6 ms·

All of Kurzweil's predictions are based on extrapolating exponential growth. That's all very well, but exponential growth in physical systems is usually restri

All of Kurzweil's predictions are based on extrapolating exponential growth. That's all very well, but exponential growth in physical systems is usually restricted within limits. In a such a system the negative feedback may also be growing exponentially, which means although initially it may be too small to be noticed, after the growth passes some boundary the negative feedback becomes relevant and the overall growth is no longer exponential. Unfortunately it's impossible to tell where we are on the growth graph (Although some claim that probability suggests that we are closer to the end. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument). Kurzweil makes the assumption we are at the beginning of the growth curve. We could be at the end where the negative feedback is about to overtake and growth will slow. There will be limits. The speed of light could be a hard limit on computing speed. Or ultimately heat-death could be the hard limit, but there is a limit somewhere. The question is how close are we to the limit and that is something we are only likely to know when we reach it. See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth#Limitations_of_models http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth#Limitations_...

AffableSpatula 16y ago
"The question is how close are we to the limit and that is something we are only likely to know when we reach it." You've posed the question and then immediately explained why it's fruitless to ask. Even if you are right that there must be limits; if you have no idea when his models are likely to break down then your skepticism is no more solid than his prediction.
- SimonPStevens 16y ago
  My scepticism is of the implicit claim that you make predictions by extrapolating exponential growth curves. You can't, you can only make predictions up to the point the exponential growth breaks down, and as you can't predict that point before it happens you can't make predictions. I'm not saying he is wrong about the next 100 years, the singularity or AI, I'm saying may be wrong about the short term and he certainly can't be right indefinitely.
  - jerf 16y ago
    "I'm saying may be wrong about the short term and he certainly can't be right indefinitely." Sure he can, since you're the one who added the claim that it will continue indefinitely. What he says instead is that progress will continue until well beyond our point to predict what the resulting society will look like, due to the claimed fact that it will for instance include things like true AIs and brain uploading. I do not recall him talking about where the progress will stop; probably because it would be meaningless to us anyhow. If an AI from 2200 came to us now and tried to explain the latest cutting edge trends in the research into the ultimate limits of cognition we wouldn't get past the first paragraph. Don't worry, you're hardly the only one to dismiss his claims without actually stopping for a moment and figuring out what he's actually claiming. I'm not exactly a strong Singulatarian myself but a lot of people really need to stop reading other people summaries of what he says (very very few are accurate enough to come to evaluate what he is saying) and read past his first couple of paragraphs before flipping the bozo bit. He may not be right, he's definitely not an idiot.
    - SimonPStevens 16y ago
      Ok, so your saying that Kurzweil's prediction is simply that exponential growth will continue until beyond the singularity? If that is the case I don't really see how there is any logic in his claims. I understand that he has extrapolated an exponential curve, and I can see the potential of future tech if that exponential growth was to continue, but I don't really see what basis he has to claim that the exponential curve will not end tomorrow. I'm not saying that it will end tomorrow, I'm just saying that you can't base a prediction on the idea that exponential growth will continue because you have absolutely zero data about when it's likely end is.
      - jerf 16y ago
        "Ok, so your saying that Kurzweil's prediction is simply that exponential growth will continue until beyond the singularity?" Why don't you stop waiting for me to tell you and spend some honest time with the ideas? Of course you don't see how there is any logic to his claims, you haven't seen his claims at all. Or, alternatively, realize you don't know what they are and decide not to worry about it. This is fine too. No joke. There are all kinds of times when I take this option. It's not bad to not know somebody's opinions, or criticize them when you know them; the problem is in the criticism when you don't actually know them.
- wlievens 16y ago
  > then your skepticism is no more solid than his prediction. But the onus is on the predictor
  - AffableSpatula 16y ago
    Sure, I think Kurzweil does a decent job in framing a future within which there's plenty of room for innovation with no 'limits' to exponential growth in sight. This whole issue of limitations is a separate prediction in and of itself, and it's not his.
jcfrei 16y ago
I think with the advent of quantum computers a limit in computing power is still far way. Nonetheless, what has brute computing power enabled us to do so far? There have been a few prestigious projects, ie. deep blue, seti, cern, molecular folding, etc. which take advantage of this power. But most research projects profit little from an increase in computing power. I think new software and algorithms play a bigger role in trying to enable machines to solve the more "human" tasks.
- SimonPStevens 16y ago
  I wasn't aware quantum computers had actually been invented yet. They are still theoretical devices. Quantum computation as been explored but as yet we don't have a computer capable of executing the quantum algorithms. That aside, all I'm saying is that exponential growth has a limit. That growth could be measured in MIPS or in algorithm performance, it doesn't really matter, but I don't think that growth will continue exponentially.
  - sid0 16y ago
    Quantum computation as been explored but as yet we don't have a computer capable of executing the quantum algorithms. They're in their infancy, but we've already had a quantum computer factor 15. http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/chip-does-part-of-codecracking-quantum-algorithm http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/chip-does-pa...
    - SimonPStevens 16y ago
      Interesting. Thanks. Perhaps I take it back then. Maybe we do have a algorithm capable quantum computer.
- semanticist 16y ago
  Increases in computing power affect the whole chain - you're looking at the high end, where the limit of computing power is pushed but you also need to remember that computing power for a given cost increases across the whole spectrum of computing devices. My phone can listen to what I say, translate it into French, and speak it back to me, albeit leveraging external compute power to do most of the heavy lifting. But it wouldn't be possible to provide that external compute power at scale 20 years ago. I'm also sure that countless small innovations in bioinformatics add up collectively to significant changes over time, and those individual innovations are powered by the more broadly available increases in computing power.
albertzeyer 16y ago
Building some intelligent machine is still possible within this limit. There is an example that it is possible: the human brain. But you are right that we could be more far away from that than what we think. And also that it may be that the limit of intelligence of some machine might actually not be so much be ahead of human intelligence. (Whereby, personally, I think that it should be theoretically and practically possible to build much more intelligent machines at some point.)
- SimonPStevens 16y ago
  I agree with you entirely, I'm sure strong AI will be reached. Even if we dropped down onto linear growth, I think strong AI isn't that far away. I just think exponential growth can't continue indefinitely as Kurzweil predicts.
  - pavs 16y ago
    I don't think he predicts exponential growth will continue indefinitely. Where did you get that from?
    - SimonPStevens 16y ago
      This line: "Kurzweil calls it the law of accelerating returns: technological progress happens exponentially, not linearly." He doesn't bracket his law with exponentially to a 'certain point' or 'is currently happening'. He claims it is a law that all technological progress currently happens and will always happen exponentially. Perhaps I am misreading him, but I interpret predictions as claims that exponential growth will always continue. Anyway. That aside, You can't use an exponential curve to make predictions about the future if you accept that the curve will end at some point. If you accept the curve will change and you can't know the point of change then you can't use it to make a prediction.
  - JulianMorrison 16y ago
    I think his proposition is roughly, that a singular technology grows on an S-curve, but as each one technology slows another picks up the baton and runs with it, and the totality (sum of S-curves) has historically looked exponential, and promises to continue.
DennisP 16y ago
He doesn't assume all that much. In his book The Singularity Is Near Kurzweil looks at the physical limits of computing, to determine how long we can go before Moore's Law comes to an end. He concludes that we've got another fifty years, or possibly seventy if certain technologies prove feasible. As I recall he doesn't count on quantum computing much, but does think we'll manage reversible computing to solve heat dissipation issues. That's just computation, but computation drives much of our other technology, and will even more once computers get smarter than people. Kurzweil estimates the timeframe for that based on a range of estimates for the computational capacity of the brain.
tastybites 16y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmoid_function http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmoid_function
foljs 16y ago
> All of Kurzweil's predictions are based on extrapolating exponential growth. Even worse... most are based in confusing exponential growth with qualitative enhancements. As if, for example, the fact that we could get a computer with a mega-gazillion of transistors would necessarily translate in us being capable of designing smart enough algorithms to take advantage of it. It's a variation of the old "we might lose in every sale, but we can make it up in volume"...

