4 ms·

> We occupy some very valuable real estate and if the singularity is indifferent to us we won't last long. At the same time, there is not much reason why we wo

> We occupy some very valuable real estate and if the singularity is indifferent to us we won't last long. At the same time, there is not much reason why we would need to occupy the same real estate. After all, we land animals like oxygen, liquid water, and modest temperatures. The common computer would probably prefer CO2, dryness, and cold temperatures. A computer would probably be much better off on Mars or another distant planet, granted it had enough sunlight or other sources of energy. To make an analogy, do we humans want to destroy all the Ocean's fish and other sea life because we could in theory live in the same region, or would we rather live on the land while they occupy the water? Sometimes creatures with different ideal living environments can exist harmoniously.

danieltillett 11y ago
Assuming the laws of physics apply to the singularity then it will be constrained by starting at a single point in how fast it can spread. This means anything inside the light sphere will be under considerable pressure to be reorganised by the singularity given how far the human brain is from Bremermann's Limit [1]. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremermann%27s_limit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremermann%27s_limit
- insoluble 11y ago
  In the case of such a blatantly selfish singularity, one possible solution for the safety of humans would be to create a collection of well-mannered singularities (more like multilarities) first, with the hard-coded instinct of never allowing a selfish singularity to exist. They could be called the anti-singularities. A comparable phenomenon in the real-world is when nations take down dictators before they become a serious problem. A selfish singularity is like a dictator. A greater power with less selfishness should exist beforehand to prevent an uprising. Similar to highway speed limits and antitrust laws, there could be laws limiting the maximum amount of power one consciousness can have. Having a bunch of separate yet powerful entities is essential since it mimics current society -- where even if one being were smarter than any other single being, it could not outsmart a large number of others working collectively. A computer system found thinking or acting selfishly would be guilty of a thought crime, punishable by deletion.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    Yes what we need to build in is some sort of limit to the behaviour the singularity that makes it want to keep us around. Because we won't go straight from humans to the end singularity in one step the problem is a little simpler - we just need to build into the first sub-human level AI a belief that humans need to be kept around and a need to build this same belief into the next higher level AI. What the singularity will be like is really impossible to know - will it be one entity or multiple individuals? Assuming the end AI is able to get close to Bremermann's limit then there is more distance between us and the singularity than there is between us and a bacteria.
    - insoluble 11y ago
      It would definitely be ideal if such a system were created by sane-minded people, as you have suggested here. Just like nuclear weapons, powerful AI really should be kept out of radical hands. As usual, there would be an arms race between opposing political powers, so hopefully those making the decisions keep human existence as the highest priority. We don't need a "doomsday machine" in the form of a singularity. Anyway, your suggestion of a perpetual desire of the system to keep humans around is a good idea. Another good idea could be to have it stop and ask the humans for approval to continue after every so many iterations, thus keeping the people in control. This would prevent a never-ending auto-growth mode and allow changes to the plans as times changed. Overall, the possibilities are pretty much endless, just like with most types of software. Whether it be one or multiple entities probably depends on design. Nature chose multiple entities, with the ever so curious sexed species that require two individuals to make a new hybrid at each testing iteration. Bacteria, on the other hand, are asexual and reproduce through binary fission. But of course a thinking self-creator is a different ball game. It would probably be fruitful to have some sort of end goal built into the system, rather than having it consume resources simply to become as computationally immense as possible. For example, perhaps its goal could be to solve a set of questions humans have about the universe, and perhaps it would stop iterating once all those questions were answered satisfactorily. In a way it could serve as a god that answered people's questions. Then again, perhaps we are all living in a simulation running on the singularity of an earlier universe, and who knows how many turtles that spans.

danieltillett 11y ago

Assuming the laws of physics apply to the singularity then it will be constrained by starting at a single point in how fast it can spread. This means anything inside the light sphere will be under considerable pressure to be reorganised by the singularity given how far the human brain is from Bremermann's Limit [1]. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremermann%27s_limit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremermann%27s_limit

insoluble 11y ago
In the case of such a blatantly selfish singularity, one possible solution for the safety of humans would be to create a collection of well-mannered singularities (more like multilarities) first, with the hard-coded instinct of never allowing a selfish singularity to exist. They could be called the anti-singularities. A comparable phenomenon in the real-world is when nations take down dictators before they become a serious problem. A selfish singularity is like a dictator. A greater power with less selfishness should exist beforehand to prevent an uprising. Similar to highway speed limits and antitrust laws, there could be laws limiting the maximum amount of power one consciousness can have. Having a bunch of separate yet powerful entities is essential since it mimics current society -- where even if one being were smarter than any other single being, it could not outsmart a large number of others working collectively. A computer system found thinking or acting selfishly would be guilty of a thought crime, punishable by deletion.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Yes what we need to build in is some sort of limit to the behaviour the singularity that makes it want to keep us around. Because we won't go straight from humans to the end singularity in one step the problem is a little simpler - we just need to build into the first sub-human level AI a belief that humans need to be kept around and a need to build this same belief into the next higher level AI. What the singularity will be like is really impossible to know - will it be one entity or multiple individuals? Assuming the end AI is able to get close to Bremermann's limit then there is more distance between us and the singularity than there is between us and a bacteria.
  - insoluble 11y ago
    It would definitely be ideal if such a system were created by sane-minded people, as you have suggested here. Just like nuclear weapons, powerful AI really should be kept out of radical hands. As usual, there would be an arms race between opposing political powers, so hopefully those making the decisions keep human existence as the highest priority. We don't need a "doomsday machine" in the form of a singularity. Anyway, your suggestion of a perpetual desire of the system to keep humans around is a good idea. Another good idea could be to have it stop and ask the humans for approval to continue after every so many iterations, thus keeping the people in control. This would prevent a never-ending auto-growth mode and allow changes to the plans as times changed. Overall, the possibilities are pretty much endless, just like with most types of software. Whether it be one or multiple entities probably depends on design. Nature chose multiple entities, with the ever so curious sexed species that require two individuals to make a new hybrid at each testing iteration. Bacteria, on the other hand, are asexual and reproduce through binary fission. But of course a thinking self-creator is a different ball game. It would probably be fruitful to have some sort of end goal built into the system, rather than having it consume resources simply to become as computationally immense as possible. For example, perhaps its goal could be to solve a set of questions humans have about the universe, and perhaps it would stop iterating once all those questions were answered satisfactorily. In a way it could serve as a god that answered people's questions. Then again, perhaps we are all living in a simulation running on the singularity of an earlier universe, and who knows how many turtles that spans.