3 ms·

"Personally, the concept has always struck me as the childish fantasy of a certain personality type." Do you have some factual basis for considering the claims

by jey 18y ago

"Personally, the concept has always struck me as the childish fantasy of a certain personality type." Do you have some factual basis for considering the claims to be "childish fantasy"? Or is the fact that it conforms to your stereotypes is enough to dismiss it without investigating the claims?

greendestiny 18y ago
Well its certainly fantasy. What factual basis do you need for categorising speculation? The problem with singularity is its unchecked use of extrapolation. With any kind of prediction you ought to factor in a certain level of uncertainty based on how much you've observed about a phenomena. Considering we don't have yet what we'd call real artificial intelligence, let alone artificial intelligences creating other artificial intelligences - our level of uncertainty renders any prediction absurd.
- cheponis 18y ago
  AI is, by definition, the set of problems that are not yet solvable by computers. Ergo, all AI is fantasy. Nevermind that AI has beaten the world chess champ, is used every day for pattern recognition, stock trading, and a myriad other uses. Those who do not prepare for the coming Singularity are going to be blindsided by it when it arrives.
  - greendestiny 18y ago
    Thats just a convenient definition of AI because we don't really otherwise have a good one for human like consciousness. That we don't probably says a lot about the size of this uncertainty factor that singularity ignores. Artificial human like intelligence will profoundly influence society, I don't doubt it. I just think the quality of thinking under the umbrella of 'Singularity' is very unlikely to usefully prepare anyone. When humans first picked up a rock to use as a tool they possessed something with which to make a better tool - this tool singularity has been ongoing for thousands of years - stop talking about it like the rapture, it's embarrassing.
  - gruseom 18y ago
    AI is, by definition, the set of problems that are not yet solvable by computers. No it's not. At least, that's not how leading textbooks define it and it's not how McCarthy defined it. Moreover you promptly contradict it: beating the chess champ is hardly "not yet solvable by computers". Did it cease to be AI the moment it succeeded? Those who do not prepare for the coming Singularity are going to be blindsided by it when it arrives. This seems to me a religious sentiment expressed in religious language. Prepare ye the way of the Lord!
  - mlinsey 18y ago
    I think it would be more accurate to say that "AI is, in practice, the set of problems that are not yet solvable by computers". It's pretty cynical to call that the definition of AI, but I don't think that's an inaccurate characterization if you look at the domain of problems that people who consider themselves "AI researchers" has shifted over the years.
- jey 18y ago
  There's a sound argument that goes from "AI is feasible" to "AI can be recursively self-improving". So it's not just a random conclusion as you imply. I'm not going to go into detail explaining it here because I'd rather spend my energy on doing that in a way that can communicate to more people. (I'm working on that.)
gruseom 18y ago
Does observation count as "some factual basis"? How do you know what I've investigated? Which part of my claim about how it strikes me are you taking issue with? More interestingly, what's the response to Dyson's claim that growth in processing power is not matched by growth in people's capacity to use it?
- jey 18y ago
  "How do you know what I've investigated?" I don't. That's why I'm asking. "More interestingly, what's the response to Dyson's claim that growth in processing power is not matched by growth in people's capacity to use it?" Dyson seems to be referring to the dumb "extrapolated exponential growth = 'Singularity'" hypothesis. I agree that that idea is completely stupid, I don't see how they can conclude anything from that extrapolation. My argument rests on two postulates: 1. AI is feasible. 2. When AI arrives on the scene, there will be large changes. See this for more info: http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/ http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singular...
  - Retric 18y ago
    There are still limits on what an infinitely intelligent creature can do in the real world. AI is not going to result in magic levels of technology. For example you might build an IC engine that is 40, 50, or 60+% efficient but it's never going to be 100.00001%. And as we can already build 40+% efficient power plants so it's not possible to build something that extracts 3x as much energy from burning fuel.
    - jey 18y ago
      I fully agree, and I don't see why you think I'm implying that there will be "magic" levels of technology, or that something can be "infinitely intelligent". All I'm saying is that there's still a lot of room for improvement, and AI will be a hugely beneficial tool toward that end.
      - Retric 18y ago
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]

