom and his adherents are eager for such developments, they are unsure when technology will mature to the point where they are possible.  Says Bostrom, "Maybe it will take eight years or 200 years.  It is very hard to predict."

Others are more boldly predicting that man and machine may merge or biotechnology may radically genetically alter man within two decades.  Says Dr. Ray Kurzweil, an inventor and futurist who calculates technology trends using what he calls the law of accelerating returns, "This will happen faster than people realize."

Dr. Kurzweil gained notoriety for predicting devices that would allow the blind to read text and the advent of the internet as a primary economy and lifestyle device in the 1980s, before either technology was very well known.  Dr. Kurzweil has developed a new technological concept known as Singularity, a technology which he predicts.

Singularity, he says, will arise within a couple decades and will be "the culmination of the merger of our biological thinking and existence with our technology, resulting in a world that is still human but that transcends our biological roots."

He adds, "There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine or between physical and virtual reality."

As real world processes are simulated in computers and biology and medical technologies shrink, Singularity will be approached, he believes.  He believes that by the 2040s synthetic intelligence will be billions of times more advanced than even human biological intelligence, rendering our brains obsolete.  He argues, "Our brains are a million times slower than electronics.  We will increasingly become software entities if you go out enough decades."

Dr. Kurzweil says that modern gene therapies, organ growth research, stem cell efforts, and enzyme-enabling drugs are all examples of how man and machine are beginning to merge already.  He says that what was once "hit or miss" technology, now can purposefully alter how our bodies operate.  The emerging biotechnology revolution will yield thousands of miracle drugs capable of everything from slowing down the process of aging to reversing the onset of deadly diseases, like heart disease and cancer.

He says that by 2020, human bodies will be swimming with nanorobots.  He points to current experiments, which are using nanorobots to cure type 1 diabetes and regrow spinal cords in mice.  One researcher is developing a replacement for red blood cells known as respirocyte, which if it fully replaced human blood would allow a human to sprint at the level of an Olympic sprinter for 15 straight minutes without taking a second breath or stopping.  It would also allow humans to act like whales, staying underwater for hours at a time, only occasionally surfacing for breaths.

Many other researchers are developing nanoparticles and tiny robots to locate and destroy cancer tumors.  Some Parkinson's patients also already have tiny computers, shaped like peas implanted in their brains, which replace disease ravage neurons.  These computers can have new software remotely downloaded without surgery, providing a literal "brain firmware update".

Dr. Kurzweil states, "Nanotechnology will not just be used to reprogram but to transcend biology and go beyond its limitations by merging with non-biological systems.  If we rebuild biological systems with nanotechnology, we can go beyond its limits."

He believes the final step before the creation of the Singularity is the creation of an ultra-powerful artificial intelligence, or superintelligence, which will be able to quickly solve mankind's worst problems, including "environmental destruction, poverty and disease."

"A more intelligent process will inherently outcompete one that is less intelligent, making intelligence the most powerful force in the universe," he describes.

But he is also fearful that the creation may go wrong.  He adds, "I think there are grave dangers.  Technology has always been a double-edged sword."

Whether thinkers like Dr. Kurzweil and Dr. Nick Bostrom are prophetic or just crazy, they should yield and intriguing and thought provoking conference.  Will robots destroy us; or will we merge with robots into superpowered beings?  No one knows, but these researchers are willing to guess.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

<yawn> Old stuff </yawn>
By Pirks on 7/15/2008 4:15:44 PM , Rating: 4
AI was promoted as an uber thing that'll change everything like what?.. like 30 years ago? Same was about space flight to Mars, AIDS uber-cure and many other things like that. Things turned out pretty different from what was said 30 years ago. Flight to Mars is still 30 years away or so, and AIDS? You know the answer ;-)

Those scientists never stop dreaming and promising. Well, at least we got nice sci-fi movies like Matrix thanks to them. Better than nothing eh?