AffableSpatula 16y ago

"The question is how close are we to the limit and that is something we are only likely to know when we reach it." You've posed the question and then immediately explained why it's fruitless to ask. Even if you are right that there must be limits; if you have no idea when his models are likely to break down then your skepticism is no more solid than his prediction.

SimonPStevens 16y ago
My scepticism is of the implicit claim that you make predictions by extrapolating exponential growth curves. You can't, you can only make predictions up to the point the exponential growth breaks down, and as you can't predict that point before it happens you can't make predictions. I'm not saying he is wrong about the next 100 years, the singularity or AI, I'm saying may be wrong about the short term and he certainly can't be right indefinitely.
- jerf 16y ago
  "I'm saying may be wrong about the short term and he certainly can't be right indefinitely." Sure he can, since you're the one who added the claim that it will continue indefinitely. What he says instead is that progress will continue until well beyond our point to predict what the resulting society will look like, due to the claimed fact that it will for instance include things like true AIs and brain uploading. I do not recall him talking about where the progress will stop; probably because it would be meaningless to us anyhow. If an AI from 2200 came to us now and tried to explain the latest cutting edge trends in the research into the ultimate limits of cognition we wouldn't get past the first paragraph. Don't worry, you're hardly the only one to dismiss his claims without actually stopping for a moment and figuring out what he's actually claiming. I'm not exactly a strong Singulatarian myself but a lot of people really need to stop reading other people summaries of what he says (very very few are accurate enough to come to evaluate what he is saying) and read past his first couple of paragraphs before flipping the bozo bit. He may not be right, he's definitely not an idiot.
  - SimonPStevens 16y ago
    Ok, so your saying that Kurzweil's prediction is simply that exponential growth will continue until beyond the singularity? If that is the case I don't really see how there is any logic in his claims. I understand that he has extrapolated an exponential curve, and I can see the potential of future tech if that exponential growth was to continue, but I don't really see what basis he has to claim that the exponential curve will not end tomorrow. I'm not saying that it will end tomorrow, I'm just saying that you can't base a prediction on the idea that exponential growth will continue because you have absolutely zero data about when it's likely end is.
    - jerf 16y ago
      "Ok, so your saying that Kurzweil's prediction is simply that exponential growth will continue until beyond the singularity?" Why don't you stop waiting for me to tell you and spend some honest time with the ideas? Of course you don't see how there is any logic to his claims, you haven't seen his claims at all. Or, alternatively, realize you don't know what they are and decide not to worry about it. This is fine too. No joke. There are all kinds of times when I take this option. It's not bad to not know somebody's opinions, or criticize them when you know them; the problem is in the criticism when you don't actually know them.
wlievens 16y ago
> then your skepticism is no more solid than his prediction. But the onus is on the predictor
- AffableSpatula 16y ago
  Sure, I think Kurzweil does a decent job in framing a future within which there's plenty of room for innovation with no 'limits' to exponential growth in sight. This whole issue of limitations is a separate prediction in and of itself, and it's not his.