by jey 18y ago

greendestiny 18y ago

Well its certainly fantasy. What factual basis do you need for categorising speculation? The problem with singularity is its unchecked use of extrapolation. With any kind of prediction you ought to factor in a certain level of uncertainty based on how much you've observed about a phenomena. Considering we don't have yet what we'd call real artificial intelligence, let alone artificial intelligences creating other artificial intelligences - our level of uncertainty renders any prediction absurd.

cheponis 18y ago
AI is, by definition, the set of problems that are not yet solvable by computers. Ergo, all AI is fantasy. Nevermind that AI has beaten the world chess champ, is used every day for pattern recognition, stock trading, and a myriad other uses. Those who do not prepare for the coming Singularity are going to be blindsided by it when it arrives.
- greendestiny 18y ago
  Thats just a convenient definition of AI because we don't really otherwise have a good one for human like consciousness. That we don't probably says a lot about the size of this uncertainty factor that singularity ignores. Artificial human like intelligence will profoundly influence society, I don't doubt it. I just think the quality of thinking under the umbrella of 'Singularity' is very unlikely to usefully prepare anyone. When humans first picked up a rock to use as a tool they possessed something with which to make a better tool - this tool singularity has been ongoing for thousands of years - stop talking about it like the rapture, it's embarrassing.
- gruseom 18y ago
  AI is, by definition, the set of problems that are not yet solvable by computers. No it's not. At least, that's not how leading textbooks define it and it's not how McCarthy defined it. Moreover you promptly contradict it: beating the chess champ is hardly "not yet solvable by computers". Did it cease to be AI the moment it succeeded? Those who do not prepare for the coming Singularity are going to be blindsided by it when it arrives. This seems to me a religious sentiment expressed in religious language. Prepare ye the way of the Lord!
- mlinsey 18y ago
  I think it would be more accurate to say that "AI is, in practice, the set of problems that are not yet solvable by computers". It's pretty cynical to call that the definition of AI, but I don't think that's an inaccurate characterization if you look at the domain of problems that people who consider themselves "AI researchers" has shifted over the years.
jey 18y ago
There's a sound argument that goes from "AI is feasible" to "AI can be recursively self-improving". So it's not just a random conclusion as you imply. I'm not going to go into detail explaining it here because I'd rather spend my energy on doing that in a way that can communicate to more people. (I'm working on that.)

gruseom 18y ago

Does observation count as "some factual basis"? How do you know what I've investigated? Which part of my claim about how it strikes me are you taking issue with? More interestingly, what's the response to Dyson's claim that growth in processing power is not matched by growth in people's capacity to use it?

jey 18y ago
"How do you know what I've investigated?" I don't. That's why I'm asking. "More interestingly, what's the response to Dyson's claim that growth in processing power is not matched by growth in people's capacity to use it?" Dyson seems to be referring to the dumb "extrapolated exponential growth = 'Singularity'" hypothesis. I agree that that idea is completely stupid, I don't see how they can conclude anything from that extrapolation. My argument rests on two postulates: 1. AI is feasible. 2. When AI arrives on the scene, there will be large changes. See this for more info: http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/ http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singular...
- Retric 18y ago
  There are still limits on what an infinitely intelligent creature can do in the real world. AI is not going to result in magic levels of technology. For example you might build an IC engine that is 40, 50, or 60+% efficient but it's never going to be 100.00001%. And as we can already build 40+% efficient power plants so it's not possible to build something that extracts 3x as much energy from burning fuel.
  - jey 18y ago
    I fully agree, and I don't see why you think I'm implying that there will be "magic" levels of technology, or that something can be "infinitely intelligent". All I'm saying is that there's still a lot of room for improvement, and AI will be a hugely beneficial tool toward that end.
    - Retric 18y ago

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]