RE: <yawn> Old stuff </yawn>
By Polynikes on 7/15/2008 4:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He doesn't look crazy; Dr. Ray Kurzweil says that by 2030 man will be less human and machine, with bodies filled with nanorobots and artificially enhanced to be much stronger and billions of times more intelligent.
Billions of times more intelligent? Nanorobots that work? In 30 years? I strongly doubt that.


RE: <yawn> Old stuff </yawn>
By Parhel on 7/15/2008 5:08:49 PM , Rating: 3
I strongly doubt that any true AI will ever be possible, no matter how far technology progresses. By "true" I mean the type of AI you see in the movies - like HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I know that opinions that disagree with a science fiction view of the future are somewhat unpopular here (alien life, AI, etc.) But if AI is such a given, why haven't we even seen proof of concept?

Ray Kurzweil is, in my mind, a complete crackpot. One of my favorite experts on the subject of AI, Jaron Lanier, wrote an excellent summary of and rebuttal to his work called "One Half of a Manifesto" which I think is very much worth reading:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier/lanier_p1.h...


RE: <yawn> Old stuff </yawn>
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2008 10:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
> "if AI is such a given, why haven't we even seen proof of concept"

Because we still don't understand the nature of intelligence itself. The task of creating AI is considerably more difficult than early researchers first thought. It's still going to happen though, but I imagine the timeline is more like 50+ years from now, rather than Kurzweil's 25.

I do, though, I believe AI won't be intentionally designed per se, but rather a simple and automatic outgrowth of increasing complexity. Once we build a computing device with a large enough number of associative circuits, both intelligence and self-awareness will automatically develop.


RE: <yawn> Old stuff </yawn>
By SlyNine on 7/15/2008 11:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
With things like COG, a lot of people seem to think its simply our limits in software creation. However, if COG was givin enough power and time. Might it not on its own learn of its own existence, and become intelligent on its own. If so I certainly would not call it artificial, maybe synthetic.

My thought is though, we humans have developed certain - instincts and dispositions to help us survive. If we didn't work together and care for each other we would have died. I wonder what it would be like for a super intelligent entity with no feelings. Would it really Do anything at all.


RE: <yawn> Old stuff </yawn>
By Parhel on 7/16/2008 12:37:08 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Because we still don't understand the nature of intelligence itself.


That's exactly what I was getting at. Until we understand the nature of intelligence, we can't even know if AI is possible let alone guess about timelines.

quote:
I do, though, I believe AI won't be intentionally designed per se, but rather a simple and automatic outgrowth of increasing complexity.


For that to be true, we have to believe in the metaphor of the brain as a biological computer, and believe intelligence to be a natural outgrowth of such a system's complexity. I'm not so sure about either of those presuppositions. I think the brain/computer analogy is attractive, and valid until we have a better model, but I suspect that there is more to it.

Intelligence is a natural outgrowth of something, obviously. And I'm not saying I'm certain it can't be synthesized to some extent. I'm just saying that we still don't know what it is.


RE: <yawn> Old stuff </yawn>
By Chocobollz on 7/16/2008 1:33:07 AM , Rating: 2
And don't forget that the AI needs some kind of nonvolatile memory to store its data (just like our brain serves as our "harddrive"), that means after we had successfully creating a perfect AI, we would have to find an affordable technologies to complement it, and it wouldn't be an easy task. I don't think you want to put a harddrive inside your body, rite? ;-}


RE: <yawn> Old stuff </yawn>
By masher2 (blog) on 7/16/2008 9:49:17 AM , Rating: 3
> "That's exactly what I was getting at. Until we understand the nature of intelligence, we can't even know if AI is possible"

Not quite. We know artificial intelligence is possible because we see intelligence itself is possible. Unless one invokes psuedo-religious beliefs, there's no reason to believe that a brain intentionally designed by man would be less functional than one accidentally created by nature.


RE: <yawn> Old stuff </yawn>
By djkrypplephite on 7/15/2008 6:14:27 PM , Rating: 5
We'll be lucky if we find a cheap way to power cars in 30 years.


