3 ms·

hmmm, I'm curious about why people are against dedicating time and energy to this. Technology is already growing at a faster rate than we can effectively regula

by leecho0 17y ago

hmmm, I'm curious about why people are against dedicating time and energy to this. Technology is already growing at a faster rate than we can effectively regulate it. There will definitely come a point when technology will be able to improve the ones improving technology, whether they're AI or cybernetically enhanced humans. That's going to profoundly affect everything related to technology (which is pretty much everything). Imagine if your neighbor can just think up the plans to make a nuclear bomb by getting a cognitive implant, how would that affect the world? There is a lot of speculation, but kurzweil has been fairly accurate with his predictions so far, so I'm curious to why people don't buy it.

greendestiny 17y ago
People spend a lot of time and energy in machine learning and AI. Singularity is more of a land grab, and attempt to repurpose this research for a movement. Singularities obsession with prediction seems to have more to do with building a prophetic story in order to give itself power rather than useful future planning.
- leecho0 17y ago
  I don't know, I'd say building a prophetic story is pretty useful for future planning. Just think about all science fiction stories. We have been more prepared for government surveillance because of the book 1984. Rather than writing a fiction novel about the problems, they talk about predictions and scenarios and start universities to talk about these issues. People in research focus on how to make it work, but we need people to think about how to plan for the future. I don't really agree with all the predictions they make on the singularity, but it's great that they make people think about talk about it. quick plug -- I'm working on my own unique approach to AI, so find me if you're looking for a 0.0000001% of making the most important discovery ever. =P
jballanc 17y ago
Well, one reason I don't buy it is that it all seems premised on the notion that the human body is nothing more than a vehicle for the human mind, and that ones thoughts are the essence of oneself. The problem is that all current biomedical and neurological research points to the exact opposite: a human mind without a human body is not human.
- sho 17y ago
  "a human mind without a human body is not human" Care to elaborate? Because it sounds like you're saying that, for example, someone with both legs amputated is somehow less human than non-amputees. How much of the body would you have to lose to not be human any more? And what is the basis of this theory? I was under the impression that if you keep the brain, the spine, and some compatible means of sensory input, the rest is basically optional.
  - jballanc 17y ago
    Care to elaborate? Because it sounds like you're saying that, for example, someone with both legs amputated is somehow less human than non-amputees. The unfortunately reality is that there is some truth to this. For a quick overview of the current research, I highly recommend the Radio Lab episode "Where Am I?" (http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/05/05 http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/05/05). Essentially, the way it works is this: Basic "animalistic", if you will, portions of the brain react to various stimuli, and in turn cause a reaction in various parts of the body, bypassing all of the higher-order logic and emotion circuits. It is only when these higher-order logic and emotion circuits realize that the body has already reacted, that they begin to comprehend a situation. Another interesting aspect of the brain-body link is mirror neurons. These are neurons that run "backward", as it were, from your brain to your sensory organs, and send signals to them as opposed to receiving stimuli from them. It is thought that these neurons are vital for learning. For example, when you hear someone say something, your brain will send signals to your ear to learn how to imitate that sound.
- JulianMorrison 17y ago
  What makes you think an apparent body can't be simulated as easily as a mind?
  - runinit 17y ago
    Or even a simulated "super" body. Human bodies are quite limited in the amount of information it can take in at once. I think you could potentially simulate a "body" with a million times more senses than a human. It's all a matter of sensory input.

by leecho0 17y ago

greendestiny 17y ago

People spend a lot of time and energy in machine learning and AI. Singularity is more of a land grab, and attempt to repurpose this research for a movement. Singularities obsession with prediction seems to have more to do with building a prophetic story in order to give itself power rather than useful future planning.

leecho0 17y ago
I don't know, I'd say building a prophetic story is pretty useful for future planning. Just think about all science fiction stories. We have been more prepared for government surveillance because of the book 1984. Rather than writing a fiction novel about the problems, they talk about predictions and scenarios and start universities to talk about these issues. People in research focus on how to make it work, but we need people to think about how to plan for the future. I don't really agree with all the predictions they make on the singularity, but it's great that they make people think about talk about it. quick plug -- I'm working on my own unique approach to AI, so find me if you're looking for a 0.0000001% of making the most important discovery ever. =P

jballanc 17y ago

Well, one reason I don't buy it is that it all seems premised on the notion that the human body is nothing more than a vehicle for the human mind, and that ones thoughts are the essence of oneself. The problem is that all current biomedical and neurological research points to the exact opposite: a human mind without a human body is not human.

sho 17y ago
"a human mind without a human body is not human" Care to elaborate? Because it sounds like you're saying that, for example, someone with both legs amputated is somehow less human than non-amputees. How much of the body would you have to lose to not be human any more? And what is the basis of this theory? I was under the impression that if you keep the brain, the spine, and some compatible means of sensory input, the rest is basically optional.
- jballanc 17y ago
  Care to elaborate? Because it sounds like you're saying that, for example, someone with both legs amputated is somehow less human than non-amputees. The unfortunately reality is that there is some truth to this. For a quick overview of the current research, I highly recommend the Radio Lab episode "Where Am I?" (http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/05/05 http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/05/05). Essentially, the way it works is this: Basic "animalistic", if you will, portions of the brain react to various stimuli, and in turn cause a reaction in various parts of the body, bypassing all of the higher-order logic and emotion circuits. It is only when these higher-order logic and emotion circuits realize that the body has already reacted, that they begin to comprehend a situation. Another interesting aspect of the brain-body link is mirror neurons. These are neurons that run "backward", as it were, from your brain to your sensory organs, and send signals to them as opposed to receiving stimuli from them. It is thought that these neurons are vital for learning. For example, when you hear someone say something, your brain will send signals to your ear to learn how to imitate that sound.
JulianMorrison 17y ago
What makes you think an apparent body can't be simulated as easily as a mind?
- runinit 17y ago
  Or even a simulated "super" body. Human bodies are quite limited in the amount of information it can take in at once. I think you could potentially simulate a "body" with a million times more senses than a human. It's all a matter of sensory input.