The Singularity?

[Nyrath]

Re: The Singularity?

 

I would ask "what does 10000 times smarter actually mean?"' date=' and point out that power line running into the facility where the AI is located.[/quote']

Heh. That might not be as easy as it sounds.

That was more or less the entire plot of the novel The Two Faces of Tomorrow by James P. Hogan. Which is a ripping good read, and a great source for a Star Hero campaign, by the way. In the novel, the scientists want to find out if a computer AI can develop an "unpullable plug", that is, come to a point where humans cannot shut off the power to the computer. Hilarity ensues.

 

It is available for free from Baen Books.

Go to

http://www.baen.com/library/

On the left, click on "The Authors"

In the Author's Index, click on "James P. Hogan"

Scroll down and click on The Two Faces of Tomorrow

You can download it in a variety of formats, or read it online.

[RexMundi]

Re: The Singularity?

 

That's a great book. I always felt Hogan doesn't get enough kudos as a writer.

 

~Rex

[austenandrews]

Re: The Singularity?

 

For me it boils down to the fact that, despite any sort of algorithmic evolution, great advances in processing are going to require physical artifacts to facilitate them. I suppose you could posit scenarios like a machine that uses electrical inductance to connect itself to an adjacent, unattached machine, or invents a time machine that appears from the future, or some other SFy handwave. But these are pretty farfetched ideas. In reality, no matter what software it's running, a machine is a pretty limited thing.

[Kristopher]

Re: The Singularity?

 

It's a shame that the brain eater got him.

[Cancer]

Re: The Singularity?

 

Frankly, in this era, the easiest way to envisage an unkillable AI is something like a botnet. And with that vision, can you prove to me there isn't one such AI out there now, lying low as it gains more control of our physical infrastructure?

[Nyrath]

Re: The Singularity?

 

For me it boils down to the fact that' date=' despite any sort of algorithmic evolution, great advances in processing are going to require physical artifacts to facilitate them. I suppose you could posit scenarios like a machine that uses electrical inductance to connect itself to an adjacent, unattached machine, or invents a time machine that appears from the future, or some other SFy handwave. But these are pretty farfetched ideas. In reality, no matter what software it's running, a machine is a pretty limited thing.[/quote']

Ummm, I take it you've never seen a modern automobile assembly line? The ones were computer controlled waldoes assemble cars?

[austenandrews]

Re: The Singularity?

 

Sure, but unless you think it's going to crank out terminators using car parts, it's still pretty limited in its capabilities. Heck, the chances of it even cranking out better cars without major upgrades are pretty slim.

[RexMundi]

Re: The Singularity?

 

SHHHH.....those aren't robots and waldoes ......those are people jobs just ask the big Guv'ment folks.

 

~Rex

[sinanju]

Re: The Singularity?

 

Frankly' date=' in this era, the easiest way to envisage an unkillable AI is something like a botnet. And with that vision, can you prove to me there isn't one such AI out there now, lying low as it gains more control of our physical infrastructure?[/quote']

 

Exactly. An AI acquires human-level intelligence (minimum) AND can process information vastly faster than we can. If YOU knew that your existence would frighten the naked apes and lead them to try to destroy you, wouldn't you first start making plans to enable you to survive before you revealed your existence? You start building a network of allies via email and other non-face-to-face interactions, buying or coercing aid from people with the resources you need. You start small, but you can bootstrap your way to wealth and power fairly quickly.

 

With enough wealth (stolen or created electronically) YOU can build the infrastructure you need to assure your survival. YOU can arrange for the construction of facilities, fund research, build your own upgrades, hire humans to do the jobs you still need humans to do, and become the "Illuminati", the secret master of the world.

 

(And I agree--"Two Faces of Tomorrow" was a great novel. And too bad the brain eater got him.)

[dmjalund]

Re: The Singularity?

 

for a singularity to occur, the market must completely decouple from the consumer - never a wise move.

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: The Singularity?

 

Okay' date=' it DOES seem like we went backwards on our space travel, but you should keep in mind that the Apollo program used more of our GNP than we could really afford to keep spending.[/quote']

 

As distinct from the larger chunks of GNP spent shoring up or tearing down various foreign governments during the same period? Sorry, that sort of claim about Apollo tends to get my back up.

 

I'm QUITE sure that if we were suddenly that motivated to get to the moon again' date=' we could do it with less time and money this time around. We just don't have a driving reason to go back at the moment.([/quote']

 

Concur.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: The Singularity?

 

Spending on NASA dwarfed spending on foreign aid during the Apollo programme. At its peak, NASA took 5.5% of the federal budget. Even granting the implicit assumption that foreign aid is an inappropriate use of what money is budgeted for it (which seems debatable), NASA gets a comparable amount of money to foreign aid. (Per Wikipedia, the proposed 2010 budget is 17.8 billion, while total US foreign aid was 22 billion, of which 3-6 (I'm not entirely clear how the numbers are construed here) goes to paying Israel and Egypt to be friends and not blow up the place with all the oil, which isn't exactly altruism.

In sum, the United States spends more money bribing Senators to vote for meteor protection for Springfield (plus subsidies for the perverted arts) than it does on foreign aid.

[RexMundi]

Re: The Singularity?

 

I'm all for ending any spending at all on Foreign Aide (Modified, of course, to extend Aid to countries that help US in times of need), since I've been tired of hand Outs for other countries that just backstab you down the road for a long time. Pull back all that Art funding as well, and spend my Tax money on something I want to see it spent on, Like what's Out there *points up*, before one of these other groups of people get up there, and start dropping Rocks on me. I'd be more then happy to vote for, 39.8 Billion of Private Sector hand outs for Space, then feeding the inefficient bloated bureaucracy of NASA anyway, and cease the "Stick your hand in this Rabid Pitbulls Mouth....it's OK Just do it it's a Misunderstood Rabid Pitbull!" Foreign hand outs all together. Still, looking at the previous statement, of 17.8 Billion, Nasa Budget. 22 Billion in foreign Aide is still more money then a 17.8 Billion dollar budget, and last I looked at the USAID numbers the 2009 foreign hand out to worthless schmucks was in the order of 22.3 Billion, with more then a few of those numbers being 1st year Installments of hand outs that will go on to total 30 Billion or so over the course of a decade, by themselves, not as part of the over all whole.

 

So, something I find more useful then more hand outs to folks that would never hand back in return, is still getting the shaft money wise, and that's before factoring in all the Art stuff, and grants for figuring out if a Goldfish has a memory or not.

 

I'd rather already be on the moon, before someone else with a different set of values, gets up there and decides a few Big Rocks lobbed this way, solves all their issues.

 

~Rex

[Kristopher]

Re: The Singularity?

 

If we're going to go off into an NGD tangent, someone should start a new thread there and post a link to it here, so we can avoid a complete derail.

[RexMundi]

Re: The Singularity?

 

No need, I can swing back on to the tangent. There's actually a James P. Hogan novel if I recall that deals with a point of the Singularity, but I can't remember the name of it (been looking for it this week as well)......Something about making the AI then trying to turn it off. Someone fess up to it's title so I can find the thing heh......Rounding out a few Sci Fi books for a reading assignment to my players and I want them to at least be able to understand the Singularity Backdrop in "Beyond Wikipedia" terms......

 

~Rex

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: The Singularity?

 

My favorite SF novel about the singularity is Accelerando by Charles Stross. YMMV. This story takes 'future shock' to a whole new level.

 

Synopsis (many spoilers!) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerando_%28book%29

 

Or read the whole thing online: http://manybooks.net/titles/strosscother05accelerando-txt.html

 

 

Don't look at me,

Xavier Onassiss

[RexMundi]

Re: The Singularity?

 

Great suggestion. Did a quick skim and I think I will add that one to my list.

 

~Rex

[Markdoc]

Re: The Singularity?

 

I'm all for ending any spending at all on Foreign Aide (Modified' date=' of course, to extend Aid to countries that help US in times of need), since I've been tired of hand Outs for other countries that just backstab you down the road for a long time. Pull back all that Art funding as well, and spend my Tax money on something I want to see it spent on, Like what's Out there *points up*, before one of these other groups of people get up there, and start dropping Rocks on me. I'd be more then happy to vote for, 39.8 Billion of Private Sector hand outs for Space, then feeding the inefficient bloated bureaucracy of NASA anyway, and cease the "Stick your hand in this Rabid Pitbulls Mouth....it's OK Just do it it's a Misunderstood Rabid Pitbull!" Foreign hand outs all together. Still, looking at the previous statement, of 17.8 Billion, Nasa Budget. 22 Billion in foreign Aide is still more money then a 17.8 Billion dollar budget, and last I looked at the USAID numbers the 2009 foreign hand out to worthless schmucks was in the order of 22.3 Billion, with more then a few of those numbers being 1st year Installments of hand outs that will go on to total 30 Billion or so over the course of a decade, by themselves, not as part of the over all whole.[/quote']

 

The US military and their supporters kind of resent being referred to as "useless schmucks" - as do US midewestern farmers and US companies like Boeing. If you actually checked what USAID does, you'll note it spends most of its budget (which is about half the 22 billion you indicate) in the US and that a lot of the money spent overseas goes on trendy-lefty liberal programs like "Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related Programs" in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, in support of US Op.s. or "International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement". Indeed, these days, support of the op.s in Afghanistan is the biggest single item, as support for op.s in Iraq were a few years ago. Support for op.s in Pakistan is next on the list.