RE: <yawn> Old stuff </yawn>
By rollakid on 7/15/2008 8:15:06 PM , Rating: 4
We will, if we don't get wiped out by the robots first.


RE: <yawn> Old stuff </yawn>
By Polynikes on 7/16/2008 1:33:17 AM , Rating: 2
Haha, good one.


RE: <yawn> Old stuff </yawn>
By Polynikes on 7/16/2008 1:32:55 AM , Rating: 2
That's probably true.


Article title
By gramboh on 7/15/2008 3:44:55 PM , Rating: 5
I correctly guessed the author of this article based on the title.

That is all.




RE: Article title
By mdogs444 on 7/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Article title
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/15/2008 4:34:49 PM , Rating: 4
Mdogs, I know a) you don't like my stance on global warming and b) you like to whine, but can you please focus on the topics discussed in the articles.

I don't mean to call you out, but for god's sakes man, get a better hobby...If you don't like the site, don't use the site. Seems to me you like the site and you like my articles because it gives you a chance to whine, which you take full advantage of.

I have plenty of articles you probably think were "boring", for example:
http://www.dailytech.com/San+Francisco+Pioneers+Sm...
http://www.dailytech.com/New+Cheerful+Intel+Home+H...
http://www.dailytech.com/Ebay+Desperate+to+Reverse...
http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+Launches+iTunes+App...
http://www.dailytech.com/Scientists+Develop+3D+Xra...

I mean most of these are topics like law and medicine that people might perceive as rather droll.

Its true I write on global warming *gasp*. Don't read it if you don't like it. There's pretty much two writers on global warming here at DailyTech -- Michael and I and most of both our articles on the topic are blogs. So there should be no reason why you could not avoid my articles on the topic if you dislike them. But really, they're just a scant fraction of my broader work.

As to the scientists in this article -- as I point out they do seem a little crazy. However, this summit is attracting a lot of attention so it seems newsworthy. And a lot of major tech breakthroughs seem crazy when first theorized (like Star Trek's various tech).

Anyways hope you find a way to restrain yourself and be more productive in your discussions, or at least a bit more mature.


RE: Article title
By mdogs444 on 7/15/2008 5:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
Jason -
Nowhere I have personally called you out on your topics, outside of this comment. I have never said I dont enjoy reading them, or dont find them interesting.

Sure, ones like this are more meant for fun than anything else. However, in some of your articles (blogs) like the most recent global warming one, you purposely distorted statistics and common economic knowledge push your agenda. Its one thing to have an opinion, but another to purposely push falsifications them.

I apologize if you took so much offense to my 1 line of typing, but when you write articles and blogs that are so far from what some people deem as reality, then you need to expect that you'll get such responses.


RE: Article title
By wordsworm on 7/15/2008 10:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
Jason puts out a lot of articles. Not to put the other writers down, but his articles are usually more interesting. No offense to Brandon, but 'sony announces $399 blah blah blah' is a real yawner. Enough of the Sony/Wii/XBox ads already - does he get a box every time he writes one of these ads? Compare that to 'The Quest for Immortality' which is, even if fanciful, an interesting look into what very well may come to fruition in the not-so-distant future. Some good writers write interesting articles. If Jason gets off on sharing some of the visions of the future of technology, I don't see how it merits being called crazy. Also, he somewhat balances Masher's anti-environmentalist activities. Maybe you meant to jest when you called it crazy, but no one who's serious about future speak likes having their beliefs referred to as crazy.


RE: Article title
By Flunk on 7/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Article title
By jhb116 on 7/16/2008 12:38:45 AM , Rating: 2
Not that I want in on this "discussion" but I want to point out two things.

1st - Unless Masher is actually running around needlessly destroying the environment or Greenpeace - then I wouldn't accuse him an "anti-environmentalist activities" just because he might disagree with Jason Mick's views.

2nd - Your statement "Also, he somewhat balances Mashers anti-envir...." speaks of 2 wrongs make a right which I don't believe to be true. I can speak to the credibility of Jason's statistics, but as a person many look to for new and information - he does have a responsibility to report the information as actually as he is able. Many are looking to these types of sources to frame their views and it is important, especially with GW, that people get correct and relevant information such that they can form their own opinion.

