The singularity (mixed emotions)

Post Reply New Topic

What does anybody on WrongPlanet think about the technological Singularity or related topics?

How does it make you feel about the day where intelligence explodes and maybe computers are even smarter-than-human?
I know some experts feel skeptical about the idea, but is this the only existing scenario out there? What are the other (positive) scenarios for the singularity?

I have mixed emotions about the opinion that one day, we will see the singularity... On one hand, it seems like it would have a lot of opportunities for all of us. But on the other hand, I'm just a guy who longs for a simpler past, sunshine, all that stuff.

So what do you think here?

ERROR CODE == 0x4CB2F
INQUIRY DOES NOT PARSE.
PLEASE RESTATE.

I find the idea of a technological singularity extremely de-motivating for my personal creative life.
In a world where computers are more in tune with our own aesthetic sensibilities than we are ourselves,
what is the need for us to further artistic pursuits? All the paintings I make will be obsolete garbage.
Don't get me wrong -
The consumer market and entertainment industry already relegate my paintings as obsolete garbage.
It would be arrogant of me to think my works would be savored by the time the singularity comes.
But it does mean that of all the people I will influence artistically in my lifetime who may outlive me,
all their work will be make obsolete by the technological singularity too.
Computer simulations could produce innumerable possible paintings that someone like me might
produce under more optimal variables.

I figure the arts will be among the last things to fall to the domain of computational automation,
because they rely so much on intuition and psychology: parameters tricky to lay down.
However, the idea behind a technological singularity granting essentially limitless computational power
changes the playing field. With such unimaginable power, you could construct working models of the human
brain that could constantly adjust and refine themselves until the imitation mimicked the result so well.
Suffice it to say, with infinite computational power, one can pass a Turing test, and then go on to greater things.

Suppose alternately that artistic supremacy comes from augmented human intelligence,
thru modification of the human genome, cyborg symbiosis, more advanced drugs,
or some combination thereof. Such beings would still make the whole of our entertainment
industry today look like neanderthal wall scribblings by comparison.

Sometimes these vague notions sap the strength from my drawing hand.
Fear is not so much the word for it - more of an awestruck enthusiasm.

I'm neither a computer scientist nor a neuroscientist, but that's my two cent portentious rant anyways.

Despite my love of computers, I for one am actually quite worried about the possibility of the singularity. I like my computers to be obedient slaves that I control, not sentient machines that try to control me!

Of course, now that I've posted this, it's probably been stored in a bunch of online archives, and when computers do gain sentience and start judging humanity, I'll probably show up on their naughty list. In other words, I'm screwed.

Last edited by mr_bigmouth_502 on 13 Feb 2014, 3:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

The "Singularity" is nonsense on stilts.

OK. Let's just pray that all this singularity business ends up as an impossibility.

I don't think we will see the singularity during our lifetime. There is no guarantee that the Moore Law will continue for the decades to come, (In true there may be less that ten years left.) and even if we get enough calculation power, programming a intelligent computer may prove very difficult.

The Singularity as often discussed may not be a realistic prospect. Although increasing computational power and algorithmic sophistication are likely to have a profound impact on society, it will likely be in ways we can't predict.

My reason for questioning the popular concept is the simple fact that human commerce is driven by human needs and desires. A situation in which machines replace humans makes no sense because the machines, although capable of astounding cognition, have no stake in the economy. Human society will transform in mind-boggling ways but will continue.

Moore's Law will likely to continue for quite some time. The less than 10 years argument is based primarily on silicon and heat dissipation limitations, as well as an assumption that the binary system is the only option. There are quite a few different research studies across the globe that are looking into alternatives for all of these limitations. I think that quantum computing is currently the front-runner for radically changing the world of computer technology. There have already been several prototypes built, and commercially available lines that use quantum computing in a limited capacity are available already (if you have a large government sized budget). If you are interested, D-Wave Systems is the current leader.

Computers long ago surpassed humans in processing speed, memory, computational ability. Greater gains in those won't bring computers any closer to human intelligence because computers are not alive. Being not alive, they lack intentionality. I don't think anything remotely like human (or any animal) intelligence is possible without intentionality. Computers will be able to juggle increasingly gigantic amounts of data in increasingly complex ways. But the actual motivation to do so, and what should be accomplished by doing so, can only be done with living intelligence. Being alive provides the motivation.

There is more to intelligence than just spotting patterns and juggling data. Without living intentionality the computer can only do what humans decide it will do. It can't "want" to do things on its own and without that, it can't come anywhere near human (or any animal) intelligence. It can never be more than a tool.