jcfrei 16y ago

I think with the advent of quantum computers a limit in computing power is still far way. Nonetheless, what has brute computing power enabled us to do so far? There have been a few prestigious projects, ie. deep blue, seti, cern, molecular folding, etc. which take advantage of this power. But most research projects profit little from an increase in computing power. I think new software and algorithms play a bigger role in trying to enable machines to solve the more "human" tasks.

SimonPStevens 16y ago
I wasn't aware quantum computers had actually been invented yet. They are still theoretical devices. Quantum computation as been explored but as yet we don't have a computer capable of executing the quantum algorithms. That aside, all I'm saying is that exponential growth has a limit. That growth could be measured in MIPS or in algorithm performance, it doesn't really matter, but I don't think that growth will continue exponentially.
- sid0 16y ago
  Quantum computation as been explored but as yet we don't have a computer capable of executing the quantum algorithms. They're in their infancy, but we've already had a quantum computer factor 15. http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/chip-does-part-of-codecracking-quantum-algorithm http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/chip-does-pa...
  - SimonPStevens 16y ago
    Interesting. Thanks. Perhaps I take it back then. Maybe we do have a algorithm capable quantum computer.
semanticist 16y ago
Increases in computing power affect the whole chain - you're looking at the high end, where the limit of computing power is pushed but you also need to remember that computing power for a given cost increases across the whole spectrum of computing devices. My phone can listen to what I say, translate it into French, and speak it back to me, albeit leveraging external compute power to do most of the heavy lifting. But it wouldn't be possible to provide that external compute power at scale 20 years ago. I'm also sure that countless small innovations in bioinformatics add up collectively to significant changes over time, and those individual innovations are powered by the more broadly available increases in computing power.

albertzeyer 16y ago

Building some intelligent machine is still possible within this limit. There is an example that it is possible: the human brain. But you are right that we could be more far away from that than what we think. And also that it may be that the limit of intelligence of some machine might actually not be so much be ahead of human intelligence. (Whereby, personally, I think that it should be theoretically and practically possible to build much more intelligent machines at some point.)

SimonPStevens 16y ago
I agree with you entirely, I'm sure strong AI will be reached. Even if we dropped down onto linear growth, I think strong AI isn't that far away. I just think exponential growth can't continue indefinitely as Kurzweil predicts.
- pavs 16y ago
  I don't think he predicts exponential growth will continue indefinitely. Where did you get that from?
  - SimonPStevens 16y ago
    This line: "Kurzweil calls it the law of accelerating returns: technological progress happens exponentially, not linearly." He doesn't bracket his law with exponentially to a 'certain point' or 'is currently happening'. He claims it is a law that all technological progress currently happens and will always happen exponentially. Perhaps I am misreading him, but I interpret predictions as claims that exponential growth will always continue. Anyway. That aside, You can't use an exponential curve to make predictions about the future if you accept that the curve will end at some point. If you accept the curve will change and you can't know the point of change then you can't use it to make a prediction.
- JulianMorrison 16y ago
  I think his proposition is roughly, that a singular technology grows on an S-curve, but as each one technology slows another picks up the baton and runs with it, and the totality (sum of S-curves) has historically looked exponential, and promises to continue.

DennisP 16y ago

He doesn't assume all that much. In his book The Singularity Is Near Kurzweil looks at the physical limits of computing, to determine how long we can go before Moore's Law comes to an end. He concludes that we've got another fifty years, or possibly seventy if certain technologies prove feasible. As I recall he doesn't count on quantum computing much, but does think we'll manage reversible computing to solve heat dissipation issues. That's just computation, but computation drives much of our other technology, and will even more once computers get smarter than people. Kurzweil estimates the timeframe for that based on a range of estimates for the computational capacity of the brain.

tastybites 16y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmoid_function http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmoid_function

foljs 16y ago

> All of Kurzweil's predictions are based on extrapolating exponential growth. Even worse... most are based in confusing exponential growth with qualitative enhancements. As if, for example, the fact that we could get a computer with a mega-gazillion of transistors would necessarily translate in us being capable of designing smart enough algorithms to take advantage of it. It's a variation of the old "we might lose in every sale, but we can make it up in volume"...