BTW - I'm not questioning Jason's statistics but you do seem to imply that Jason is "exaggerating" statistics and that is ok with you as long as it is an agenda your support.


RE: Article title
By danrien on 7/16/2008 8:58:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can speak to the credibility of Jason's statistics, but as a person many look to for new and information - he does have a responsibility to report the information as actually as he is able.


Since when we're blogs anything more than an easier to use op-ed? It's not like Jason's blog posts go under the "News" heading here.


RE: Article title
By Chocolate Pi on 7/15/2008 3:52:47 PM , Rating: 2
I think everyone did, but I don't think you understand how important this is: We are going to *die*!

When robots kill you, you die in real life!


RE: Article title
By jbizzler on 7/15/2008 4:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
People die if they are killed...


RE: Article title
By Howard on 7/15/2008 6:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
lol Shirou


RE: Article title
By Boze on 7/18/2008 8:54:36 PM , Rating: 2
Jason Mick has mastered the sensationalist title.

This is not to detract from your articles or blogs Jason, they are usually very good and suffer only from extremely minor spelling and grammatical errors, and while occasionally your biases creep into your articles, this is a minor caveat of your writing that is easily overlooked.

In fact, I would argue that Jason's ability to craft an attention-garnering title is more of a testament to journalistic ability, or at least, quality writing coupled with an understanding of basic human nature.


Still for to go
By James Wood Carter on 7/15/2008 7:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
THis post is being optimistic, medical research takes years longer than any other research because of its complexity. Even till date no one knows how the brain works the way it does, and even most fundamental questions are yet to be answered through robust research. By 2030, that date is too unreal




RE: Still for to go
By TreeDude62 on 7/16/2008 12:12:37 AM , Rating: 1
We actually understand more than you realize. We have a camera which can interface directly with the brain and let a blind person see to some extent. Also, like the article said, we can replace neurons with a computer chip to help those who suffer from Parkinson's.

You may think this is moving slow now, but I assure you it will boom and get very advanced, very quickly. The same thing happened with the modern day PC. It happens with all major technology advances.

By 2020 (yeah just 12 years) we should have a full understanding of how the human brain works. Then brain advancing technologies will start to emerge. By 2030 they will be common place and affordable for almost anyone.


RE: Still for to go
By James Wood Carter on 7/16/2008 8:02:54 AM , Rating: 2
its moving faster than it used to be but when you talk about actual wide spread use of such techonologies wouldn't be soon.
The trails done on parkinsons disease patients were trails, some were succesful others were not. As for the bionic woman with electronic eyes wired to the brain is primitive, people don't know how it actually works but the fact that it does work is a bonus. Many trails have shown some teatment are possible but many also show poor outcome. Wouldn't compare medical research with computer technology, they invole completely different method of research, with medical research it takes much more time and besides each patient differs in its ability to adapt to bionic intergration


RE: Still for to go
By TreeDude62 on 7/16/2008 12:27:57 PM , Rating: 2
Do you think they just wired a camera to her brain and hoped for the best? To say we don't have some understanding of how it works is a lie.

Everything needs refinement from its first use. We are literally at the beginning of this. But look at what computers were 20 years ago. 3D technology was just beginning, now it's so close to being indistinguishable from reality. In just 20years.


RE: Still for to go
By James Wood Carter on 7/16/2008 7:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
yes that was actually what happend to the bionic woman where a idea of connecting electronic circuit to part of brain that is known to be resposible for vision and they just tried it out on trail and managed to their own suprise that it worked, obvioulsly they knew more than i just described, but what i am saying is that what they knew at that time and even now isn't sufficient to make this technology available anytime soon.
And i still stand my ground unless proven that we today know how the brain functions and how "learning is actually done" - simple brain plasticity isn't even understood so i don't see how anyone can device an effective/ safe mix between electronics & tissue


RE: Still for to go
By James Wood Carter on 7/16/2008 7:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
I forgot to add that medical research is unique, unlike electronic reserach where there is a certain direction as guide to how to overcome certain restrictions and therefore improve technology, medical research is less like to be "exponential" - discovering previuosly unknown knowledge is unlikely to quicken the discovery process as seen in cpu (transistors) technology


erm...
By DASQ on 7/15/2008 5:22:42 PM , Rating: 2
Explain to me how/why he (the crazy looking one) thinks reality and virtual reality will be no different?

