4 ms·
This article raises literally zero new points that have not been addressed over and over by futurists, "transhumanists", and others optimistic about the singula
by solo1717 10y ago
This article raises literally zero new points that have not been addressed over and over by futurists, "transhumanists", and others optimistic about the singularity.
1.) Moore's law still holds true at the moment. If and when it does stop the argument will begin to have some weight. The claim that Moore's law is about to stop has been made over and over since the 90s. Until then it is empty.
2) Moore's law continuing ad infinitum is not a necessity for the singularity. Distributed computing, neural chips, quantum and biological computing all provide avenues for continued vertical hardware evolution, not counting the Google method of rigging together thousands or millions of average machines to produce incredibly powerful supercomputers.
3) The sheer amount of data we are collecting continues to increase exponentially. (http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/04/schmidt-data/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/04/schmidt-data/), much of which is applicable to machine learning algorithms which brings us to point 4.
4) The efficiency and adaptability of machine learning algorithms continue to improve year on year. See DeepMind's early videos playing video games., etc., etc. To imagine that we won't see new innovations just as incredible almost every year from here to 2050 is incredibly naive and unrealistically pessimistic.
So considering that in each of the fundamental areas that we know are necessary for an AGI -- ie raw computing power, processable/interpretable data, efficiency/cleverness of algorithms -- we are achieving exponential growth year on year, it is reasonable to conclude we will get a machine that can pass the Turing test in our lifetimes.
This is also ignoring the multitude of other areas that contribute to the likelihood of an intelligence explosion. Brain to computer and brain to brain interfaces are in their early days but already exist. As they become more practical they could lead to exponentially more efficient research. Systems like Watson will speed up scientific research as they evolve. Nootropics and electromagnetic brain stimulation also help in this area.
Capitalism strongly incentivizes innovators to produce technology that automates ever more complex problems, or create tools that improve the efficiency of creating complex problem solving technology. This is an iterative, continuous process that we are all a part of, knowingly or not.
Now that humanity has been connected with a sort of digital nervous system, and is thoroughly incentivized to all aim towards this intelligence explosion, one way or another, it is naive to think we won't continue to find novel ways of improving the efficiency of every single system we utilize no matter how macro- or microscopic, which creates an intelligence creating feedback loop. The singularity has already happened, its just not running fast enough yet for it to 'feel' magical and miraculous the way it will once human level intelligence is shown across multiple fields by integrated computer systems.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago> "1.) Moore's law still holds true at the moment. " No it doesn't, it's already broken. Consider: http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2015/07/intel-confirms-tick-tock-shattering-kaby-lake-processor-as-moores-law-falters/ http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2015/07/intel-confirms-tick...
- solo1717 10y agoDepends who you ask. Until we clearly go a reasonable amount of time in which it proves false we should assume that any momentary hold ups/falterings are just that. http://www.hpcwire.com/2016/01/11/moores-law-not-dead-and-intels-use-of-hpc-to-keep-it-that-way/ http://www.hpcwire.com/2016/01/11/moores-law-not-dead-and-in... http://www.hpcwire.com/2015/11/20/top500/ http://www.hpcwire.com/2015/11/20/top500/
- ZenoArrow 10y agoI didn't see anything in the first HPC Wire article about Moore's law not being dead. All they really said was that HPC was a useful tool to continue improving processor performance: "Without supercomputers, we wouldn’t be able to understand what it takes to continue the march of Moore’s Law, and without this understanding, we wouldn’t be able to create more powerful supercomputers. This symbiosis is at the heart of the relationship between Moore’s Law and HPC." As for the second HPC Wire article, this sums it up fairly well: "What you see is that the performance per core has taken a dramatic hit around 2005-2006, but it was compensated by our ability to put more and more cores on a single chip" Increasing the number of cores on a CPU is not the same as keeping Moore's Law. We could keep doubling transistor count every two years if we could keep doubling the silicon wafer size at the same time. Moore's Law only really makes sense if you consider it as doubling the number of transistors within the same wafer size.