5 ms·

No.

by edu 19y ago

No.

mpc 19y ago
why?
- edu 19y ago
  First, the web is only a system of hyperlinked documents which can be browsed by a man or a machine. This means that the web is only information, and as far as I can tell information is not intelligence. A system capable of using this information may be intelligent, but not the information per se. So, maybe the internet will evolve to a "superintelligence". But this leads us to my second point. From the verb used in the question, emerge, it looks to me that this "superintelligence" is reached without human intervention. But as spontaneous generation does not exist, we need a system capable of evolve, without external help. And as far as I know, nowadays, neither the Internet (network) nor any of each nodes can evolve without human help. So, until somebody invents an evolving device and connects it to the Internet, my answer is no.
- Eliezer 19y ago
  In the everlasting words of Pat Cadigan ("Death in the Promised Land"), what you are describing is akin to putting a dirty shirt and a pile of straw in a wooden box for the spontaneous generation of mice. It took an enormous amount of cumulative optimization pressure to turn self-replicating RNA strings into humans. The Web doesn't have anything remotely on that order, and no, the "reproduction" of corporations and startups doesn't even begin to approach the quantitative selection pressures involved. See: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/11/no-evolution-fo.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/11/no-evolution-fo.html
mixmax 19y ago
I wouldn't be so sure...
- gnaritas 19y ago
  Really? When's the last time you saw a bunch of text suddenly become self aware?
  - mixmax 19y ago
    I read Kurzweil's book "the age of intelligent machines" where he set quite a few predictions for the next 10-15 years. This was 15 years ago - and he got almost all of them right. I just don't want to dismiss him - besides it seems arrogant that we should forever be the best evolution can offer.
    - gnaritas 19y ago
      People who think computers of sufficient power will just become self aware, don't really understand computers. If intelligent machines arise (and I think they will), it'll be because someone worked very very hard to make it so. Btw, it's arrogant to assume we're the best evolution has offered since you're defining best in human terms.
      - mixmax 19y ago
        You got me on that last one, you're right. Sharks have outlived us by a million years, so in evolutionary terms they are definitely more successful than us.
        newton_dave 19y ago
        They started earlier; that's not what I would consider the normal definition of "outlive".
  - coffeeaddicted 19y ago
    When was the last time you saw a bunch of molecules suddenly become self aware?
jraines 19y ago
This is exactly the kind of philosophical question that pg talked about in "How to do Philosophy" that breaks down because of the near impossibility of objectively defining the terms involved, or even coming to a solid consensus on their definition. Obviously, the key term here is "awareness". We "know" we are aware because . . . uh, because we think therefore we are, I suppose. Do our cells know about our awareness beyond their genetic programming to do what they do to contribute to it? Do we go out of our way to make our cells 'aware' of our super-awareness? My point is that way down the road when there are exponentially more sensors, programs, humans, and other 'resources' connected to the web, how would we even know that it had become . . . something more? It's probably never, ever going to take over some terminal and say "Hello there, Dave". And we may never know, because just as you can't find consciousness in the brain, you won't be able to find it in the Net. It would be the ghost in the machine, that had little interest in its component pieces. For those, myself included, who say this or that will 'never' happen, I'd like to add a quote from Freemon Dyson, talking about a multi-disciplinary conference where the future of human evolution was discussed: "When the physicists started talking about the really long term, [the others'] eyes glazed over."

No.

by edu 19y ago

No.

mpc 19y ago

why?

edu 19y ago
First, the web is only a system of hyperlinked documents which can be browsed by a man or a machine. This means that the web is only information, and as far as I can tell information is not intelligence. A system capable of using this information may be intelligent, but not the information per se. So, maybe the internet will evolve to a "superintelligence". But this leads us to my second point. From the verb used in the question, emerge, it looks to me that this "superintelligence" is reached without human intervention. But as spontaneous generation does not exist, we need a system capable of evolve, without external help. And as far as I know, nowadays, neither the Internet (network) nor any of each nodes can evolve without human help. So, until somebody invents an evolving device and connects it to the Internet, my answer is no.
Eliezer 19y ago
In the everlasting words of Pat Cadigan ("Death in the Promised Land"), what you are describing is akin to putting a dirty shirt and a pile of straw in a wooden box for the spontaneous generation of mice. It took an enormous amount of cumulative optimization pressure to turn self-replicating RNA strings into humans. The Web doesn't have anything remotely on that order, and no, the "reproduction" of corporations and startups doesn't even begin to approach the quantitative selection pressures involved. See: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/11/no-evolution-fo.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/11/no-evolution-fo.html

mixmax 19y ago

I wouldn't be so sure...

gnaritas 19y ago
Really? When's the last time you saw a bunch of text suddenly become self aware?
- mixmax 19y ago
  I read Kurzweil's book "the age of intelligent machines" where he set quite a few predictions for the next 10-15 years. This was 15 years ago - and he got almost all of them right. I just don't want to dismiss him - besides it seems arrogant that we should forever be the best evolution can offer.
  - gnaritas 19y ago
    People who think computers of sufficient power will just become self aware, don't really understand computers. If intelligent machines arise (and I think they will), it'll be because someone worked very very hard to make it so. Btw, it's arrogant to assume we're the best evolution has offered since you're defining best in human terms.
    - mixmax 19y ago
      You got me on that last one, you're right. Sharks have outlived us by a million years, so in evolutionary terms they are definitely more successful than us.
      - newton_dave 19y ago
        They started earlier; that's not what I would consider the normal definition of "outlive".
- coffeeaddicted 19y ago
  When was the last time you saw a bunch of molecules suddenly become self aware?

jraines 19y ago

This is exactly the kind of philosophical question that pg talked about in "How to do Philosophy" that breaks down because of the near impossibility of objectively defining the terms involved, or even coming to a solid consensus on their definition. Obviously, the key term here is "awareness". We "know" we are aware because . . . uh, because we think therefore we are, I suppose. Do our cells know about our awareness beyond their genetic programming to do what they do to contribute to it? Do we go out of our way to make our cells 'aware' of our super-awareness? My point is that way down the road when there are exponentially more sensors, programs, humans, and other 'resources' connected to the web, how would we even know that it had become . . . something more? It's probably never, ever going to take over some terminal and say "Hello there, Dave". And we may never know, because just as you can't find consciousness in the brain, you won't be able to find it in the Net. It would be the ghost in the machine, that had little interest in its component pieces. For those, myself included, who say this or that will 'never' happen, I'd like to add a quote from Freemon Dyson, talking about a multi-disciplinary conference where the future of human evolution was discussed: "When the physicists started talking about the really long term, [the others'] eyes glazed over."