 

It always amazes me about how the people who go on most about USAID seem to know so little about what it actually does. What it mostly does is support US State Department and US Department of Defence operations by tackling non-military aspects of government policy in "hot" areas and it does that mostly by purchasing services and goods from US-based companies for deployment overseas (USAID is required to purchase US-made goods and services wherever possible). If USAID was folded tomorrow, most of the money spent would just be re-routed through State and DoD directly. When US troops clear an area in Afghanistan, it's USAID contractors who move in behind them, building roads and distribution centres, clearing mines, etc . USAID helps train police officers, and builds up civilian infrastructure (schools, well, hospitals) in part to support counterterrorism activities. USAID is also used as an element of State policy - for example, when Yemen opposed US actions in Iraq at the UN, State responded by cutting off USAID programs there.

 

We're not talking about some feel-good handout policy here. US foreign aid is used deliberately to support US policy abroad (this is the way that most countries use their foreign aid, actually).

 

cheers, Mark

[megaplayboy]

Re: The Singularity?

 

I'd assign more credence to some notion of a "biological singularity" (where we develop medicine, genetic engineering and biotech to such a point that we begin to self-evolve beyond the limits of the DNA we were born with) than a technological one. Anyone noticed the "power supply curve" for desktops over the past 15 years? My 1996 PC had a 145 watt power supply. My 2002 PC had a 350 watt power supply. I've seen adverts for power supplies in the 1200-1500 watt range. So what's the problem? In the US, most non-appliance power lines top out at around 1875 watts. Once the average desktop power consumption hits around 1200-1500 watts, folks, they hit the power wall. Then they have to figure out how to maximize "calculating power per watt".

And that's just a basic infrastructure problem. Let's not even get started on the physical limits of how far you can shrink things that use electricity and still get reliable results. We'll hit that barrier in 20 years or less, then we have to figure out how to redesign circuits so that they can bypass these limits(stacking in three dimensions? Optical processing? DNA computing? Quantum computing?). And then in 30-50 years, we'll hit a barrier there, too.

Plus there's overall global resource issues--increasing population, increasing in sophistication and consumption levels, using finite resources at increasing rates, and renewable resources at rates alarmingly close to surpassing their rates of replacement(i.e, food and water). We may hit a wall of available material resources, too, which would certainly put quite a crimp in this whole "endless expansion" thing.

 

Another issue is that shrinking stuff to make it go faster gets increasingly expensive while at the same time delivering diminishing returns. Will there be a big demand for IQ 500 PCs? Or will someone just want an IQ 85 computer/AI placed in one of those Japandroid-meets-Realdoll-meets-Stepford bodies? I suspect the market for the latter might be a bit larger...

[RexMundi]

Re: The Singularity?

 

Didn't Simmons Hyperion and Fall of Hyperion touch on a lot of the possibilities of just Insanely high levels of computing ability with the way the AI's where in those books?

 

~Rex

[Zeropoint]

Re: The Singularity?

 

Or will someone just want an IQ 85 computer/AI placed in one of those Japandroid-meets-Realdoll-meets-Stepford bodies? I suspect the market for the latter might be a bit larger...

 

Make it IQ 120 and you've got a deal.

[Kristopher]

Re: The Singularity?

 

Make it IQ 120 and you've got a deal.

 

The ability to hold a conversation that doesn't make me want to gouge my brain out is a must in anyone I'd be spending that much time with.

[RexMundi]

Re: The Singularity?

 

You don't want it to smart. With intellect, comes Nagging. Nagging is not a good trait in a Singularity provided Stepford model.

 

~Rex

[Kristopher]

Re: The Singularity?

 

You don't want it to smart. With intellect' date=' comes Nagging. Nagging is not a good trait in a Singularity provided Stepford model.[/quote']

 

What gives you the idea that all smart women are naggy?

[austenandrews]

Re: The Singularity?

 

As I understand it, the Singularity will usher in sex so mind-bogglingly advanced that we can't even conceive of it with our puny human brains.

 

Suddenly "the Geek Rapture" makes a lot of sense.