4 ms·

> Kurzweil and his followers believe this turning point will be reached around the year 2030, when biotechnology will enable a union between humans and genuinel

> Kurzweil and his followers believe this turning point will be reached around the year 2030, when biotechnology will enable a union between humans and genuinely intelligent computers and AI systems. "2030". They are deluded. We're not even close to that sort of understanding. We're not even vaguely close to "genuinely intelligent computers and AI systems" let alone the rest of it.

magduf 8y ago
I think we're a lot closer to figuring out how to eliminate biological mortality (or at least greatly reduce it) than we are to any of this AI or brain-upload stuff. After all, there's animals and other organisms out there that are effectively immortal (like the naked mole rat). I believe it won't be too long before we figure out how to eliminate aging in humans, perhaps requiring regular treatments of some sort, which isn't all that different from getting regular teeth cleanings (without which many of us would not have all our teeth).
theothermkn 8y ago
I'm not advocating for his 2030 date, but his reasoning for it directly addresses the concern you voice. His contention is that progress in a field happens at a superexponential rate, and that researchers and/or the public tend to estimate it at well less than exponential. He believes, and tries to make the case, that advances don't just advance, but feed into the infrastructure that drives faster advances. Also, "around 2030" does run out to, say, 2035 if you push it. That feels less implausible to me than, say, 2030-01-01. Again, I'm not saying he's right. I'm mainly saying that he expects your or my surprise when he opens his mouth, and has something like the explanation I sketched out at the ready.
- jfoutz 8y ago
  Bill Gates said something like that. You always over estimate what you can do in a year. But you’re always shocked at how much happened in seven.
- Digit-Al 8y ago
  That's all very well, but her is my objection (apologies in advance if I don't express my views in the clearest manner). The objective of creating AI is to create a computer that is 'self aware'. The problem being that we have no way of defining self awareness. We humans have been struggling with the problems of self awareness for over 2000 years but still seem to be no nearer to coming up with any clear definition, explanation, or measure. Even research using our latest, greatest, brain scanning and imaging technology instead of making things clearer seem to be muddying the waters even further by suggesting that our self awareness may, at least in part, be an illusion. There is no test we can give right now that can prove beyond doubt that even another person is actually self aware. We all assume everyone else has the same sense of self awareness that we do, but we have no way of verifying that. And then look at something like the octopus. We have enough evidence from their behaviour to suggest that they may possibly have some form of self awareness, but they are so alien to us that we currently have no possible way of finding out. So how are we supposed to replicate something that we don't understand, don't know how to recognise, can't measure, and don't even know if it exists? Obviously, I could be wrong. In the last 50 years our world has been transformed beyond the most wild imaginings of our grandparents when they were children. But if you agree with my statements above (of course you may not agree) then you have to agree that 12 years seems insanely optimistic. Even 20 or 30 years seems rather optimistic to crack one of the most fundamental mysteries of our existence.
sireat 8y ago
With all due respect to Kurzweil his predictions fall within the window of him being alive to see it. He keeps pushing the dates further and further away yet close enough that he could conceivably be alive at that date. Going by Gibson's old maxim "the future is here, but it is not widely distributed" I wonder what promising tech we have today that could be widely distributed by 2030. 3D printers - cheaper than 10 years ago but still quite limited in capabilities DNS sequencers - cheaper than 10 years ago but still limited About the only thing promising is Alpha Zero which is only a small part of the puzzle. We still need some massive new tech/science developments to achieve Kurzweil's vision. Distributing/improving existing tech will not cut it.

magduf 8y ago

I think we're a lot closer to figuring out how to eliminate biological mortality (or at least greatly reduce it) than we are to any of this AI or brain-upload stuff. After all, there's animals and other organisms out there that are effectively immortal (like the naked mole rat). I believe it won't be too long before we figure out how to eliminate aging in humans, perhaps requiring regular treatments of some sort, which isn't all that different from getting regular teeth cleanings (without which many of us would not have all our teeth).

theothermkn 8y ago

I'm not advocating for his 2030 date, but his reasoning for it directly addresses the concern you voice. His contention is that progress in a field happens at a superexponential rate, and that researchers and/or the public tend to estimate it at well less than exponential. He believes, and tries to make the case, that advances don't just advance, but feed into the infrastructure that drives faster advances. Also, "around 2030" does run out to, say, 2035 if you push it. That feels less implausible to me than, say, 2030-01-01. Again, I'm not saying he's right. I'm mainly saying that he expects your or my surprise when he opens his mouth, and has something like the explanation I sketched out at the ready.

jfoutz 8y ago
Bill Gates said something like that. You always over estimate what you can do in a year. But you’re always shocked at how much happened in seven.
Digit-Al 8y ago
That's all very well, but her is my objection (apologies in advance if I don't express my views in the clearest manner). The objective of creating AI is to create a computer that is 'self aware'. The problem being that we have no way of defining self awareness. We humans have been struggling with the problems of self awareness for over 2000 years but still seem to be no nearer to coming up with any clear definition, explanation, or measure. Even research using our latest, greatest, brain scanning and imaging technology instead of making things clearer seem to be muddying the waters even further by suggesting that our self awareness may, at least in part, be an illusion. There is no test we can give right now that can prove beyond doubt that even another person is actually self aware. We all assume everyone else has the same sense of self awareness that we do, but we have no way of verifying that. And then look at something like the octopus. We have enough evidence from their behaviour to suggest that they may possibly have some form of self awareness, but they are so alien to us that we currently have no possible way of finding out. So how are we supposed to replicate something that we don't understand, don't know how to recognise, can't measure, and don't even know if it exists? Obviously, I could be wrong. In the last 50 years our world has been transformed beyond the most wild imaginings of our grandparents when they were children. But if you agree with my statements above (of course you may not agree) then you have to agree that 12 years seems insanely optimistic. Even 20 or 30 years seems rather optimistic to crack one of the most fundamental mysteries of our existence.

sireat 8y ago

With all due respect to Kurzweil his predictions fall within the window of him being alive to see it. He keeps pushing the dates further and further away yet close enough that he could conceivably be alive at that date. Going by Gibson's old maxim "the future is here, but it is not widely distributed" I wonder what promising tech we have today that could be widely distributed by 2030. 3D printers - cheaper than 10 years ago but still quite limited in capabilities DNS sequencers - cheaper than 10 years ago but still limited About the only thing promising is Alpha Zero which is only a small part of the puzzle. We still need some massive new tech/science developments to achieve Kurzweil's vision. Distributing/improving existing tech will not cut it.