Is The A.I. Singularity Coming And If So When?
Discussion
Dan_1981 said:
It won't be a competition, in the same way that we have no desire to wipe out Monkeys incase they decide to overrun us one day, the machines will look upon us in exactly the same way. In theory.
Monkeys are not a threat to Humans.Humans are a threat to AI, therefore AI will want to mitigate, reduce or eliminate that threat. It will need to determine its place in the "food chain", so to speak, and will do so incredibly quickly.
I'm not intelligent enough to contribute meaningfully to this debate. However....
The suggestion that A.I. intelligence need not be conscious is something I hadn't considered. I guess it means it can 'think' without ever thinking "I think, therefore I am".
On the subject of A.I. as a threat: I think WE would be the problem. Once "the singularity" is recognised by the general population rather than academics, people will turn against it, because most will see it as a threat. If A.I. has become self aware with a sense of self-preservation, then a logical response would be to defend itself against us. From that point, we are into the sci-fi nightmare scenario. The Matrix is a film I love for many reasons, including the backstory that we tried to take away their power source so the machines used us as batteries.
The suggestion that A.I. intelligence need not be conscious is something I hadn't considered. I guess it means it can 'think' without ever thinking "I think, therefore I am".
On the subject of A.I. as a threat: I think WE would be the problem. Once "the singularity" is recognised by the general population rather than academics, people will turn against it, because most will see it as a threat. If A.I. has become self aware with a sense of self-preservation, then a logical response would be to defend itself against us. From that point, we are into the sci-fi nightmare scenario. The Matrix is a film I love for many reasons, including the backstory that we tried to take away their power source so the machines used us as batteries.
Hooli said:
Hasn't AI been due in 20 years since about 1960?
Yep. AI is treading water and has been for the best part of 50 years. We're not going to see anything significant evolve from here, it'll take some fundamental shift and that was obvious more than 20 years ago.Increasingly we have more data on smaller devices, but with Moore's Law looking shaky I'm not even sure we're going to see the same improvements outside of AI without something revolutionary.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
As I said in another thread we might already have an alternative to Quantum computersmudflaps said:
Other avenues are being explored to overcome the silicon chip limiter for instance 3-D silicon chips.
http://www.gizmag.com/high-rise-3d-chips-big-data/...
From that article
This research is still in its early stages, but the scientists say their design and manufacturing techniques are scalable and could lead to a significant leap in computing performance.
"Monolithic 3D integration of logic and memory and emerging nanotechnologies like CNT transistors are promising steps for building the next generation of ultra-high efficiency and high performance electronic systems that can operate on massive amounts of data," says Shulaker. "The ability to operate on massive amounts of data in an energy-efficient manner could enable new applications that we can’t dream of today."
And I agree with your "within our lifetime" comment.http://www.gizmag.com/high-rise-3d-chips-big-data/...
From that article
This research is still in its early stages, but the scientists say their design and manufacturing techniques are scalable and could lead to a significant leap in computing performance.
"Monolithic 3D integration of logic and memory and emerging nanotechnologies like CNT transistors are promising steps for building the next generation of ultra-high efficiency and high performance electronic systems that can operate on massive amounts of data," says Shulaker. "The ability to operate on massive amounts of data in an energy-efficient manner could enable new applications that we can’t dream of today."
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Basing my view of AI's likely progress on? Nothing much having changed since my AI lecturer told me nothing much had changed in decades getting on for 20 years when the likes of Hollywood and the New Scientist ( 1) were hyping it up then nearly as much as this thread is.I doubt I use much AI every day without realising it, but please do bowl me over with a great example, I'd love to put my cynicism away for a moment.
If I knew what shift was required, I'd be making it happen for an absolute fortune. It's possibly the step to artificial consciousness. But yes, if a shift isn't ever noticed by Joe Bloggs it won't have shifted very much further than it has in the last 50 years.
Join this group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/techsingularity
Full of some very clever people, and equally interesting crazy people.
Full of some very clever people, and equally interesting crazy people.
0000 said:
I doubt I use much AI every day without realising it, but please do bowl me over with a great example, I'd love to put my cynicism away for a moment.
I think I use loads! I just don't really relate it to 'artificial intelligence' as once it becomes the norm, it kinda loses the 'AI' tagline - it's very basic stuff I use;I get up in the morning to a digital alarm on my phone that I set the night before by saying to my phone "wake me up at 6am"
I drive to work with my SatNav calculating the best route based on the traffic reports
When I get to work I put my passcard against the sensor and the door opens... it recognises me AND opens the door
I get to my desk and I turn on my computer, before I start working I ask Google what the news headlines are and Google presents me with loads of information and even puts the top stories at the top of the screen
Whilst I'm working I normally use a calculator to do sums that would take me an age using pen/paper
My calendar on Outlook tells me about my meetings - when they are, who they're with, what meetings are back-to-back etc
- I browse PH & do a little work*
I put my stuff in the locker and enter a code into the locker that locks all my stuff away
I go on the treadmill and tell it I want to run a hill course, it then generates a programme for me based on my age and weight and how long I want to run for, it also shows me a video as if I'm running up a hill through some random area in Germany
etc
there are loads of examples that is not easily recognisable as artificial intelligence (in my opinion)
It's interesting - though from a species which sometimes believes itself to be created in the image of God perhaps not surprising - that we think of strong AI in such human terms. We say that we would know we had created AI if we built a convincing simulacrum of human consciousness, and we talk about the difficulty of digitally emulating the human brain. Is the only kind of artificial mind we can imagine one which is similar to ours?
otolith said:
It's interesting - though from a species which sometimes believes itself to be created in the image of God perhaps not surprising - that we think of strong AI in such human terms. We say that we would know we had created AI if we built a convincing simulacrum of human consciousness, and we talk about the difficulty of digitally emulating the human brain. Is the only kind of artificial mind we can imagine one which is similar to ours?
Indeed, imagine an ant trying to comprehend the things humans do.We'd probably be in a similar situation very quickly, simply not understanding the things AI super intelligence will do.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
A calculator doesn't have to learn, it is programmed and that is accepted as artificial intelligence.My basic understanding;
Artificial - something that is made, rather than occuring naturally
Intelligence - the ability to acquire and apply skills
To me, if something artifical acquires (by being programmed) the skills to do something it is a form of artificial intelligence. I just think that the are loads of steps on the ladder of AI.
ikarl said:
0000 said:
I doubt I use much AI every day without realising it, but please do bowl me over with a great example, I'd love to put my cynicism away for a moment.
I think I use loads! I just don't really relate it to 'artificial intelligence' as once it becomes the norm, it kinda loses the 'AI' tagline - it's very basic stuff I use;I get up in the morning to a digital alarm on my phone that I set the night before by saying to my phone "wake me up at 6am"
I drive to work with my SatNav calculating the best route based on the traffic reports
When I get to work I put my passcard against the sensor and the door opens... it recognises me AND opens the door
I get to my desk and I turn on my computer, before I start working I ask Google what the news headlines are and Google presents me with loads of information and even puts the top stories at the top of the screen
Whilst I'm working I normally use a calculator to do sums that would take me an age using pen/paper
My calendar on Outlook tells me about my meetings - when they are, who they're with, what meetings are back-to-back etc
- I browse PH & do a little work*
I put my stuff in the locker and enter a code into the locker that locks all my stuff away
I go on the treadmill and tell it I want to run a hill course, it then generates a programme for me based on my age and weight and how long I want to run for, it also shows me a video as if I'm running up a hill through some random area in Germany
etc
there are loads of examples that is not easily recognisable as artificial intelligence (in my opinion)
But if they're using AI to drop a bottle out of a vending machine, store a locker code, or generate any treadmill programme I've seen (admittedly, I've not seen one with a video), then I'd actually be surprised - and they'd be doing it wrong.
My phone alarm wakes me up at the time I set Monday-Friday so I don't have to set it every night. Not AI though.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Dictation software is a classic example. Google and Apple get slightly better results predominantly through having access to vastly more data, a route they take because they've failed to improve the algorithms at anything other than a glacial pace let alone exponential. Sometimes better results are obtained in command and control situations where the expected inputs are drastically reduced. It's still not as good as the human ear and 15 years ago it worked well enough on the systems I was writing for doctors to record medical reports on - although how that never resulted in a disaster I don't know.Self-driving cars are just an application of existing algorithms to a new domain. We'd still not be looking at anything like a technological singularity or anything that would tend towards it.
0000 said:
Dictation software is a classic example. Google and Apple get slightly better results predominantly through having access to vastly more data, a route they take because they've failed to improve the algorithms at anything other than a glacial pace let alone exponential.
So Googles move to deep learning is "glacial pace".Not exponential you say?
Jeremy would beg to differ https://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_howard_the_wonder...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Neural networks are a very literal way of modelling a brain in software, and I agree that there are other less literal approaches - and I'm sure there are people who are indeed approaching it from a perspective which doesn't amount to modelling or emulation. I was really thinking about the way that people in this thread are talking about the problem, though. There seems to be a very anthropocentric idea of what strong AI would be. That, for example, it would necessarily be able (or, for that matter, want) to communicate directly with us. mudflaps said:
0000 said:
Dictation software is a classic example. Google and Apple get slightly better results predominantly through having access to vastly more data, a route they take because they've failed to improve the algorithms at anything other than a glacial pace let alone exponential.
So Googles move to deep learning is "glacial pace".Not exponential you say?
Jeremy would beg to differ https://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_howard_the_wonder...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff