John wrote:
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.
John wrote:Nathan G wrote:
> 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.
John wrote: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