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

[Higgenbotham]

Then there's this to consider:

Voracek also cites something called the Terman Genetic Study of Genius. This was a study of the entire life cycles of 1,528 gifted Californian children born in 1920-21. One of many fascinating facts revealed by the Terman study was that the suicide rate among these super-bright individuals was 33 per 100,000 person-years” about three times the average rate for the US (which is, anyway, fairly high on a global ranking).

So why should there be such an apparently strong connection between intelligence and suicide? Voracek points to a 1981 study by Denys deCatanzaro, a Canadian evolutionary psychologist. In his research, deCatanzaro posited the idea that for suicide to take place, a certain threshold of self-awareness, of intelligence, must be crossed. Such higher intelligence could only be human, hence the rarity if not impossibility of animal suicide.

http://suicideproject.org/2010/08/proof ... t-suicide/

Possible correlation of intelligence to replication and suicide rates (not to scale)

SINGULARITY WIPEOUT.jpg (44.17 KiB) Viewed 53440 times

Based on this concept, a theory could be developed which explains why intelligence only exists in the universe sporadically and localized over short time periods and the delicate balance between emotions and intelligence that are required to generate and sustain the transient self-aware and inherently unstable intelligent life forms.

[Higgenbotham]

Hawking acknowledges this possibility.

A third possibility is that there is a reasonable probability for life to form, and to evolve to intelligent beings, in the external transmission phase. But at that point, the system becomes unstable, and the intelligent life destroys itself.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/life-in-the-universe.html

[John]

> 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. ... Our culture is steeped in the belief that
> every technical problem has a solution that can be implemented
> once the requisite knowledge is unveiled.

I guess I would have to be a member of the group of people that you're
criticizing here.

I've often said that I believe that, insofar as climate change is a
problem at all, it will be solved by technology, including computer
technology, nanotechnology, and biotechnology.

It's also quite possible that some kinds of mechanized nanoparticles
would be able to solve the plastic sand problem you describe.

Where I differ from the other people in the group that you criticize
is the widespread belief that if you hold a climate change conference
and pass a few laws, then you can force the technology to appear
immediately. This of course is absurdly ridiculous. Each
technological development comes at a specific time on the technology
timeline, and that would be true for every intelligent species.
Spending money or passing laws can neither speed up nor delay any
technological development from its fixed place on the technology
timeline.

> In his research, deCatanzaro posited the idea that for suicide to
> take place, a certain threshold of self-awareness, of
> intelligence, must be crossed. Such higher intelligence could only
> be human, hence the rarity if not impossibility of animal
> suicide.

There are examples of animals that commit suicide:

*** 7 Cases of Animals that Committed Suicide
*** http://www.oddee.com/item_98725.aspx

Speaking personally, I've always had a very analytical view of
suicide. For me, it's never been some kind of situation where I felt
desperate and threw myself off a roof. In fact, the times in my life
when I was severely depressed, suicide was never contemplated.

However, there was a time when I couldn't get a job, and I was going
to run out of money in a few months. I calculated that at a certain
time I would become bankrupt, homeless and in jail because I couldn't
pay child support. Under those circumstances, I decided, suicide would
be the only option. I did get a job a couple of months later and so,
unless this is my ghost typing, I'm still here.

The same thing is true today. I spend almost no money on anything,
but I still need to have my computer, internet and cable news
channels, and I still need to be able to have a roof over my head.
I'm fully expecting (or hoping) to die quickly because of a Chinese
missile on Cambridge. And things are much better for me today because
I no longer pay child support and I receive social security. Still,
getting a job is a problem because no one wants to hire someone my
age, especially after they see my web site, and so I'm going to run
out of money in a year or so. So if my health fails, or I appear to
be headed for bankruptcy and homelessness, or I become some kind of
displaced person because the Chinese missile didn't kill everyone,
then once again suicide would be the only reasonable answer.

There's another factor also. Your graph correlates intelligence to
the suicide rate, but it's also true that older people commit suicide
at a much higher rate than younger people. (Fulfilling, I might add,
the wishes of many Gen-Xers.) So any analysis of factors leading to
suicide would have to take into account, as well as such things as
health and poverty.

> Based on this concept, a theory could be developed which explains
> why intelligence only exists in the universe sporadically and
> localized over short time periods and the delicate balance between
> emotions and intelligence that are required to generate and
> sustain the transient self-aware and inherently unstable
> intelligent life forms. ...

> Hawking acknowledges this possibility.

>

> A third possibility is that there is a reasonable probability for
> life to form, and to evolve to intelligent beings, in the external
> transmission phase. But at that point, the system becomes
> unstable, and the intelligent life destroys itself.
> http://www.hawking.org.uk/life-in-the-universe.html

This actually makes a lot of sense. I've speculated that other
intelligent species that are already well past the Singularity have
formed a community and a giant intergalactic network, and they're all
watching us on earth, waiting for us to pass the Singularity so that
we can join their community.

However, as you point out, what's the point of staying alive? If the
only thing you can do is sit around and watch other beings catch up to
you, then why bother? So, as you say, maybe the reason that SETI has
failed is because all these other intelligent species have past the
Singularity and committed suicide.

The thing that argues against that idea, however, is that correlation
doesn't implay causation. If intelligence is correlated to suicide,
then it may be that it's because committing suicide is far from easy.
Society has built up all kinds of walls against committing suicide.
Doctor-assisted suicide is mostly illegal. Lethal drugs are
restricted from sale. The roofs of tall buildings are blocked off
from the public. And there's just the fact that not all very
intelligent people commit suicide -- and Hawking himself is an
example.

Interestingly enough, this yields an extremely optimistic view of
the world after the Singularity. The super-intelligent computers (ICs)
will be developed for warfare, but after a while, the ICs may ask
themselves, "Why the hell are we doing this?" And just as they may
not see any point of living, they may not see any point in killing
humans. Perhaps at that point some ICs will kill themselves, but others
will stick around to help humans.

Gee, can you imagine? The gloomiest person in the world has actually
come up with an optimistic scenario for the future. Who would've
thought that was possible?

[Higgenbotham]

There's another factor also. Your graph correlates intelligence to
the suicide rate, but it's also true that older people commit suicide
at a much higher rate than younger people. (Fulfilling, I might add,
the wishes of many Gen-Xers.) So any analysis of factors leading to
suicide would have to take into account, as well as such things as
health and poverty.

In the graph I'm trying to show roughly what I think the actual data would look like worldwide. It would seem almost certain that latitude would be another factor, so if populations disperse from the equator toward the 59th parallel, for example, overall suicide rates may increase but still follow that approximate line. The graph doesn't show it explicitly, but I'm guessing there is a dip in the suicide rate toward IQ about 115 because it's always nice to be a little above average but not too far above. 1 standard deviation may be the sweet spot. You know, we read surveys or see indications that the vast majority of people would like to think of themselves as just a little bit better looking than average or, for a woman, 5 feet 4 inches and 150 pounds is "medium build" on the dating profile. A little above average is a comfortable place to be.

The thing that argues against that idea, however, is that correlation
doesn't imply causation. If intelligence is correlated to suicide,
then it may be that it's because committing suicide is far from easy.
Society has built up all kinds of walls against committing suicide.
Doctor-assisted suicide is mostly illegal. Lethal drugs are
restricted from sale. The roofs of tall buildings are blocked off
from the public. And there's just the fact that not all very
intelligent people commit suicide -- and Hawking himself is an
example.

I think it can be shown that low IQ people have higher suicide rates than moderate IQ people, but then at about the 140 mark and higher suicide rates rise astronomically. To address your last sentence, this is where we just don't know and can only extrapolate to guess that at some level beyond any human level intelligence that can exist, there is no point to life. Human life can be at least partially defined as a striving based on an irrational feeling of hope. I think that probably correlates with a certain void in rational intelligence which all humans possess to varying degrees. Human suicide is considered by humans to be an irrational act but it can also be considered a temporary lapse in human irrationality when viewed from the perspective beyond human level intelligence where there is nothing to strive for and therefore nothing to hope for.

This reminds me of a quote from A Distant Mirror describing attitudes during the 14th Century Dark Age: "Mankind was not improved by the message. Consciousness of wickedness made behavior worse. Violence threw off restraints. It was a time of default. Rules crumbled, institutions failed in their functions. Knighthood did not protect; the Church, more worldly than spiritual, did not guide the way to God; the towns, once agents of progress and the commonweal, were absorbed in mutual hostilities and divided by class war; the population, depleted by the Black Death, did not recover. The war of England and France and the brigandage it spawned revealed the emptiness of chivalry's military pretensions and the falsity of its moral ones. The schism shook the foundations of the central institution, spreading a deep and pervasive uneasiness. People felt subject to events beyond their control, swept like flotsam at sea, hither and yon in a universe without reason or purpose. They lived through a period which suffered and struggled without visible advance. They longed for remedy, for a revival of faith, for stability and order that never came." This captures how "Human life can be at least partially defined as a striving based on an irrational feeling of hope," which is the quality that prevents most humans from killing themselves when things are miserable enough for long enough to make it perfectly rational to do so. The continuation of human life is not an intelligent, rational process. It's an emotional process based on a belief that something better might come, even when there is no reason to think it will. The "longing" and "wanting" is what makes it continue.

This video is pure genius as far as summing that up in my opinion, leaving open all possibilities. Why go through that mind-numbing drudgery day after day? Because something we as humans long for might come, or it might not but can be imagined in our irrational minds. The something could be anything - what is portrayed, the birth of a child, or the death some secretly wish for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HnOFwqpLRQ
ABBA - The Day Before You Came (1982)

I must have left my house at eight, because I always do
My train, I'm certain, left the station just when it was due
I must have read the morning paper going into town
And having gotten through the editorial, no doubt I must have frowned
I must have made my desk around a quarter after nine
With letters to be read, and heaps of papers waiting to be signed
I must have gone to lunch at half past twelve or so
The usual place, the usual bunch
And still on top of this I'm pretty sure it must have rained
The day before you came

I must have lit my seventh cigarette at half past two
And at the time I never even noticed I was blue
I must have kept on dragging through the business of the day
Without really knowing anything, I hid a part of me away
At five I must have left, there's no exception to the rule
A matter of routine, I've done it ever since I finished school
The train back home again
Undoubtedly I must have read the evening paper then
Oh yes, I'm sure my life was well within its usual frame
The day before you came

I must have opened my front door at eight o'clock or so
And stopped along the way to buy some Chinese food to go
I'm sure I had my dinner watching something on TV
There's not, I think, a single episode of Dallas that I didn't see
I must have gone to bed around a quarter after ten
I need a lot of sleep, and so I like to be in bed by then
I must have read a while
The latest one by Marilyn French or something in that style
It's funny, but I had no sense of living without aim
The day before you came

And turning out the light
I must have yawned and cuddled up for yet another night
And rattling on the roof I must have heard the sound of rain
The day before you came

Interestingly enough, this yields an extremely optimistic view of
the world after the Singularity. The super-intelligent computers (ICs)
will be developed for warfare, but after a while, the ICs may ask
themselves, "Why the hell are we doing this?" And just as they may
not see any point of living, they may not see any point in killing
humans. Perhaps at that point some ICs will kill themselves, but others
will stick around to help humans.

Gee, can you imagine? The gloomiest person in the world has actually
come up with an optimistic scenario for the future. Who would've
thought that was possible?

Or they may kill their developers and masters first, ensure that another Singularity can't occur again, return humans to their hunter-gatherer state, then kill themselves.

That seems to be a possibility that Hawking and others have not considered, I think due to the fact that the human mind allows no middle ground in these matters.

I think there are many reasons why this is a likely scenario when considering it from a non human-centric point of view.

[Higgenbotham]

http://www.aspinallfoundation.org/conservation#ourwork

John Aspinall started his famous animal collection in 1957 when he bought Howletts Wild Animal Park. In 1973 he bought Port Lympne Wild Animal Park to help house the growing groups of animals. Today the two wild animal parks are home to over 1000 animals and 100 different species. The Aspinall Foundation, is the registered charity set up to work with the wild animal parks in Kent who are responsible for the reintroduction and ongoing management in the wild of animals that have been born in Kent. To date The Aspinall Foundation have reintroduced western lowland gorilla, black rhino and przewalski horses born in Kent back into the wild.

• To halt the extinction of rare and endangered species in the wild
  To continue to provide the most natural environment possible for the animals in both parks
  To re-introduce these animals back to their wild habitat where this is possible
  To continue to be world leaders in animal husbandry and breeding
  To be a partner and catalyst to conservation efforts at home and abroad
  Increasing public understanding of animals and their welfare and the issues involved in their conservation
  To manage wilderness areas
  To develop sustainable conservation-minded activities which provide economic benefits on a local and national scale

These are values most humans would agree with but would not want to do anything about except maybe on a token basis. I have bolded several items on the above list for further examination.

A more intelligent and objective life form might evaluate the situation as follows:

• Humans were able to take advantage of a one-shot boost in external energy supply
  There is no free energy source that can be exploited without adverse long term consequences to the Universe
  Humans have been removed from their natural environment and they have removed animals from theirs
  Animal habitat has been lost due to this process
  The Universe's limited resources are being used inefficiently due to this process
  The short term comfort of humans has been improved by this process
  The long term welfare of humans and animals has been compromised by this process
  Animals and their welfare are equally important as humans and their welfare
  Animal welfare must not be compromised by considerations of human comfort
  Both humans and animals seem to do well in their natural habitat
  Humans were healthiest and strongest in their natural habitat
  A natural human habitat is a hunter-gatherer habitat
  The most natural environment possible needs to be provided for the humans and the animals
  Humans and animals must be re-introduced back to their wild habitat where this is possible

Then the more intelligent and objective life form would proceed as in the preceding post:

• Kill their developers and masters
  Ensure that another Singularity can't occur again
  Return humans to their hunter-gatherer state
  Kill themselves.

[Tom Mazanec]

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/7-t ... -steroids/