As long as a person is aware that his reality is virtual, there will ALWAYS be a difference.




RE: erm...
By Diesel Donkey on 7/15/2008 9:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, will you be able to prove it's not a duck? Doing so may become more and more difficult.


RE: erm...
By Chocobollz on 7/16/2008 1:45:24 AM , Rating: 2
Are you really sure that this life we live is a *cough* "reality"? ^ ^ Have you watch The Matrix? If so, then I'm sure you would think twice before you say that this life is indeed a "reality" :-}


RE: erm...
By Hare on 7/16/2008 2:12:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Explain to me how/why he (the crazy looking one) thinks reality and virtual reality will be no different?

You think those bright dots are stars? They are DEAD PIXELS!


RE: erm...
By Icelight on 7/16/2008 4:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
Can someone link to the theory/writing that details how the chances that were are, right now, beings in a simulation is greater than the chances that we are not if it is possible to create a simulation that essentially simulates the Universe (or a large enough portion of it that would provide everything that impacts us now).

Maybe it wasn't simulating the whole Universe, but just the Earth, I can't remember.


The Human Brian will Never be Obsolete.
By Alexstarfire on 7/15/2008 5:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
And why.... because of pattern recognition. It's going to be many decades, if not centuries before we even begin to have enough computing power to obtain the pattern recognition that our brain has. They are simply wired differently.




By SlyNine on 7/15/2008 11:47:37 PM , Rating: 2
What if a computer can simulate an entire brain. But then again we don't even know half of what goes on in the mind, or how much "processing power" the brain has. It could take 1000x more power then they think to do what the brain does. What if our brains operate at a sextillion OPS. I doubt it but we don't know.


By marvdmartian on 7/16/2008 10:19:18 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, I don't know.....I think I know a few people whose brains are already obsolete, that could only be helped by something tech-related! ;)

BTW, nice picture of the new, hot (and unfortunately, poorly written and thus, cancelled) Bionic Woman!


Number Facts
By dgovmntwrkr on 7/16/2008 2:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
Everytime someone talks about AI they only seem to voice opinions. Usually, without any facts. Looking at the human body as a "machine"; it has 100 Billion Neurons and 100 Trillion Synapses. Looking at the psuchological limitations of our ability to process sound and voice; I calculate 40GHz needed to properly utilize soung and 900THz to utilize vision. (Smell and touch; not much of a clue regarding sensor processing; but we do utilize these senses to make decisions.)

Presently we can yield:

7.32 GHz on a 32nm process
1TB (past memory)on a sinlge machine easily w access of 6gbit\sec
8GB (present memory) on a single machine easily w access speed of 160GBIT\SEC)

What we need (for easy access on a computer):
900THz of processing power (@11nm -> CPU @22GHz -> 100 cores)
3 Petabytes of (long term) storage (accessible at 800Gbit\sec)
900 TB of (short term) storage (accesible at 20TBIT/sec)

(If anyone is interested in how I obtained my numbers let me know. Memory Long Term -> 3000x3000x60x60x24x365x10
Memory short Term -> 3000x300x10**6)

It looks like the closest of the technologies we have is access speeds of long term memory and short term memory. Only 100x increase is needed there). Unfortunately, processing speeds will be capped by the laws of Physics to 22GHz max for processor swtiching via silicon. We need processing speed about 3000 times what we have now (only 562 if you look at it via 4GHz by 4 cores.) Same thing with short term "fast" memory; we need 1000x times the ability of what we have now.

King of makes you appreciate just how "from a maxed out physics perspective" our human brain is developed. Machines as "individual" processing units will never be that much "smarter" than us. However, from a communicative and cooperative standpoint they will be able to far out distance us.

Likewise; touch, sound, motor movement, smell, and other factors will need to be hammered out before machines can not only out think us; but out "move" us. Presenlty, that little web cam on your machine is the first "eye". The Mouse and keyboard; the first ability to touch. Smell... (that may never really be implented above and beyond something akin to a fire detector....)




RE: Number Facts
By dgovmntwrkr on 7/16/2008 2:15:55 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yea I forgot. Looks like 30 to 50 years. However, the road will be interesting, like watching a 2 year old grow. From not being able to do much more than burp; to being able to investigate the boudaries of our Universe effectively. Not sure how quantum computing will minaturize our world though.... Then again 11nm is tiny....)


RE: Number Facts
By dgovmntwrkr on 7/17/2008 12:29:02 PM , Rating: 2
Darren Shebell was here.


Nanotech
By flyingrooster on 7/15/2008 4:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of this stuff being discussed is highly theoretical, right? Have there been any published studies about increasing intelligence or making nanotech erythrocytes? So this is the nanotech equivalent of physicists sitting down to discuss how to make warp drives?




RE: Nanotech
By rtrski on 7/15/2008 5:01:47 PM , Rating: 3
Pretty much. No one is really "working on" respirocytes, as the article seems to imply. They more or less wrote a spec for them and tried to bound how they would like them to work, without anyone having a farking clue how to actually construct them.

Kind of like Niven's essay about how Superman's sperm would work, based on the known tenets of his "invulnerability". Thought experiment. Mental masturbation.


Article Error
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2008 6:07:23 PM , Rating: 3
Since when did Kurzweil get credit for the concept of a technological singularity? Vernor Vinge created the concept, in his excellent "Peace War" books and other writings.




RE: Article Error
By TreeDude62 on 7/16/2008 12:01:43 AM , Rating: 2
Ray has never said he created the concept of Singularity. It is simply a concept he strongly believes in. If you read his books he cites many references to other works from which he draws ideas and inspiration from.


What, no Deus Ex?
By Fenixgoon on 7/15/2008 11:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
Time to change my name to JC Denton, join UNATCO, and work at taking down the NSF... or something like that.

At least the Illuminati had it right - regardless of position, the most intelligent person in the world WILL come to power. Well played Morgan Everett, well played.

</Deus Ex references>




RE: What, no Deus Ex?
By greylica on 7/16/2008 9:57:46 AM , Rating: 2
You took the words from my mouth.
I want to be a JC Denton too. :D


Outrageous Claims
By Flunk on 7/15/2008 11:27:37 PM , Rating: 2
By 2030? No seriously, this is completely stupid. Nanobots are currently very very privative, just to get very simple reliable nanobots might take us until 2030.

If we do end up creating a "superior artificial intelligence" I assure you that there is no way in hell it is going to happen that soon. The article that this post is based on is 100% pure high grade bolognium.

No seriously, is there a way to complain about authors to the editor? This sort of thing is a waste of our time.




RE: Outrageous Claims
By SlyNine on 7/15/2008 11:41:47 PM , Rating: 2
But this has a definite exponential component to it. Things may start out slow and rather suddenly move very very fast.


Nanites
By akugami on 7/15/2008 5:37:06 PM , Rating: 3
Sign me up for when I can get some nanites in my blood (see Bloodshot, Valiant Comics).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodshot_(comics)




Headline pic
By hellokeith on 7/15/2008 6:38:53 PM , Rating: 3
Kristanna Loken as T-X http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-X would have been a more appropriate choice for the headline pic.

http://pics.hollywoodrag.com/uploads2/t3.jpg




Another article
By BruceLeet on 7/15/2008 6:58:38 PM , Rating: 1
I read an article on CNN a few weeks ago, talked about human/robot relationships. I mean c'mon, people are already fucking dolls.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNew...

