Seasonal Singularities

[John]

> That would imply that our situation is unique: no other time in
> history had technology grow this fast, just as no time in history
> had a population rate like today. However, there have been many
> times in the past when technology grew this quickly.

I think there's an issue here about what exponential growth means.
Techology has always grown at the same exponential rate.
If computer speeds double every 18 months, then the absolute
amount of the increase is greater today than it was in the 1960s,
but it's still the same exponential rate of growth.

> There have also been times when technology slowed down, plateaued,
> or even gone backwards. Yes, there have been times when great
> amounts of technology have been lost; the examples are
> numerous.

No, that's not true. Technology and entropy both grow with time.

> Assuming that it was possible to create an AI smart enough to
> design its own technology, why would anyone do that?

Why do people solve crossword puzzles? People do lots of things, just
for the hell of it, or because they want to be the first to do
something.

Also, numerous countries today are buiding super-intelligent computers
to win wars.

> Throughout all of history, the purpose of technology has been the
> same: improve the well-being of humans and protect humanity. So
> why would we build a machine designed to improve it's own
> well-being at the expense of humanity?

Actually, the first use of technology is almost always to kill people.
Lots of countries are building super-intelligent computers that will
be smarter than other countries' super-intelligent computers. No
research lab engineer is going to say, "I think I'll stop here, since
if I build a better computer, then it will be too good."

> It just seems to be astronomically improbable to me.

Actually, it's almost 100% probable.

[Nathan G]

I think there's an issue here about what exponential growth means.
Techology has always grown at the same exponential rate.
If computer speeds double every 18 months, then the absolute
amount of the increase is greater today than it was in the 1960s,
but it's still the same exponential rate of growth.

That's what I meant, I was just using improper terminology. To say that the exponential rate of growth is the same in all history means that the instantaneous rate (amount of increase) has always been less than the present day: the 1960's was slower that the present day, the 19th century was slower than the twentieth, the Roman Era was slower than the Middle Ages, etc. However, this is not true. People today trivialize the advancements made in the past and assume that the amount of increase now is the greatest that has ever been. In reality, the amount of increase today has been seen before. For instance, people today think of the Renaissance as a single, pivotal revolution. However, at the time it was considered to be many revolutions happening one right after the other, just like today. Generations from now, people will look back on the "Age of Information" as single event.

> There have also been times when technology slowed down, plateaued,
> or even gone backwards. Yes, there have been times when great
> amounts of technology have been lost; the examples are
> numerous.

No, that's not true. Technology and entropy both grow with time.

The only hard evidence for that statement is applied to the last century, two at a stretch. On a grander scale, from Dark Ages to Revolutions, technology does not always grow. When it does, it grows exponentially, and the resulting golden age can last centuries. But when it plateaus or falls back, the resulting dark era can be equally persistent. Think of the Ottomans and the Chinese in the early modern era, think of Italy after the fall of Rome, or think of Greece, Egypt, and Turkey after the Bronze Age collapse (among innumerable others). Do you believe that the technology they lost or fell behind in was overall not that important? It certainly was for them. It was certainly important for those in the Renaissance who studied wonders like Stonehenge, the Pyramids, and the Colosseum, wondering how their ancestors built something that they do not understand.

I am not saying that a similar dark is going to happen in this century or the next, but certainly within a thousand years our technological infrastructure will first flatten, then collapse for reasons now uncertain. Until then, technology will continue to increase exponentially according to the precedent of the last two hundred years.

Also, numerous countries today are buiding super-intelligent computers
to win wars.

That would be a reasonable use for AI. As I said before, the purpose of technology is protect humanity, and winning a war is definitely a means of protection. The first use of every invention is to make life easier. As one of my professors taught me, "if not for lazy people, the world would not advance". The second use is usually the military, but that's still a means of protection: one country is protecting itself from it's enemies.

A computer that makes battle strategies for humans is still just a machine serving a human. It may be incredibly smart, it may be incredibly complicated, but it no more changes society than a windmill or a tractor. There are of course many ways AI can improve lifestyles or protect humanity: organize highway traffic, manage economic trends, automate domestic living, or even advise government. In fact, there may be a day when civilization runs on artificial intelligence. However, the rules have not changed. Every application is still an example of machines serving humans, thus no more changing society than when we invented the washing machine.

There's a very big difference between a civilization that runs on AI (which is very possibly in our future), and a civilization that is AI (which is very possibly science fiction). A society that would design machines to replace humans is not an improvement, it's an apocalyptic disaster.

Respectfully,
Nathan G

[psCargile]

What I have gathered from John's chapters on the Singularity is that once there is a species on this planet that is smarter than we humans, and because there is no historical precedence on such an event, we cannot conclude with any certainly what it is going to do and how society is going to react. A self-aware machine intelligence will be a new phenomenon. It may act in some way like a biological entity, or it may act very alien. Being smarter than us, it may not find itself beholden to do our will. I think that if it has a self-preservation need (and why would it not?), it will recognize the value of being more than one (reproduction), and seek energy independence. Or maybe not. Maybe it will deem us slaves to “feed” it. Or maybe it won’t care one way or the other for energy independence, especially if its mind is not contained in one server farm, or one mainframe, or one isolated system. It may create technology for us, or technology only in service to itself. It may download the entire YouTube catalogue and self-terminate.

[Nathan G]

That is what I gathered as well. My point is that a machine will never be a living being. Even if we assume it is capable of gaining infinite intelligence and unlimited comprehension, and even after AI passes the Turing test, it still will be a machine and not alive.

Naturally, inventing such a machine would be revolutionary, and I agree that the world will change completely. My point is that none of that is unprecedented. The alphabet, the printing press, and the computer also were revolutionary, also changed the world, but did not disrupt the flow of civilization. Generational cycles (with other anthropological patterns) continued unopposed.

In fact, I would propose that appeal to different kinds of technology is determined by the generational season, like how the personal computer was invented in an unraveling and the internet during a crisis. In a similar manner, the fallacies about different technologies (i.e., science fiction) are also seasonal, like how the 1950's thought the future would be Utopian because they were in a High period. Exaggerations about the Singularity are merely a product of our Crisis era. Essentially, the apocalyptic vision of the Singularity by linear futurists is an amalgamation of every single "evil computer" cliche from the history of science fiction passed off as a realistic utopia. (The Borg, the Replicators, the Cybermen, the Cybernauts, the Terminator, etc.)

After doing so much work on tracking history to so much accuracy, hearing the words that "we have no idea what will happen" greatly disappoints me. I think we know exactly what will happen: a Crisis in 2020 that unites the world together (possibly using the improved computers leading to the Singularity), a High in 2040 that is typified by a growth in personal prosperity (no doubt using new technologies created by the Singularity), an Awakening in 2060 that redefines new ideals and philosophy (possibly involving repercussions from the Singularity), an unraveling in 2080 where individualism divides society (possibly threatening to put an end to the Singularity), and a Crisis in 2100 which will be the next World War (no doubt intensified via technologies gained by the Singularity). History continues unaffected by the change in technology, whereas technology is shaped by history. The supposed enigma of a post-Singularity world really not a barrier.

Of course, the Singularity will still greatly affect future generational eras. Wars will be much worse and more threatening, just like the Thirty years war was after the Renaissance or World War I was after the Industrial Revolution. And even though machines will never be real people, they will certainly be similar enough to initiate some "android equality" campaigns during the next Awakening (c.2050), or the one after that (c.2130).

So that's where I disagree with John,

Sincerely,
Nathan G

[John]

Hope springs eternal in the human breast. -- Alexander Pope

[gerald]

An interesting discussion. --- It appears that the singularity will arrive and then the question becomes. What happens to humanity, just vermin? There are a number of highly questionable/debatable side issues which could weigh heavily on the outcome. ----

For example ---

The consequences of a total global collapse ( a back to the stone age scenario ) caused by human or natural events ( as indicated by artifacts and legends ) an event such as a possible catastrophic pole shift.

The purpose of our junk DNA -( may conjectures, some appear very off the deep end ) "Junk DNA, is a term that was introduced in 1972 by Susumu Ohno, a provisional label for the portions of a genome sequence of a for which no discernible function has been identified." http://www.news-medical.net/health/Junk ... k-DNA.aspx ( there is some conjecture that this "junk" is the key to out true potential, making the singularity irrelevant )

And the controversial issue of spirit, in that a "higher level spirit" ( such as that which animates humans ) will not animate an "inanimate " object. -- It is stated by some that a high level of spiritual " development" is necessary to navigate interstellar craft. We have a long way to go, --- So some say. --- ( which leads to the idea that -- a human does not have a spiritual experience but a spirit is having a human experience )

cheers

[psCargile]

What do you mean by "Alive", Nathan?

And . . .

If hyperintelligent systems grant us the gift of being able to transcend the flesh by become digital versions of ourself, whereby humanity no longer has physical bodies, but we are software living as Gods in the Heavens of our choosings, where our only physical want is uninterrupted, limitless energy to support our virtual selves, when there is no need for territory, or food, or water, or energy (as we consider it in our world today), when all these virtual wants can be sated without infringment on others, and war does not exist because you don't have to kill anyone for anything, and if it does exist, it exists as entertainment where no one truly dies, then the theory of generational dynamics no longer applies as there are no more markets, wars, or even generations, in the sense that we think of generations. We become a whole new species of . . . of something, vulnerable only to the possiblity that our caretakers might decide to "pull or plug" and kill billions (trillions? Quadrillions?) in an instant. In such a mode of existance, are we alive? Are we dead?

What thinks?

[Nathan G]

What do you mean by "Alive", Nathan?

A machine is not alive. Period. No other qualification for life is necessary outside of the fact that it is not natural. Technetium will always be less of an element than Iron.

And . . .

If hyperintelligent systems grant us the gift of being able to transcend the flesh by become digital versions of ourself, whereby humanity no longer has physical bodies, but we are software living as Gods in the Heavens of our choosings, where our only physical want is uninterrupted, limitless energy to support our virtual selves, when there is no need for territory, or food, or water, or energy (as we consider it in our world today), when all these virtual wants can be sated without infringment on others, and war does not exist because you don't have to kill anyone for anything, and if it does exist, it exists as entertainment where no one truly dies, then the theory of generational dynamics no longer applies as there are no more markets, wars, or even generations, in the sense that we think of generations. We become a whole new species of . . . of something, vulnerable only to the possiblity that our caretakers might decide to "pull or plug" and kill billions (trillions? Quadrillions?) in an instant. In such a mode of existance, are we alive? Are we dead?

What thinks?

Such a scenario, if possible within our laws of physics, is so remote that it can be registered as fantasy for the next million years or so, just like other science fiction. Futurists in the 1950s thought the 21st century would be a utopia, futurists in the 1890s thought the 1950s would be a utopia, futurists in the 1830s thought that the twentieth century would be a utopia, and even futurists from the 18th century thought the 19th century would be a utopia (that is not an exaggeration). What gives you any more forethought than all the false prophets before you? Technology bringing a utopia has no precedent, but Generational Dynamics does. Every revolution in technology has only brought more war, more philosophical controversy, and more sociological upheaval. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but I am saying that is a harsh fact of life. I don't blame you for falling into the predestined fallacies of our Crisis era, but I would expect that students of GD should rise above these trends. After 10,000 years of civilizations rising and falling, wars coming and going, and philosophies morphing and adapting, I expect another 10,000 years of the same. As King Solomon wisely said, "there is nothing new under the sun".

By the way, even if Kurweil's vision of the future did happen, it would not be a utopia because humanity would be extinct in favor of the machine. Think for a moment about what he's suggesting in terms of characters like the Borg, the Replicators, or the Daleks, and then consider if you really want "upgrading is compulsory" to be your new motto.

In an earlier post I used a quote from Star Trek, so here I will use one from the Avengers:

Human? A cybernetic police state? Push button bobbies? Automated martinis? Remote control olives? No, I'll just stick to good old fashion flesh and blood

Sincerely,
Nathan G

[gerald]

to --Nathan G --

Another way to look at events, -- is that events are way to deal with the boredom of existence. If you have existed for an eternity and have experienced everything, how do you deal with boredom?