29-Dec-15 World View -- Artificial Intelligence breakthroughs in 2015, the Singularity by 2030

[gerald]

This one made me laugh. Only a dedicated materialist could live with this sort of cognitive dissonance. On the one hand we have the biological computer brain which is, apparently, reduced to being a mere deterministic calculating machine (by logical inference). On the other we have the deterministic electronic 'brain'. And now there is apparently a great danger that the electronic 'brain' will become so powerful that it will overtake the biological brain in 'intelligence'.

Only a human brain could imagine that sort of stuff!

'Intelligence isn't some magical, mystical force. It's actually the ability to find new ways to combine previous experiences in new ways.' Really? That's it? No purpose involved? Well that is true materialism!

Without purpose all you can do is make random junk, and there is no way to sort through it for anything useful, because 'useful' implies purpose. Materialism dies right there, (the theory itself relies on purpose to even exist).

So if you're talking about AI surpassing the brain then it has to develop a sense of purpose, and logically no deterministic algorithm is capable of that.

May I suggest the Christian worldview, which explains the human brain as a very important connection between our free-willed, purpose-driven, creative selves, and material reality. That makes the brain much, much more powerful than any crude, deterministic electronic calculating machine could ever be.

There's nothing to worry about here. Computers can only ever be a lot stupider than the stupidest of us. It's simple logic.

There is another aspect to my above post that both books deal with -- in some fashion --- and that aspect is the spiritual and in an important way, spiritual, which has nothing to do with organized religion, organized religion is a control device. -- It is very complicated.

[Tom Mazanec]

I am a Roman Catholic.
I have written a number of short stories in a future where Mankind wars with, and is subjugated by, genetically engineered human-animal hybrids.
I assume they have souls which they "inherit" through their human half ancestry (they are "sons of Adam and daughters of Eve" with animal characteristics spliced in).
I also assume that attempts to create Singularity AI fail...it just doesn't work.
As for what I actually believe, I consider Singularity AI to be a "low probability, high impact" scenario....it may be improbable that humans can create a hyperintelligent machine smarter than they are, but if it happens it could be TEOTWAWKI.

[John]

It's somewhat bemusing that even people who don't hate me still
don't believe what I'm writing about.

Yes, it's possible that the Singularity won't occur. For example,
one scenario where it won't occur is that the sun might explode,
completely destroying the earth. Another possibility is that
some new virus will emerge, and kill all life on the earth. In those
two scenarios, the Singularity won't occur.

Other than something like that, the Singularity is a certainty.

There is absolutely nothing about the Singularity that contradicts the
Roman Catholic religion, or Christianity. From the point of view of
Christianity, God created a world in which technological improvements
occur constantly, and so the Singularity would therefore come about
because of God's will. I know of one evangelical Christian who has
speculated that the Singularity is God's plan for the end times. He
points out that Jesus has suggested that it's impossible to know how
the end times will occur, and the Singularity is one of many
possibilities.

[Guest]

I dislike-not hate- you, but I still (generally) believe you.

[John]

> I dislike-not hate- you, but I still (generally) believe
> you.

Well, that's one out of two, anyway! Happy New Year!

[Tom Mazanec]

Notice, John, I said "low probability" not "no probability".

[John]

Notice, John, I said "low probability" not "no probability".

I did notice, Tom. I was just whining.

Happy New Year!

[Higgenbotham]

It's somewhat bemusing that even people who don't hate me still
don't believe what I'm writing about.

Yes, it's possible that the Singularity won't occur.

I searched all my posts for the word "singularity". The first one that had the word in it was a reply to you where you mentioned it, but I didn't respond to that part of your post. In 2014, I finally brought it up in this post:

I have some thoughts about the singularity, assuming it really does happen. Most who discuss the singularity seem to think that when the computers become smarter than the humans they will begin to solve all of our problems. Let's take a recent problem I read about as an example. Plastics are accumulating in the oceans as we know, but a lesser known problem is the plastics are degrading into fine particles that resemble sand and getting into the food chain that way. Most seem to assume that when the singularity hits the computers will just say, OK, we have figured out how to get this plastic out of the environment for little cost - here is what you do. Having studied another branch of engineering, my experience says things don't always work that way. With regard to some problems, the computers could just as easily come back with the answer that there is no solution that doesn't violate natural laws and the humans are trapped, they let it go too far. Upon hearing that, I think the humans would say the computers are lying to us and trying to outmaneuver us so they can inherit the earth, and then a war between the computers and the humans would ensue.

Our culture is steeped in the belief that every technical problem has a solution that can be implemented once the requisite knowledge is unveiled. Knowledge is not the limiting factor in all cases. As knowledge expands and the knowledge is put to use, it requires more energy and that is the limit that can constrain a technical solution. In the case referred to, there could be a life form invented that could preferentially separate the plastic but the biomass required may not be energetically achievable within the time frame required to prevent die-off.

[Higgenbotham]

'Intelligence isn't some magical, mystical force. It's actually the ability to find new ways to combine previous experiences in new ways.' Really? That's it? No purpose involved?

Any being much smarter than a human would realize there is no purpose (incentive) to reproducing itself. We could make a graph of replication rate versus intelligence level to show that, either generally or within the human species itself.

[Guest]

And what if there is an energy shock of some kind and we have to drive chariots to work? No more AI...