I forwarded this story to Dailytech when the story first came out, this isn't the one I read I couldn't find it on CNN but heres a variation and its pretty much the exact same one. I'd think they didn't post it for their own guilty conscience =p




RE: Another article
By rudolphna on 7/16/2008 1:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
uh... wow lol.. interesting


One thing is certain.
By SavagePotato on 7/18/2008 5:40:36 PM , Rating: 1
The one thing that is certain is that super intelligent robots while possibly oppressive and destructive towards the human race, certainly won't come up with stupid ideas like that bionic woman trash o rama.

I think the destruction of the human race is reasonable in exchange for never having the bionic woman on tv again.




RE: One thing is certain.
By Soundgardener on 7/24/2008 11:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
Bwahahahahaha, LOL :)


post logo
By niva on 7/15/2008 3:51:55 PM , Rating: 2
The Akira logos in these couple of posts are right on the $$.




borg reference
By Screwballl on 7/15/2008 4:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
nah too easy

Terminator reference?
ditto

so with Asimov's 3 laws (plus a few realistically), we should not fear AI or super robots. The foundation will thank us.




tags
By Andypro on 7/15/2008 4:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
matrix, neo, borg, whatcouldpossiblygowrong (tagging beta)




rofl?
By pwnsweet on 7/16/2008 12:48:29 AM , Rating: 2
These people are the dumbest people I've ever seen...and they're supposed to be the most intelligent




You nerds...
By derwin on 7/16/2008 1:46:17 AM , Rating: 2
You all got so caught up in how either boring or exciting this stuff is (or how robots will destroy humanity or how this author likes warm globes or who first used the mathematical term singularity for the merger of huamnity and machines and what... well, you get the idea), that NOBODY bothered to mention how freaking smokin hot that girl at the top of this article is!
Jebus!
Thats all I have to say.




really?
By omnicronx on 7/16/2008 9:58:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
He doesn't look crazy; Dr. Ray Kurzweil says that by 2030 man will be less human and machine, with bodies filled with nanorobots and artificially enhanced to be much stronger and billions of times more intelligent.
Ya well 50 years ago people also predicted that cars would fly, cancer would be cured, and man would be living on the moon. Now while all of the above may true if you were to dose a bunch of acid (at least you may think its true), a peak out your window will tell you otherwise.




Dr. Kurzweil
By ruepel on 7/16/2008 10:25:34 AM , Rating: 2
How comes nobody is wondering about his name? Dr. Kurzweil?! (German for "disport")
But suddenly his predictions make sense...




uh.. bad idea?
By rudolphna on 7/16/2008 1:11:08 PM , Rating: 2


quote:
He believes the final step before the creation of the Singularity is the creation of an ultra-powerful artificial intelligence, or superintelligence, which will be able to quickly solve mankind's worst problems, including "environmental destruction, poverty and disease."


doesnt this kinda sound like those things that determine that humans are outdated, and not are better off dead?




Too late
By flataffect on 7/18/2008 9:30:58 PM , Rating: 2
Based on the state of American politics, I think the human brain has already become obsolete.




By Soundgardener on 7/21/2008 4:38:54 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone interested in this topic may find the below link interesting. It's a comparison of the current processing power of the human brain against that of computers, and a future projection based on Moore's Law:

http://www.jetpress.org/volume1/moravec.htm

For starters it debunks the argument that AI has been promised for a long time and hasn't delivered, on the grounds that the processing power available to AI researchers has until recently been restricted to the level of insects...for reasons of a) the restrictions of computer processing power compared to the human brain and b) politics / economics...

Enjoy the read and I look forward to your comments.

PS: We're alreay well on our way to the singularity, when I went to post this the site told me:

We are sorry for the inconvenience but we've determined you have a low DailyTech rating and may possibly be a robot

Maybe I am...how would I ever know...?




Obama
By ggordonliddy on 7/15/2008 8:12:18 PM , Rating: 1
Obama is a cyborg, as we have now understood (hear ye, hear ye). Hear the angry roar and fear the reaper, my children.




“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki