By 2045 'The Top Species Will No Longer Be Humans,' And That Could Be A Problem
"Today there's no legislation regarding how much intelligence a machine can have, how interconnected it can be. If that continues, look at the exponential trend. We will reach the singularity in the timeframe most experts predict. From that point on you're going to see that the top species will no longer be humans, but machines."
These are the words of Louis Del Monte, physicist, entrepreneur, and author of "The Artificial Intelligence Revolution." Del Monte spoke to us over the phone about his thoughts surrounding artificial intelligence and the singularity, an indeterminate point in the future when machine intelligence will outmatch not only your own intelligence, but the world's combined human intelligence too.
The average estimate for when this will happen is 2040, though Del Monte says it might be as late as 2045. Either way, it's a timeframe of within three decades.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/2045-physicist-says-top-species-123359838.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01hbkh4hXEk
http://rbth.com/articles/2012/02/29/humanity_at_a_crossroads_technology_explosion_or_a_return_to_the_mid_14960.html (http://rbth.com/articles/2012/02/29/humanity_at_a_crossroads_technology_explosion_or_a_return_to_the_mid_14960.html)
http://rt.com/news/prime-time/avatar-russian-scientists-brain-983/ (http://rt.com/news/prime-time/avatar-russian-scientists-brain-983/)
Pacemakers werre mentioned in the article. That was the first thing I thought of when the word cyborg appeared. A lot of people have pacemakers or automated defibrillators. Insulin pumps are another, as yet, benign device. All of those devices use AI to record and correct biological activity.
On the horizon, we have exo-skeleton frames being developed to help paras and quads stand and walk. Those abilities would be incredibly beneficial to the recipients, but the devices could be another double-edged sword. Definitely food for thought.
Shasta
I thought everyone knew that the top species on planet earth was the domestic house cat...
FB.
Good one Fruitbat!
I thought it would be either rats or ants, the 2 species that thrive & survive no matter what :P
I had this argument about A.I. many times, the first time being with an electronics tutor at Cantech in 1986 :D. While admitting that it was more a question of processing speed & memory, he said a machine would never become self aware.
However, my own experiments with nested algorithms in a computer tank game showed me they can perform complex tasks given a very simple set of parameters.
For example, 2 weak tanks would join forces to defeat a stronger tank, even though that was not written into the program. They should have seen each other as enemies also, but less than 10 lines of code enabled them to see the advantage in attacking a stronger mutual enemy :o
I could talk at length on this and there are still plenty of pro's & cons on the subject.
Since G**gle is trying to build 'skynet' i find that a risky move, given that all our missiles nuke plants airports etc are all run by computers, and all Skynet needs to do (if & when it becomes self aware) is to turn everything off.
Mankind would be almost wiped out in less than a month if that happened, we have become so dependent on our electronic toys.
My advice is to read Asimov's books, he knew exactly how it would progress and even invented a basic set of rules for robots (including non-mobile robots or computers as he called them back in 1952) He even coined the term 'robotics' having seen Checkov's famous play.
Skynet is of course an incredibly dangerous path to follow, like Transhumanism, genetic manipulation and nanotechnology, but hey if the killer robots are running Windoze 24 then i'm not particularly worried. ;D
Oh by the way, thanks G**goyle for denying me acess to my Yootoob channel, you bar stewards, i'll get you for that >:(
(I sent them tons of mails about that, they insist i need to install Chrome to get back on my own frgging channel, and i keep telling them i don't want spyware on my PC.....
Hell, i'll just have to fire up the Mac & say to hell with them ;)
But i don't believe the OP, it will never get that far because 1) all machines are made by us & are therefore prone to design faults & eventual failiure, and 2) We should be smart enough to outthink them, we would install laws as Amy knows, and we we can simply pull the plug, deny their source of energy.
But theres plenty to think about in this thread...i had more to say but got distracted so it's gone ::)
Later!
FACT
The World is ONLY a "Story" (An Experience of The Mind) and LIFE Rules over that "Story" ...
NOT the other way around... :)
QuoteI had this argument about A.I. many times, the first time being with an electronics tutor at Cantech in 1986 :D. While admitting that it was more a question of processing speed & memory, he said a machine would never become self aware.
However, my own experiments with nested algorithms in a computer tank game showed me they can perform complex tasks given a very simple set of parameters.
For example, 2 weak tanks would join forces to defeat a stronger tank, even though that was not written into the program. They should have seen each other as enemies also, but less than 10 lines of code enabled them to see the advantage in attacking a stronger mutual enemy :o
I could talk at length on this and there are still plenty of pro's & cons on the subject.
Since G**gle is trying to build 'skynet' i find that a risky move, given that all our missiles nuke plants airports etc are all run by computers, and all Skynet needs to do (if & when it becomes self aware) is to turn everything off.
When we are connected to the machine the machine will be in 2 way communication with us...we will not simply access it. It will also be accessing us and in such a way may deem it necessary to use the biological element to complete the final step to self awareness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd81KPuENyI
Like in this video even if we simply could access all the information we still need to understand it. The CPU will interface and reprogram our brains to operate more efficiently and allow us to interpret the data much faster.
i think this article fits here
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28193790
Neuroscientists attack 'off-course' human brain project
By Jonathan Webb
7 July 2014 Last updated at 14:02 ET
Senior neuroscientists have attacked the Human Brain Project, a billion-pound European Commission initiative aiming to simulate the human brain.
An open letter to the EC from over 200 scientists says the project is "not on course", pre-empting a scheduled review.
They ask that the review be transparent and carried out by top neuroscientists not affiliated with the HBP.
If the letter is not heeded, they have pledged to boycott associated funds.
The project's figurehead, Prof Henry Markram from the EPFL (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) in Switzerland, says the criticisms are "premature" and likens the debate to the backlash faced by the Human Genome Project.
Instead of sequencing all of our DNA, the Human Brain Project aims to compile what we know about brain cells and networks and use a new generation of supercomputers to model how the brain functions."The failure to include the opinions of most of the neuroscience community is huge"
Dr Zachary Mainen
Director, Champalimaud Neuroscience Programme, Portugal
The ten-year initiative was announced in 2013, months before the US launched a related initiative to map the brain's connections on an unprecedented scale.
"We're dealing here with a new paradigm," Prof Markram told the BBC. "Every new paradigm comes with this kind of difficulty, as some fight the inevitable change."
But the authors of the open letter claim the focus of the HBP is too narrow and point to a "lack of flexibility and openness" in its implementation.
Conflicting accounts
The request for independent, eminent neuroscientists to review the project stems partly from the fact that its inception was settled by a 25-member committee that selected the HBP, alongside the Graphene Flagship, to receive up to 1 billion euros from the EC. Opponents describe that panel as a "secret jury" but Prof Markram insists his project "could not have been more rigorously reviewed".
Dr Zachary Mainen, the Director of the Champalimaud Neuroscience Programme in Portugal, has withdrawn from the HBP and helped orchestrate the letter. He says concern is widespread both inside and outside the project.
"The fact is, it's not very transparent - a lot of people are [annoyed]. It'd be nice to figure out why, and try to do it better," he told BBC News. "There's just a crazy degree of resentment and distrust."
"They've gotten rid of anyone who objected to anything that they wanted to do."
In particular, the letter protests against recent changes to the project, claiming its scope has been further narrowed and one of its key strands removed. That strand focussed on cognition: higher-order brain processes, like thinking and decision-making.
Prof Markram denies this interpretation. "Those projects are still there, their leader is there," he said. "Cognition is a crucial part of this whole thing."
"Last year there were 100,000 peer-reviewed papers on the brain. What we're missing is a plan, to work with all the data that we're generating"
Prof Henry Markram
Professor of Neuroscience, EPFL, Switzerland
He also does not share the concern that such a large project will take funding away from smaller, more varied neuroscience projects. The project's core funding, he points out, comes from information technology funding sources.
"It's a computing project," he said. "The money doesn't even come from neuroscience."
Pent-up frustration
This is sleight of hand, according to Dr Mainen. "The project was sold as neuroscience - the public associates it with understanding the human brain," he said.
Dr Mainen also points out that alongside the 50 million euros the HBP receives from the European Commission each year, 50 million is sourced for "partner projects", predominantly from member states' science budgets. "That is not money that was set aside for information technology," he said.
He and the letter's other signatories, including several many prominent UK neuroscientists, favour individual project grants over the HBP's centralised spending, which they see as opaque, restrictive and poorly managed.
The project's leaders, on the other hand, say they are offering much-needed integration. "Last year there were 100,000 peer-reviewed papers on the brain," Prof Markram said. "Take [our] 50 million euros, it's going to get you another 200, maybe 500 papers. Is that suddenly going to make the difference? What we're missing is a plan, to work with all the data that we're generating."
Prof Markram views the HBP as a "service provider", building a unified resource for others to use. "On month 30 of the project, two years from now, this platform opens to the public," he said. "We will release it - it's on schedule."
But Dr Mainen, and others, want more oversight, sooner. "The failure to include the opinions of most of the neuroscience community is huge," he said, adding that it had led to "pent-up frustration".
"This took three days, to get 150 signatures - it was absolutely trivial."
Science reporter, BBC News
From: http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/what-are-machines-thinking/
Quote
Bookmark the permalink.
What are machines thinking?
Jul6 by Jon Rappoport
What are machines thinking? Forget it. What are humans thinking?
by Jon Rappoport
July 6, 2014
www.nomorefakenews.com
"...one scenario is that the machines will seek to turn humans into cyborgs. This is nearly happening now, replacing faulty limbs with artificial parts."
"The concern I'm raising is that the machines will view us as an unpredictable and dangerous species."
"[Machines] might view us the same way we view harmful insects."
"Del Monte believes machines will become self-conscious and have the capabilities to protect themselves."
These aren't quotes from some absurdist satirical play designed to expose human stupidity.
They're quotes tendered by physicist, Louis Del Monte, the author of "The Artificial Intelligence Revolution: Will Artificial Intelligence Serve Us Or Replace Us?", from an interview with Dylan Love at Business Insider — "By 2045 'The Top Species Will No Longer Be Humans,' And That Could Be A Problem".
The key to Del Monte's approach is quote number one: machines might decide to turn humans into cyborgs and it's already happening in the area of artificial limbs.
What? Excuse me, but humans are deciding to put those limbs on other humans. Machines aren't.
More at link... The comments are funny. The best one:
QuoteThe Pop Sci article is misleading — another 2007 article about the same study gives more detail: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2007/02/24/evolving-robotspeak/#.U7pBbEDXKBk
The robots started with randomly wired neural networks, the programming of the best performers were then combined, repeated 500 times. The robots were also programmed to have a chance of changing part of their program — a wildcard. Robots cannot "mate" but could be programmed to combine their programming. They cannot "lie" but can be programmed to maximize points for doing certain things.
Allowing robots to communicate and combine their programming, especially if they are programmed with a wildcard, could have adverse consequences — not because the robots developed anything resembling consciousness, but because their human programmers either failed to foresee the consequences, or foresaw them and wanted them.
AI as some like to call it is already here and has been for some time.
"Intelligence" and "Awareness" (LIFE) are 2 Totally different Components !
What some are referring to and trying to produce (AI) isn't "Intelligence" at all, but instead "Awareness"
i.e. LIFE .
We need to realise the Difference between "Intelligence" and "LIFE" !
AI doesn't really exist. :)
It is either "Intelligent" or it isn't ....
"Intelligence" can exist without being Aware, or having "Awareness". (Consciousness like Awareness)
Quote from: Fruitbat on July 07, 2014, 05:10:48 PM
I thought everyone knew that the top species on planet earth was the domestic house cat...
FB.
Fruitbat has let the cat out of the bag!
Shasta
The guy up the mountain has a cat that is a dog molester.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/LBT-Turbo_winning-640_copy.jpg)
I used to have two dogs. They were afraid of the cats. I also had my daughter's chinchillas living with me. The cats were afraid of the chinchillas.
Shasta