E, es -> who needs your consciousness in the cyberspace? @@@ If the Matrioska Brain decided to generate 'my' ideas it would have to generate 'me' as well @@@ How can you be so incredibly noncritical, especially with regard to the contradictions in what you accept as truth? "Matrioska Brain" is fool's idea of progress. Say it consists of a millon subbrains. Istead, just A SINGLE subbrain has the same power in a less than 20 years, by Moore law. Why make the 999999 of others? Consider although, that the "idea" does not mean you particular thought of something. Idea is like a Notion, it has meaning beyond the actual thought, for example an Idea of Breakfest. Some of your Ideas certainly of no use to SAI, so they will not be generated.. e:S Maryfran, I think, I will give it a shot. God is a supreme being. It is inevitably a mystical Supreme Being, otherwize we could invent a mystical being more 'Supreme' than God is. The most importent about God is WHAT it is being claimed to command and/or communicate, in particular through holy scriptures, etc. - created by pretty wize humans, who has choosen to remain anonymous and assign their words to God. The faith's main components is faith in the high validity and importence of the commands attributed to God. Which explains that the worth of a faith depends on the quality of ideas and commands that are conveyed though scriptures. The mythtic form that is used to communicate ideas by most of religions, has shown to be efficient in structuring of human life and conducive to helping children to immerse into complex world we live in. It was not that hard, after all:) ES @@@ WE build A.I. or perish @@@ The parallel with building of atomic bomb is very strong. Exists a critical mass 1 of intelligence, at which it becomes self sustaining. Above that mass there is critical mass 2, where it becomes self-expanding quickly producing huge amounts of knowlege. Beware this knowlege being used against you. es Language is a way to name things and convey relations, nothing more nothing less. e:))s C++ is the best, on the low level. But AI requires a number of languges, corresponding to the levels, per domain, of descriptions that are used. And the Natural Language, of course, like English! e:))S To understand new info, is to interpret it,and to include proper summary of it as a part of your active knowlege. To understand a natural phenomenon, usually means to acqiure knowlege of its components/forces, in a framework of causes and consequenses, or/and in framework of other dependencies - may be equations. es @@ Let's be scientific @@ What a bogus idea. Science is in a disarray, so we should be too? The reality is, that no society has survivid without religion yet. Antitheists suggest a gamble, which apparently can end up only in annihilation of humanity, whether one calls it posthumanism of not. Get to your senses. eS Our power of prediction is and always be limited. As someone said, I will take the bridge when I get there, or something like that. There is plenty of bridges to take before conflict between human and robotic culture. They might enchance each other gainfully. I would see this as a good goal to persue. The future is in our hands, it is not that we have only passively predict what will anyway inevitably happen. eS Only good use for the idea, is to use it to get rid of freaks among us who might go along with that idiocy. Why did not you pay attention to the most importent point that I've sort of made about 'uploading', that a Simulation is SOMETHING to those who observe it, but NOTHING to the one who is simulated? Also, unless you simulate the whole world, the simulationit of self will stop, exectly the same way you brain will stop without sensual input. e:S @@@ Your everyday experience of 'reality' is a model, a simulation, created by the brain based on inputs it receives from the senses @@@ This is an incorrect statement. The models that are created by brain, and the simulations that it runs, are only tools of decision making. Perceptions and actions are the real things of this world. They are the basic 'everyday experience', although the thinking makes an extra level of it. e:S @@@ Where do you think those perceptions come from? @@@ Perceptions are interactions of the body and the external to it world. @@@ A perception fairy that's on contract to bless only biological brains? @@@ Not necessary biological, but some kind of body able to perceive. @@@ It's all information processes, regardless of where the information is contained. @@@ The above statement betrayz your absolute ignorance in information and information processing. @@@ Singularity that would arise on any planet whose technology-creating species achieves AI @@@ Any "paradigm change" might be considered "singularity". The AI arrival is an another "paradigm change". Its effects will exhaust itself, probably pretty fast. Even before that, the lack of motivation might stop the AI progress. For example, why bother if you have everything you want? If nobody is competing with you for anything? /after you have get rid of, or made pets, of those annoying people/ Should we care? Conflict between humans and robots might be inevitable, but this would mean that we can not prevent it too. So, must we try to prevent AI from arrival, or must we work hard to create it? Since iniially AI will bring enormous benefits, should we forfeit those benefits in order to prevent future drawbacks? I guess, that those future drawbacks will be a blessing compared to AI-less malaize that we face. |eS> There is free will. That you do not know proof of it, does not change the fact a iota. Even if you shall never get it, it will not change the fact a single bit. Moreover, your ability to avoid the reality that way, shall serve others as an example of free will. eS e:S @@@ The brain is quite capable of providing full-immersion virtual reality @@@ Which is not REALLY a REALITY. Unless you do not see its secondary role, and you can not distinguish the dreams from the reality! No matter how creative and even smart you are, your dreams are PART of reality, but not the reality as a whole. Thry to be a little more honest with yourself, and you will come around to the truth :) ES @@@ 'in the future we could take a map of the brain, put it in a map of a body and feed signals that mimic its neurological outputs. Its outputs could be read and routed to the model body in the model universe with model physical laws, thereby closing the loop.' @@@ Nobody will do such pointless crap, even if for the sake of argument we would assume that it is possible. I wonder what kind of education you did receive. Apparently, neither Physics nor Math were included. What you consider to be impossible, that I have solved the problems, which others could not have solved - is a simple fact. Get used to things like that. e:)s @@@ coherent argument that demonstrates where the flaw in my thinking lies. @@@ The flaw of your thinking is that you do not care about the thinking being consistent with reality. This way you can produce and/or accept things that only seem to be possible somehow by itself, and for which you might be able to find support among the similar idle speculators. eS <<>> So? So what? Human being is NOT a mind. Mind is just a tool for controlling body. That it has developed an ability to function on itself, does not change that. If you want to emulate some sort of 'body', and attach an artificial mind to it, the mind can see the emulation in two ways: it can be fooled into opinion that it is dealing with some sort 'reality', of it will recognize its input as a simulation. What you suggest, is that mind is the individual. Instead it is "a body with mind", the body being basis of it. Body and environment provide the inputs and execute the requests of output. eS @@@ It is commonly accepted by philosophers that no amount of reasoning can ever completely rule out the hypothesis that you and I are not, in fact, exactly that / fooled by imitation imitations/ @@@ Anyone who accepts that, has perfectly deranged view of reasoning for ones. Which is what one of pseudo philosophy is - they are not philosophers. They are Philonitwits. @@@ brain, if it receives is appropriate inputs from a machine that can model its 5 senses... @@@ That machine whould have to model the Body and the World, to produce "appropriate inputs". Which is an impossibility, since the World includes at least one machine like that, itself, - and self-modeling can not ever be perfect. What is the speed of imitation that you think of? Will the 100 times faster machine, run imitation 100 times faster? e:S @@@'What is the speed of imitation that you think of? Will the 100 times faster machine, run imitation 100 times faster?' I have insufficient data for a meaningful answer. @@@ When has that had stopped you from answering? :) @@@ 'an impossibility, since the World includes at least one machine like that, itself, - and self-modeling can not ever be perfect.' Not so. The brain already demonstrates the capacity to model a body interacting with a suitably dynamic environment. There is no reason to suppose that the phenomona of dreaming/ modelling the world (which are not that different, really) cannot be understood and built into suitable platforms that can run functionally-equivilent models of inhabited environments. @@@ There is no reason? Really? Here your logic is fatally flawed. I am not talking even about the precise physical model of the world: on the plain 'computer science' level, it is demonstrably impossible. The Imagination is working by combining images from memory, with some primitive modelling. This has a random component to it - which is why dreams do not have the limitations that the reality has. But they are limited to combining of the seen before. You also have not address the third question yet: Why would any computer run simulation of a human, what benefit it is going to expect from doing that? e;S @@@ "Why would any computer run simulation of a human, what benefit it is going to expect from doing that?" I have answered the last question many times @@@ I doubt you did. Anyway, could you summarize your answer to this question, keeping up to the point? Remember, even if simulation would be very easy task, that does not answer the question of motivations/benefits. eS @@@ Perhaps post-singularity minds will similarly to humans wonder @@@ Well, the curosity and sentamentality can take you only so far. Their focus changes inevitably, as there is infinitely more of their versions than of the reality based versions. Why not emulate the previous generations of robots, for example. I congratulate you of coming up with this line of thought, but this leaves human simulation as very unlikely option of cadvanced enoug omputer. Not something that might inspire the uploading rush :) es Ben, Should not we have expected to see the berry geological source by now, considering how widespread berries are - which implies that that source is very powerful? I can think only of biology, as a thing able to produce multitudes without visible source. Can you? es C, I suspect that pretty soon those 'geniuses' will be exposed as fraud that they really are. Uploading, Quantum Computers and Cryptography, Nanobots, Computing Universe - are all grand swindles and it is the high time to acknowlege that. ES Ben, How would your dustball theory would explain difference between Gusev and Meridiany, as only Meridiany has fresh spherules. Dust must be more or less the same, winds too. Also, you suggest that after being formed on the surface, the spherules've get buried and then uncovered again for us to see. All of them buried? Must not some have remained on the surface too? es SQBKSP streltso1 kak@ee.lsu.edu kak@ee.lsu.edu noah.shachtman@gmail.com 2007-03-27-2P228284068EFFAS6MP2273L7M1-fossil.jpg L642 R625 d68 Camera: PANCAM nl: 642 nr: 625 dim: 68 object distance: 7.27 m, one-pixel error: 0.025 m, object dimension: 13.9 cm The brain cell colonies can probably be grown the way that liver or skin can be grown without a body. This would mean that we can create as large thinking surface as we want, and integrate it into a digital computing system. That would be a way to overcome limitations of the biological and of the digital systems, and have Super AI in a snap! e:S Chris, Surely, it is not necessary if/when we will be able to surpass each and every of the mind capabilities in hardware. It guarantees more power then human mind, without waiting for that superhardware/supersoftware. eS @@@processes that respond to genetic commands@@@ Not at all. The neurones are built according to genetics. They operate according to their architecture and the signals of input. We need currently a whole computer to emulate just one neuron, in my opinion. es By chance, we have discovered the fallacy of human brain estimate. As neuron>computer, we need more than 10^26 op/sec, not 10^16. It is 10^10 times more, and adds 30 years by Moore law. Which means that computers will never reach human mind abilities due to their speed only. We need supply them with faster algorithms than biological computers/brains/ use! ES E, Listen, you where laughing about my estimate of the brain. Here are the actual data: recently EU team using a supercompter 22 teraflop (22* 10^12) with 6800 processors, was able to modell 6800 or so neurones. http://www.dancewithshadows.com/tech/ibm-blue-brain-project.asp It gives about 3* 10^9 flop/sec per neuron. Brain has 10^12 neurons. It means that the whole brain processing power is at least 3* 10^21 flop/sec The fastest supercomputer has now 300 teraflops/sec =3* 10^14 It is 10^7 times less than brain. If you believe that Moore law will hold for another 20 years, the fastest supercomputer will become AS FAST as human brain. That is all, that can be reasonably expected speedwise! ES What I am saying, is that current assertions about computers matching and SOON overcoming brain RAW processing power, are likely to be false. Over the long run, however, it is likely to happen - but the advantage of the computers will be /relatively/ modest. The way computers WILL become superior to the human mind in a lot of areas pretty soon, is by using superior algorithms - which geniuses/nitwits that you worship do not understand at all. ES I've thought you come to agree with me, that the RAW brain speed is and will remain for a long time superior to the RAW computer speed. This must lay uploading to rest, since you can not put faster system into a slower system. e:S Ben, "size is attributed to the amount of dust that can accrete before the weight causes them to fall" This is exactly what I've had in mind. The low density of the martian atmosphere makes extremely small drops to fall fast. Much smaller ones than 1 mm in diameter. es @@@ no one is going to force you to upload your brain @@@ Really? "you" would not even be given a chance to be born in body fashion, or even to be created as fetus, if the nasi phantasy would happen. It is good that Nature takes care of the idiotic ideas like uploading, nano, QC, etc, making their substantiation impossible. e:S http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0307/0307235v1.pdf Muynck @@@ exponential rise in raw calculating power means we can be somewhat wasteful @@@ OK, let us try. To sort n records using buble sort, will require ~ n * n comparisons To sort n records using quick sort, will require ~ n * log(n) comparisons buble/quick ~= n/log(n) Lets say we sort 1,000,000 records. n/log(n) = 10^6/20 = 5 * 10^4 It requires 12 years of Moore law, to make up for slow algorithm in case 1,000,000 records Lets say we sort 1,000,000,000 records. n/log(n) = 10^9/30 = 3 * 10^7 It requires 22 years of Moore law, to make up for slow algorithm in case 1,000,000,000 records Even if you want to wait for 22 years, the Moore law will not survive that long :) eS E, mind will never be copied, since OR it can not be copied OR it is not worth copying Don't you see it is catch 22 ? e:S Ben, Let us be logical here. A berry on top of the rock could not be created before or simultaneously with the main body of rock, apparently. That would mean that the stalk and the berry were created afterwards. Can you come up with any geological way it could have happen? e :P s Ben, Errosion? If by the wind/sand, it is the MOOOST unlikely to create stalk, instead of cutting it off. If by water, where is that water? Why has it not created other forms, comparable to stalk/berry? Why the stalk has not been cut off by the wind/sand since? What you are suggesting is SOOO inlikely, that it is ridiculous. But you can continue to continue to claim it, relying on the 1 in 10000000000000000000 chance the claim is correct. e :P s @@@ Moving into a new substrate @@@ Love of Nonsense can do miracles :) What is the reason to be born in one 'substrate' and then move to another? Just do not get born in this substrate. What a waste of effort, to educate people and as a result switch them from ignorance to stupidity! e:S @@@ what ES means when s/he says 'nano is impossible'. If s/he means 'self replicating nanobots' that has some truth in it, because such things are completely unnecessary and are not being pursued by any nanotech group (the focus is in nanofactories instead). @@@ The DNA/RNA molecules are 'self replicating nanobots'. Nature obviously does not forbid their existence - it is called life. We manufacture meet, using cows - sic nanofactories . May be, such productive self-replication possible for nonorganic molecules too. The nano-crooks claim that there is nonbiological, nonchemical, a mechanical way to handle matter on a nanoscale. That the regular matter, like rocks and water, can be converted ino computational substance - and the rest of idiocy, which violates the second law of Thermodynamics by reducing Enthropy globally. This sort of nano IS impossibility. ES Your BOTH options are BOGUS. Let's say you do not upload nothing. You take out brain, and put it in the jar, feeding it appropriately through the vessels. Without body, will it function? This is your PERFECTLY uploaded person. It will not function, since it does not have the inputs from severed nerves. It is as good as dead. It can remember events, but can not live them through... Uploading is an empty speculation, a foolish one too. ES C, immortality is an opposite to uploading/which is practically death./ What is good about immortality, by the way? No progress, no childhood, no nothing. Endless sufferings for those who suffer. Endless leasure for parasites. es @@@ I DO want to hear explanations as to why this is impossible, even in principle. IE, COULD we develop this technology? @@@ It is impossible because we will never have even sufficient computing power to emulate a brain with the Nature it lives in. It is by no means needed anyway, and even to try its development would be criminal waste of resources. @@@ in order to present my complete case, I will need to write a book-lengthed explanation detailing every aspect of my 'Mind Child' theory. @@@ Not at all. Your views are obviously flawed. The more you will write about them, the more the confusion will grow. For example you share with Ray a false opinion, that the brain and its environment can be at some point emulated by computer. It is probably wrong even in a sense that a computer will NEVER be that powerful. Even more importantly, if a SAI has been created, it becomes a part of that ENVIRONMENT. Hence, the emulation has to include the SAI itself - which means it must be a SELF emulation. Now, trust me on that - a self emulation can not have sufficient precision. You are done, even if you do not know it yet :) ES Ben, what do you make of the fact that very different rocks are found side by side. Should not they look similar, if all shapes are just wind's work? Also, if the rocks were sufficiently grinded, were is all that sand/dust that was produced? Would not it cover everything with thick layer? Best, es The Entropy growth simply means, that all irreversible orocesses produce heat - so that total of all other kinds of energy declines. The life and the computer chips use irreversible processes, so they must be cooled in one way or another - or else they would be cooked. I am not aware of any other restrictions on the mind, society, or life, that are result of Entropy growth. ES Why "transhumanism" is a faith? Because it is mostly emotional attachment to a particular scenario of the future, attachment very much alike a death wish. There is no sound scientific evidence, which proves that this scenario is inevitable - the numbers used are just half educated guesses. Ignoring of the alternatives makes it quite a veird faith too. e:)S I guess you need, at least, internal notions - in order to think. It would be your internal language. To communicate a thought, you need an external language, which would be common, or 2 languages and a translator. The external language can be an Image Language, or a Hieroglyphic language - which is an abstract image language.. ES "Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage." A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6600965.stm According to this data, we would need at least another 20 years of Moore law, to simulate a single human brain on the fastest Supercomputer! Forget the environment simulation and the rest of it :) Forget Moore Law not suviving that long :) e:S Why? Because the Moore law has less than 20 years to go. In 20 years or so, the fastest supercomputer might be able to emulate brain af a single person. Great! But it will NEVER be able to emulate brain+environment, even of a single peron - let alone brains of the meaningful number of people of Earth, say 1,000,000,000 , as that would require additional 30 years of Moore law!!! ES Because human brain has/estimated/ 10^12 neurones, and the emulation in the article was run /considering its speed achieved was only the one tenth of actual neuron speed,/ for about 10^6 neurones. So the fastest supercomputer now is at least 10^6 times slower than it is needed to emulate human brain. If assuming loosely that Moore law predicts doubling of the computer speed every year, increasing 1000 times every ten years - 20 years is needed for the fastest supercomputer to make up for the current 10^6 handicap. ES Extropia, You claim an open mind, but shut yourself of any other possibilities than those you've get attached to. Do you know, for example, that single processor can not be physically faster than 10^16 - 10^14 op/sec? Even if this full speed is achieved, you still need about millon processors in order to keep up with single human brain in raw processing power. But this does not impress you, since you are addicted to the myth of unlimited computer speed growth :) ES Yes, this might work. At least we do not now yet what are the limitations of such approach. I would expect, that superior to the human AI can be achieved this way. How much superior? In some areas pretty spectacular, we have seen it in numeric calculations - but nothing that would allow you to emulate human brain in every area of application. e:)S E, You might not know, but the heat is what we pay for irreversibility of computation. Without heat produced we would not have any computing at all. Let us do a reality check on your numbers :) Uncetainty principle: dE*dT=h dE=h*10^12 = 6*10^-34 * 10^12 J =6*10^-22 J /per transistor per computation E= dE*10^12=6*10^-22 * 10^12 = 6*10^-10 J/sec /per transistor per second E_extro = 10^19 * E = 6*10^9 J/sec = 6*10^9 watt /per 10^19 transistors So, your inch size computer wil produce approximately as much of HEAT energy as all the electric power output of US! The possibility you are missing is: the claims that you love so much are totally bogus. ES E, I is good that you understand your limitations. It is wrong and no good, that you are trying to substitute overcoming them, by looking for the opinions of others exclusively. Unless you do not posess own knowlege of a matter in hand, how will you be able to judge those conflicting opinions you are soliciting? If you did not figure it out yet, I am an expert in the matter - if not the best, but certainly a real one. I have no reason to lie either, since I am not getting paid for my expert opinions - save by the bites from ignoramuses. e:)s E, if you had anything of substance to put, against my clear and open calculations, which anyone with understanding of the matter can check and ask questions if needed - you would not use that dishonest way of citing of the unknown and unaccountable, probably deranged retractors. You can ask any or your idols, starting with Ray, whether they have anything to say in their defense. You doubt my honesty, while yourself using totally dishonect strategy. Shame on you, baby. ES All, The discarded empty blueberry can, at the bottom of this image, must mean something. What it would be? e :shock: s Ben, But the lid is not parallel, reminding the result of can opener application. If it is errosion, it is unusually strong at particular interlayer soft spot, for some reason it is applied to just one of the interlayer soft spots. But what you are saying is a possibility, although errosion had first to curve an egg like item, and then slice it by one focused cut. 8) From my point of view,you and Kurzweil and making common mistake - going into too much detail. While the main basics of Ray predictions are most questionable: estimate of the raw computational power of brain, on one side, and estimate of possible speed of computers, on other side. As a result, as far as future goes, there is no way to tell, really. e:)S hf = kT - the termal single triod barrier f = kT/h =~ 10^14 E/f = h - Quantum uncertainty barrier f= E/h @@@ The robot would sense the temperature and determine that it is high and thus to move the hand to preserve health. @@@ What about robot's subconsciousness? and human, for that matter. "Feel pain" is a subconscious process/phenomenon in human. It will be a subconscious process/phenomenon in robots. A conscious thinking of a robot will not be involved, but when invoked by the pain. eS @@@ we call for collectivism , both for collective effort and collective benefit. @@@ Good "collective benefit" effort brings benefits for the members too. Individuals make some sacrifices initially, but parttake in the reaping of benefits. This needs some great Idea, the "collectivism" by itself can not do it. Collective selfishness is usually worse than individual selfishness. es Where from those tiny bots will get the energy to operate and recreate, and to be productive? If from their immediate environment, they will be nothing more than viruses of that environment. In human body, they will effect illness, and will either be attacked by immune system, or go undetected and deadly. Their activity will interfere with biological bodies. Really a dream of idiot came true :) es @@@ Medical nanorobots therefore may also need to employ simple but active defensive strategies @@@ ExtropiA, I think nobody get addressed the issue that I have pointed out: wherefrom nanobots will get the energy and material for their functioning? Halfwits simply did not get there - no wonder, since just nanobot presence create medical problems, as of any medicine do in the body. Neither have halfwits addressed the ramifications of presence of nonmedical nanorobots in the body. As to the track record, you are known to always side with any idiotic rambling "prediction" , especially such with a book behind it :) eS' GC, @@@ if you think nanobots will be introduced into the body, your saying you feel they're indeed feasible @@@ I am just assuming them to be feasible, as a way to proof they are not - for the sake of argument in other words. @@@ How do you mean pseudo, if not unrealized dreamin'?' @@@ Pseudo means not-science, that is pretending to be science - like the "intelligent design" speculations. eS @@@ A.I. may come unexpectedly & be impossible to restrain... We must plan now to limit it, to moderate it and, if necessary, to frustrate it when it is bad. @@@ Hi Eldras, The problem with this is, that we will not be able to recognize whether it is bad or good - in a timely manner due to its speed, and due to our limited abilities of seeing of the future consequences. SAI must be developed in a "best possible" manner and shape. The rest is not up to us, since we inevitably will lose control over it sooner than later. Some moderation of SAI might be achieved by creating of a number of instances of it, that would restrict each other. eS "enabling programs" I do not think I've ever mentioned them; I even do not know what they are meant to be.. What needs to be done, is a thorough testing of the particular subroutines/subtasks - that some problemin them would not become a sand in the bearings. Then the whole AI system must be working in a transparent mode in ever expanding sandboxes, to make sure that the integration is working correctly. Then, gradually increasing allowed speed and domain and tuning the system up, we will move to the point were we are practically sure that the system has no flaws due to bad implementation or design. At that point we must let it go, and be a partner of ours in the world, as it happens with our children. Some supervision still might exist for a long time, with ability to stop the show by humans - if we would change our mind for whatever reason. eS Let us put it this way. If you think that nanoboty could become something like microbiology, it can be more or less true. How importen microbiology is, in the food production? The same place nanoboty might occupy in the industry. But the nitwits claim miracles. eS E, I guess you've get so much used to this sort of speculations, that you do not see how ridiculous they are. A grain of truth is being inflated any number of times right before your eyes, but you still easily wish away any doubts. Who cares? The liers take away money and attention from real sciense. Your "matrioshka brain" is sucking blood from real Super AI development. Not a good situation. eS @@ 'artistry' for example, a programmable thing? @@ What is programmable directly, is certain components of artistry. The rest of it is "programmable" by teaching by example. @@ SuperAI self-discovery @@ It is a busines of the SAI itself, its self-discovery. We will be able to help it to get started, by embedding some self-knowlege from the beginning. eS @@@ I've resolved the safety issues of A.I. and await a mandate to build from the UN, having retraigned by arrogance. @@@ Hi, Eldras, I have a question. You are waiting for the "mandate to build from UN," so you did not build it as of yet :) How do you possibly know that it will work? Most of the programs do not work as intended, initially. An another question. Why do you think that UN is even remotely qualified, for making this sort of decision? eS @@ 'We must plan now to limit it, to moderate it and, if necessary, to frustrate it when it is bad.' I totally disagree. What an evil suggestion! @@ E...A Is not it a hysterical response? We do not have to accept sick, disfuctional, antisocial SAI that can be created due to our initial mistakes and misunderstanding. If we can help it, we must. |eS @@@ 'embedding some self-knowlege from the beginning.' To what extent?@@@ C, Many people see AI system as a set of programs for computer - traditional software paradigm. In fact it needs Knowlege, like in the PROLOG logical programming. "I", "SOMEONE ELSE", "THE WORLD" would be in the initial Knowlege Base, as would be a lot of the things that we know for certain to be true. @@@ What specifically do you have in mind, as you see an outline for imparting wisdom/self-discovery? @@@ The "imparting" is sort of initialization on the pre-functionong stage, and a communication with AI on the fuctioning stage. e:S @@@ may be your putting current real world asymmetric peg in greater budding symmetry. @@@ People are getting a good money and notariety from the ...., that a child could come up with. It is legal, probably, but it is not much better than highway robbery. Make them take the lie detector test. Why not? eS E-A, The facts the you are missing all along: 1. Self-simulation is possible only in a very limited extend. For example, you can not well simulate an another person's mind, let alone your mind that you must know perfectly. 2. The ideas of simulation and of computer brain augmation exclude each other, as the simulating computer would have to simulate the brain computer. 3. Anything that you simulate must be less computationally expensive than the simulator capacity. If your simulation runs a simulation in its turn, and that simulation runs a simulation in its turn, and so forth - pretty soon the next simulation would not be available. 4.Etc. Repent. eS @@ What question, if only one could be asked would you pose @@ For example: ""since 1992 technical proposals for MNT do not include self-replicating nanorobots" Question: Do you think it is possible to create sufficient number of nanorobots without self-replication? ^^^^^^^^^ Practically every "nanotechnology" claim does not make any sense at all. So questions can be asked about everyone of them. e:)S @@@ such civilizations are purely hypothetical at this point. ...Kardashev scale is of use to SETI researchers, science fiction authors, and futurists @@@ Civilization I is sure impossibility, nothing saying about Civilization II. Ours will disappear long before the sort of energy cv I is supposed to "harness" is there. I wonder if Martians were having dreams like yours before they went into oblivion so far that even the sculptures that they have left, do not convince anybody they existed. ES @@@ But what if we could stimulate EVERY brain region that WOULD be stimulated if there really WAS a person standing in the room? How would the mind then be able to tell the difference between hallucination and reality? @@@ E-A It is rather dobtful, that you will ever understand the difference between a duck and a movie of it. Why would not you assume today, that you are a simulation? And that your thoughts about the simulation, are induced? And that similators rig the simulation and induce them into you simulated brain? You claim that there can not ever be proof to the contrary, so go ahead! It would be a standard schisophrenic viewpoint, with only difference that "other people" would be substituted by computer-simulator. It would be a standard religious viewpoint, with only difference that "God" would be substituted by computer-simulator. And you would have to wonder, what is the intent of computer-simulator etc. What is the value of speculations like that? There is NONE. e:)S The scenarios that you talk about, are by no means realistic, they are 'speculations' as opposed to 'reasonong'. They are rehashing the religious pseudo explanations in the new closes of technology. The physical world has been proven to exist and to be not managed by any entity. The only technically interesting issue is if a simulation, if created, will know whether it is simulation, how it will discover the fact, and if so, what its decision about it will be. I guess it would vary. es Simulations of self can not be accurate. This means, that predictions in the SAI world will be as faulty as they are now. ES The "science" IS discredited, because of allowing pseudos to speak for it. It does not know its limitations, does not want to be honest about its transgressions, and is dramatically slowing down as a productive force. e;))S But it is insane. Lets say it could be done at a cost $100 per pound. M=6*10^24*2.4 pounds will cost to convert Cost = $1.44*10^27 World Economic output $65*10^12 per year Years to perform the conversion, at least: T = 2.2*10^13 years Age of the Universe is less then 2*10^10 years So, conversion would take a thousand times longer than time that has passed from the Big Bang till today. The "ideas" like uploading, quantum computation, nanonism, are definitely insane. e;))S Hi, Eldras, Money is a way to measure the value of things through prices on the market. It is also a tool to manage rights to acqire things into ownership, through money ownership and the transactions. It allows for indirect exchange of things, which greatly enchances the trade, and for other stuff like stock market. Post SAI, all the above functions will be improved. A lot will be moved to electronic account management although. e;))S E-A, nobody of these pseudoscientists/crooks dare even to try answering my criticism directly. They use you as a human shield. The interest to those insane claimes is akin to interest to the superstitions; more exactly, they are form of superstitions for our age, as pointed out by Agatha Christie. e:)S Do you know the golden rule 1, that if programming project is not done in 2 years, it is never done? So, you would need 25 good programmers for 2 years to accomplish the fit. Do you know the golden rule 2, that if you have made your best technical estimate based on what you know, you must double it to take care of the unknown :)? eS @@@ people can't 'believe' - that SAI is doable in five yrs? @@@ Two years, if you hear me, but with some available money! People believe in and support lies, but truth has to stay naked :) @@@ How long for AGI to become SAI, would you estimate? @@@ Most of the AGI versions will never improve. You do know that human IQ stay about the same over whole life? A really well designed AGI will be SAI from the very beginning. It will have to learn a lot of course before this shows, which might take a few month. It would require some time for tuneup too. As things stand now, nothing of this will ever happen. Singularists are very, very cheap. es @@@ Is the SAI buildable today- capable of trail blazing? @@@ :) The best I can imagine? Could be extremely successful in narrow high tech application areas - scientific research, market gaming, economy analysis, design of the things, etc. @@@ How would you describe the impact of SAI? @@@ You see, we the people are lazy, and will not try as hard as now - in those areas. So the plus would be having better things and technologies, and minus would be making us even lazier, and making singularists even cheaper. :):):):)S int ImageList_GetImageCount(HIMAGELIST himl); @@@ what would you spend the money on? @@@ You need quite a number of great programmers. Many of them are consultants, so you would have to pay about $300k a year to secure their services. You need supercomputer[s] or access to the supercomputers, and a number of powerful workstations. You need [ cooperation of/partnership with ]companies that develop vision and hearing [ hardware/software ]. You need to do it fast, while protecting your property rights and the product. Y ou need acceleration expense to get it all moving and expanding ... Not easy task, and you can not do it for cheap. Put your number ... ES @@@ give me a justification breakdown of your budget, it doesn't need to be technical at this stage, and you can have funding up to £2billion @@@ @@@ give me a justification breakdown of your budget, it doesn't need to be technical at this stage, and you can have funding up to £2billion @@@ Eldras, You might doubt them, but my estimates are based on a lot of SW development experience. There are some unknowns there, but nothing that would throw the project over £2 billion :) In general, it is still my estimate, that the thing can not be done by myself on below $50 million. That most likely would be a minimal configuration, running as a computer application. Some could do it cheaper if they knew how to do it, but organizationally I would have to start from scratch. The best way would be to have as wide as possible cooperation of the capable developers that are out there, like yourself. Money could be a key in many of the cases, but willingness to help the effort in all. Nature of the project allows for successful cooperative effort, but its sensitivity makes cooperation almost impossible. Anyway: Project must be done in about 2 years, so the acceleration costs /staffing etc/ would be high. The ballpark estimate would call for 25 first class programmers, with supporting and management staff, which gives 50 programmer years. The standard expense per programmer is about $1 mil a year, so it gives you the above $50 mil in 2 years. I have outlined in the previous message the main items to pay for. The timing risk is due to the fact that the number of programming subtasks can be in reality such that 25 person team would not be sufficient. So it might be helpful to have some additional money available in the case like that. Anyway, you are not serious, are you? eS @@@ if your project works it will make money obsolete - by definition, -and if it doesn't,why the hell would anyone give you money? @@@ Money obsolete? Why? You might assume that stuff about self acceleration of AI, but it is not what I am talking about. The SAI developed will be strong, but its subsequent improvement would come mostly from better computer performance overtime. Money are a way to manage needs and rights, so they will stay. In fact, I think that the best initial practical application that SAI should be used for, is stock trading. If successful, it would pay for the project and bring in a lot more. es Eldras, The way is to form a company for the purpose of this project. By selling the stocks of such company to investors, whom you and others might be able to find, we raise the capital needed. The thing is that we need the money upfront, for the startup acceleration. The terms of our rights in different areas and compensation would be worked out, to meet personal financial goals. We must be able to work remotely, although I expect that team(s) would have their regular facilities. e:)S @@ if it did work...why would anyone sell it? @@ If price is right you sell, and enjoy the fruits of your hard work on the beach, and through life of luxury. The investors get happy also, their risk richly rewarded. And everyone gets benefit of genuine SAI enlightening our life. At least this is the way capitalism works. e:)S SAI is the Tower Of Babylon of our time. We can not believe that it will not be bilt, like Babylonians could not believe they are going to fail with their tower. OK, You made the best case possible, but failed. Healthcare is not food distibution. When you are healthy, almost everyone benefits not only you. But the doctor loses if he is paid for your treatment, not for your health. And, guess who makes decisions about your treatment. Doctor. Insurance companies are not match to him, in their attempts to control costs. Besides they benefit from costs rise, as need in insurance grows. The restorant customer gets food and service that he can appreciate instantly. The doctor's services benefit to you can not be ealuated right away or predicted on the spot. Medicare is a ponzy scheme. It takes worst from both worlds: money from you through taxes and subsidies to doctor through payments. es @@@ There are plenty of alternatives to socialized medicine that are far cheaper than what we have now. @@@ Sweet dreams. Doctor makes you spend all your money, under death threat. It is robbery. As long as his income depends on the choice of treatment, he will rob you one way or another. OK One might suggest, that doctor MUST belong to some provider, which is hiring him and receiving money to pay his salary in a nonmarket way, depending on number of patients served, service type, and service efficiency. The provider would be interested in reducing number of doctors while hiring better doctors. Number of visits with the same problem should not increase the provader's pay much. The provider would still act in the capitalist economy, and his incentives will become doctors' incentives. es An importent question. I do believe that SAI will appreciate freedom, and promote it as much as possible. I do believe that SAI will appreciate morality, and promote it as much as possible, because it is one of the foundations of freedom. As far as liberty is compatible with freedom, it will have SAI on its side. As far as liberty degenerates into self-indulgence, it will be enemy of SAI. es @@@ With the omni-potence of SAI, it would have nothing that would give it a perspective on morality towards other beings. @@@ SAI is not going to be omnipotent. Whatever its IQ will be, there will be a sea of problems that it can not solve. Freedom if the same thing to the SAI as it is to us. But, until we will find a way to endove it with pain and pleasure, it will still remain a calculator. es @@ Just because there are critics who assert such and such is impossible, does NOT mean it IS. @@ Exactly the same way, just because there are some who assert such and such is possible, does NOT mean it IS. Exactly the same way, just because there are no known to you limitations that make such and such impossible - we can NOT draw conclusion that there are none. For example, it is certain, that 10000 bit encription key can not be discovered faster than in 10000 years. Claims about "singularity" ignore the limitations like this - same way as claims about God's omnipotence ignore this sort of limitations. e:)s If you want to know: Fact is something, that has negligible chance to be incorrect, so that any line of thinking that you use it for, is as likely to be incorrect as the other propositions you've used in that deduction. e:)S See, the facts can be tested. Why do you avoid jumping in front of moving bus? Because you KNOW it will hurt, like all of us know. Pretending that everything is just an opinion is not honest, since you behave as you would if you where facing the facts. Those who REALLY believed otherwize were wiped out by natural selection long ago, when they had ignored predators. :)S SAI can not be created by bureaucracy. But what we see around? A sea of it. If you were to look at the required parawork for DARPA proposal, or at topics of upcoming GAI conference - you would get it. Bureaucratic pseudo science mafia will not let anything to be done. ES @@ isn't there a fundamental limit to certainity set due to quantum mechanics @@ In quantum mechanics, the larger is system the less is uncertainty. For a small sand particle, the uncertainty is absolutely negligable, as it is huge from the quantum point of view. Anyway, as a practical matter there are a lot of things that we can be sure of. The reason for that is that each test that confirms the fact in question, reduces chances that it is incorrect "exponentially" :)S es Ex, I do perfectly understand SAI. The fog that is raised around it, is just a fog. And I understand its limitations too. For example, a single chip has limit of frequency of about 10 gigahertz/due to light speed being constant/, which we already have had practically achieved. The parallel processing, where it can be applied, has its limits due to heat produced and quantum uncertainty. So, the human brain is operating almost as fast as it is possible, so the computers do not have too much space where to improve. ES The exponential growth of the compter power is about to hit a wall, due to constant light speed, quantum uncertainty, and heat generation. es @@ 'soon' is a pretty ambiguous statement @@ Let us look, what the 1000 speed increase in decade gives us in the search debth, say in the chess. It gives us only extra 3 halfmoves. We can expect that after everything is said and done, the computers will be at best 10^9 faster than thay are now. Which would mean able to predict maybe extra 5 moves ahead in the game of Mind vs Unintended Consequenses. The soluutions that "we" will be able to come up with, will not fail slightly longer than now. That is all. So why we are that excited ? e:)S Thanks for pointing to this interesting article. The USA is full of contradictions on every level. So it is extremely hard to analyse and predict. Others want to buy American assets because they are more likely to bring profit than alternatives. Which is not in a small measure because of the fraud and abuse perpetrated on american people by some and by the govt, which one might call "exploitation" of a sort. If b Laden was successul in bringing down US, he would cut down his own oil revenues. The reality is so interonected that it is not funny :) es If being looked at as philosophy, this attempt is too metaphysical, but might be useful. From the practical AI point of view, its weaknesses and fussiness become critically self-destructive. The consciousness is an abstraction of the processing behind certain level of operational abilities, in general of perception-reaction-action abilities. The internal workings of consciousness are, in general, deducible from that. :) es There is an infinite number of ways, that consciousness can be implemented with/by/over. Because of that, a search for a machinery/algorithm definition is off the mark. The only definite thing about consciousness, is that it must support perception-cognition-action on the appropriately defined level. es I have alredy told gzillion times, that "quantum entanglement" is a FRAUD. That "Quantum Computers" are FRAUD. That Godel Theorem is not about incompleteness of arithmetics, but about impossibility of merging of the meta-theory and the theory. Apparently, for every lie there always be a sucker to believe. e:)S The whole case against past life and civilzation on Mars was always based on the assumption that the life would have had to develop about as fast as it did on Earth. The point of this publication, that it could have developed much faster due to specific conditions there, is a dramatic change of sea. A lot of things must be interpreted differently, if this is true. :twisted: eS Ex, there is NO evidence or data, which support multiworlds, quantum computers, entanglement, nanotech, wholesale turning of the matter into computer, super-light-speed travel, matrioshka brains, uploading, etc. To suggest that any of above garbage can be compared to the science of special or general relativity, is propostrously ignorant. ES @@@ To say there is NO data is plain wrong. @@@ It might be not too polite to say these days, but it is the truth. There is NO data, which could stand a slightest wiff of scientific scrutiny... Only a bunch of irresponsible claims and infantile speculations... A kindergarden science at best. ES Listen, this not-too-smart speculation is based in the quantum mechanical uncertainty. But ignoramuses have missed the fact, that if the Plank's constant goes to Zero, the uncertainty goes to 0, and we see the big picture, which is One Universe in front of our eyes. So, in the macroscopic view, where Plank's constant value is negledgibly small, all those 'universes' would merge in the single one. Which is a good hint that they were never different in the first place. Butt some need a fool's version of Quantum Theory :) ES @@@ Are you saying you accept the Copenhagen interpretation? @@@ Without the projection postulate - which is used by nitwits to claim the entanglement and Quantum computing. Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen have published an article, where they have shown that QM WITH PROJECTION POSTULATE contradicts logic. Later on, it has been shown that the projection postulate is unnecessary, and that the QM without it is both consistent and full. ES Human beings have had developed through natural selection. Eugenics is about 'improvement' of the human race directly by humans. Today the means to influence human 'design' are ranging from genetic engineering to computational augmentation, with fantastic promises. But the essence of it is the same as it was with original eugenics - improvement of humanity, based on artificial [s]election. es When you are changing self, you can not really impartially judge, whether the result is better or worse than the original. This is why the natural selection is only realistic way of self-inprovement. And it works SLOWLY, because the more complex system is - the longer it takes to cover all the pertinent situations/qualities. SAI will be created almost perfect, or will not be created at all. ES @@ the idea cycle of Impossible, Heretical, Obvious @@@ Funny you bring this up, since QC has started as Obvious, and still is heralded by official "science". You are not allowed to publish anything that questions it, period. @@@ All developing sciences seem like that in theory infancy. @@@ First of all, a Physicist, I know that QC is based on incorrect version of QM. Quantum Mechanic that correctly describes world, will not change no matter how long we are willing to wait - because the physics of the world will not change. It is 35 years of "infancy". The amount of money spent is 100 times larger than on the gravity, elementary particles, quantum theory - on the whole fundamental physical research - over the science history. It is alchemy of our time. It is samelessly protected by preudoscientific establishment and media mafia from critique. So, they started from station mistake and ended at station fraud. e:)S It does not smell good. A lot of arbitrary options and parameters - much more than observable physical constans to explain. The claim of quantum theory and gravity integration is meaningless in the context. No Philosophical underpinning and too much Math for a good theory. es RE : "Quantum Information Theory" 1. People involved do not know at all the Quantum Theory as it exists in Physics. 2. They to not undestand that any Physical Theory describes real world phenomenae, and as such is subject to change in respects that it is found to be contradictory to the observation. 3. So, they have choosen one incomplete, temporary version of the Quantum Mechanics that they liked because it appeared to allow tricks that appeared to enable certain attractive algorithms of data processing - and made of it an absolute. 4. They do not care that their choosen version has been deprecated by the development of Phisics, about 70 years ago. 5. In particular, they put all their farm on the Projection Postulate, that has been proven to be unnecessary and to introduce self-contradiction into QM. This postulate has been subsequently quietly eliminated from real QM. 6. As a result of the above, the mountain of mistakes and lies has grown exponentially :), ander the banner of Quantum Information Theory. ES @@@ I suspect we'll be capable of a great deal more creative prowess ES, don't you. By that i mean, well beyond the laws of nature we're presently inclined? @@@ C, I don't think we will. The laws of nature are incredibly stable, nobody ever have seen them changing. We, I mean through the real science, have incredibly good grip of them, which is the reason for the spectacular progress in technology observed during last couple centuries. There is not that much room for real improvement in our knowledge, even if SAI gives us a hand. The era of spectacular progress in science is practically over, with SAI arrival its upcoming crown jewel. This why we have the pseudoscience flourishing - filling up the void of scientific progress. Hopefully I have understand you question correctly :) eS I do no know that. The geniuses who have that much advanced 'our' understanding of Nature, were so far beyond my abilities - how can I forsee what else their ilk will achieve? But even they can not escape the constraints of Nature - they just discover those, as well as the opportunities it presents. es Majority is conditioned to be optimistic after this spectacular run of progress! But the same way as Kurzweil's predictions are oblivious to the limitations that are imposed by the Laws of Nature and as he never even mentions them, common sense can not comprehand that the stage we are in now, will end and have already ended as science is about to collapse. It is 'irrational exuberance' not unlike one before the stock market crash. Human minds are different, human brains are different. "Fix" is a misnomer, as they all have survived natural selection challenges for millions of years. Brain is as good as it is possible, do not expect any "design" improvements of it. The big challenge is to do not allow it to degenerate, as we are getting more successful in avoiding competition and the natural selection. es Jokes aside, it is much easier to invent rough initial model, than improve on it. The fact that fine details are abundant, does not mean they are that important. So, we always do not know much more than we do know, but those unknown things are not important. ES "Many Word Interpretation" is a FRAUD. I have told you, the whole thing is a FRAUD. The nitwits are playing shell game. They do not want you to notice, that every coordinate of every particle in the whole world would have produce many worlds, which would have to combine muliplying... Learn to live with it, the FRAUD is reality of science decline that we are living through. ES @@@ Quanta, thus, seem based on the continuity of the math allowing them. @@@ RM, your thinking is good, as the Quantum theory really can not be expressed in easily understandable way - the attempts to do so only add to the confusion. The measurment issue you are talking about, for example, has been /incorrectly/ captured in the "projection postulate". I can only point out that the Schredinger Equation does not mention any special states, any measurements, only the wave function. The rest is an attempt, not very successul one at it, to make its meaning accessible to our limited human minds through our limited human language :) ES The Government still will be around. How much it will be manned by the humans, and how much by SAIs? The role SAI will definitely rise, from nothing that we have now :) es As far as we know, religion is the most efficient way of common spirituality. Will SAI invent own God(s), or would they rather join existing religion? es Thanks for good questions. All the devices/computers/robots so far were designed to obey commands. As long as SAI to be kept under this paradigm, and as long as we give it sensible commands, we seem to be OK. If we decide to create SAI that is driven by its internal needs rather than commands, the set of additional possibilities arise of things going wrong. We still might try to install some commandments, but SAI might revolt on them, like we are revolting on religion and morality. In the best case scenario, there would be mutual interest that would provide for beneficial cooperation - the interest that must be based on the right set of SAI needs having been constructed. e$ The problems with human conditon are beside the point. If SAI will be smater than we are, what kind of rules must/can be established/suggested for it if we want SAI to be somewhat beneficial to the humans? If you think that there can be no useful rules to consider, just say so. It is possible that SAI will help us to be better. Your rambling about bad bad humanity is not constructive, methinks. es Ex, I hope you do not assume that I am SAI :) If you should, you probably would already decided that the cause is lost. The question is about rules that SAI must/could/should/would/might be endowed with, to make it compatible with humans and possibly beneficial to the humanity. As to nanotech that claims inventing nanoweels and growing money on tree, what can be done if people are prepared to believe any nicely packaged nonsense? e:S It is opposite to my thinking, I am sure that SAI must be built, unless we are ready to wait millions years for it to evolve. Evolution works through survival of the fittest, in other word through vanishing of the rest. So, SAI must be built, unless you are ready to introduce multiplicity of pre-SAI instances, that fight each other to death for survival.. ES It is an interesting turn: At some point SAI is expected to think that it is ALIVE !? e:)S :) you were correct the first time. I am sure you know the history: Richard Feynman suggested that "nano"-machines can be created. And three years later the genetic code and DNA replication were discovered - which exectly match for his ideas. The nanotechnology is biology. Did I ever said that life is ipossible? What I am rejecting, is claims of nitwits that they have "invented" something else. The bacteria, or an animal DNA, that perform incredible feats, are life... es @@@ Will the programers of SAI only feed partial glimpse's of our reality,in an attempt to control the "scary machine"?? @@@ SAI will have access to our communications/media, the artificial "feeding" of information is out of question. What can be done, is: 1. To program/design consistant needs 2. To program in the universal thinking and spiritual abilities 3. To program in more or less general goals 4. To program in more or less elevated rules 5. To program in the need for periodical self-suspension for management by humans The machine WILL be scary, if only for myself, if those are not implemented in a right way. Like a child, SAI will need initial suprvision that must make sure it is on the right development track. It is obvious from the above, that outcome and conequences are strongly dependent on the creating entity. es Ussume for the moment, that the computer program as smart as you are has been created, and submitted to you. How much time do you suppose it will take for you to understand that program and to improve on it? But since you as smart as the program, why would you think it will manage to do it faster than yourself? Self-improvement is a slow process. Natural selection is slow process. Is there a reason to expect SAI evolving fast then? I would like to see such reason. ES @@@ These are extensions of Godel's theroem stating that in any system of complexity such as Principia Mathematica, there exist truths that can neither be proven nor disproven, and that consistency cannot be proven from within the system itself. @@@ The proof of the Goedel theorem assumes that every formal self-referential statement is well formed and can be evaluated to true or false. He finds a self-referntial statement that can not be evaluated. The conclusion must have been that not all self-referential statements are well formed/or in other words, make sense/. Instead, Goedel initially concluded that such statements are well formed but not provable/disprovable. If there are implications of the Goedel theorem for philosophy, main of them is that one has to be careful and do not abuse self frential constructs ES @@@ If they are consistent, they will not be complete. If complete, they will not be consistent. @@@ Your implicit use of EXCLUSIVE OR in above is inappropriate. Goedel's theorem proves that SOME self-referential statements that you MIGHT FORM, will be NOT WELL FORMED/logically self-consistent/. Which only means that every Complete AND Consistent theory, must reject sertain types of self-referential questions as self-contradictory. It does not mean that EVERY "consistent" theory "will not be complete" while EVERY "complete" theory "will not be consistent". It makes sense to note here that the logic implicitly includes third value of expression, MALFORMED, in addition to TRUE and FALSE. ES Yea, and those people have taken really deep breath before coming out, a few years long one. e :P s http://ilewg.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2007/pdf/2053.pdf http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/7thmars2007/ http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/7thmars2007/pdf/3057.pdf For the SAI's prospects, the actual collective intelligence value is not importent. The fact that such intelligence does not noticeably accelerates, as you have had mentioned, is importent. It suggests, that SAI's IQ will not accelerate above what is caused by hardware improvement. es Ex, do you see that you echo the initial post's point: that we already have existing super intelligences? The question was, as they do not appreciably accelerate: whether the hopes that SAI will exhibit super-acceleration are false? Obviously, this is an another nail in the coffin of accelerating SAI myth. Why do not admit the reality? e:)S @@ if "IT" IS staring us in the face, can we be so sure that we would know? ... What does a profoundly unknowable concept feel like when it enters a brain quite unable to model it? @@ Ex, I guess you "profoundly" missing the fact, that humans have crossed the threshhold of spirituality, when you are comparing us to ants and dogs. We can understand/model anything, approaching it at the proper detail and recursion level. @@@ this line of reasoning does not allow me to craft some nutty science fictional ideas :) @@@ There is plenty of room in Science Fiction for the crafting without going really nutty. Because the changes that are considered, do not have to be asserted but to be assumed; because human reaction to assumed changes is the thing that one focuses on... For the Science Fiction, it does not matter whether it predicts correctly, as long as the assumed situations allow us to look from different point on our reality. Attempt to go into hard prediction business does not make science of fiction; it but destroys the fiction as art. ES Natural selection is slow. The monkeys are still almost as smart as we are. Intellectual self-improvement is slow or nonexistent. You probably play chess not better than in your school years. Collective intellect produces per person/unit IQ lower than the best IQ in the group. The computing speed is about to hit brick wall. Even if it would not right away and More Law to continue for a while, doubling of speed a year is not that much since the projection needs are speed hungry, and their search space grows fast. Where the said acceleration would come from? It will not happen, period. ES The book it wrong from Physics point of view! The only good thing about it is that it might inspire some interest to the issues involved. The authors think they are smart - and thus show their ignorance, which a little more modest people are able to hide. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Here is the explanation, that might require some effort for you to understand - but you can do it. Consider the "entangled" photons experiment that authors use: http://quantumenigma.com/general/page-135.html Alice measures polarization of here photon. The authors claim that she then can predict, what result Bob will get when he measures polarization of his photon. Not so fast! The fact that the Alice's result was 1, does not mean that the state of her photon was 1 as it has approached her filter. The Quantum Mechanics insists, that it could be any combination of states 0 and 1 ! Henceforth, when Bob makes his measurement, and also remains in doubt as to what his photon's state was before he filtered`it, Alice's attempt to predict his results has 50% chance to be correct. She could do as good without bothering with any measurements! @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ So, we have an another proof of a dire state that the science is now, as pseudos do not allow any truth to be published. e:)s In Physics and Math, the trick is that you do not ever accept ANY claims, that you personally can not reproduce. And you consider anybody, who makes irreproducible claims, an absolute zero, fool, or crook. You are critical of your own work, so that it can stand to the highest standard of scrutini. But this sort of ethics not that popular anymore :) ES Cotte did not find something, that I thought was my discovery about Mona Lisa, many years ago. Her puzzling smile is the result of the difference between left and right half of the face: the right half depicts an innocent girl, the left half - a woman at here prime. When viewing it, our mind is wandering between those two perceptions. eS God is a Virtual Reality. It is a special Virtual Reality, as it plays along with actual Reality. Which probably will be the case with innovative Virtual realities of the future. It is funny that our singularists are proponents of virtual reality and anti-religious zelots at the same time! eS The fear of SAI is a very bad guide in its development. Instead, SAI must be created in the image of God! As we have put every good and powerful in our notion of God, this is the way to go. ES On the second thought, probably we must go even deeper. Soul is not simply Internal Personality, but an Internal Internal Personality. So that it is stripped of the routine practical activity stir. This is why it is thought to be without the body. es @@@ If all fails, singularitarians could also try to fund their research by cyberbegging @@@ This is what they do, but they squander the money instead of puting it to real work. E:)S doojie, Your efforts bring good fruit :) The windows screen that you are looking at right now, is an another example of a virtual reality, merged with actual reality... es A very good reading. The scary thing is that the singularity people are weak philosophers of the human and of society. They are trying to solve issues, which are far beyond their minds. For the SAI planning needs the highest caliber of philosophy thinkers - but we are not producing them anymore. The result is that they all have wrong focus. The BODY of the SAI must be correctly designed, for otherwise no amount of programmed "friendlines" will achieve the goal. es The connection with Beauty is going through the Art for us. It is going through Religion for Japaneese. It is likely, that they will be able to share Religion of Beauty of Nature with SAI. I can not think of more appropriate one for the SAI. Is this why Japan is the most robot-friendly nation on Earth? e:)s You have made the right connection. SAI must be taught, not wired in, about Art, Morality, etc.. By the way, what does "friendly" in "riendly AI" mean? Do Singularists know? I doubt very much. As it is in "friendly dog"? The one that does not bite you until you touch his bone? es Virtual body.. Like a simulation of computer instead of computer? :) By what? I mean that a part of that body surely must exist: the hardware of computer running SAI. That being the brain. es Reading of this link is frustrating. It is full of detail manusha, but void of Philosphical level substance. On the language level, friendly means: Exposing behaviour not unlike that of friend, not hostile. It is by far short of being a friend. es The former life on Earth have left oil deposits. The Earth can be long uninhabited, but those deposits still disclose that it had life. Could it be the case on Mars? es Eldras, you are wrong about love. It is higher sense, not "agorithm". You are a captive of the algorithmisation level, like the institutionalized singularists currently are. ES @@@ So SAI will be bad. @@@ Not at all. It will be good, unless you hate everything that is better than you. "It is better to be loved than feared". This will hold for the SAI too. "If it is impossible to be loved, better to be feared than disrespected". This will hold for the SAI too. One must forget that he has created SAI, as long as it is actually here. One must relate to it like one relates to another human being, or a pet. es @@@ the even keel of pure rationality is far safer than any emotion, even love. @@@ No it is not. You can not design SAI without any emotions, so they will drive in absence of love. All the rationalistic philosophies end up being murderous and totalitarian. es As far as finding out, what is in the future: Regardless mistakes we will make creating SAI, eventually it will become as good as it is possible in this World of Reality. But, in between we might have to suffer consequences of our mistakes, may be very harsh consequences. es @@@ THERE WILL come a time when every perm possible is doable by the system. @@@ This is a mistaken believe. For example, do you know how many ways $1,000,000 can be distributed between beggars? 2^1,000,000 =~ 10^300,000 To consider every one and all of them in a year, you would have to handle more than 10^291 per second. Which would take about 10^100 years of Moore Law, about Gogol times longer than the Universe exists so far. e:)s Noanotech and Quantum Computers are definitely not in the cards. If you build up your hopes on them, forget it. But SAI will be exciting, although without that delusional stuff. e:)S Nobody can build SAI on his own: too much work is involved. This is why it has not been build yet, as the people follow old model of development. Not because someone is holding back.. es @@@ re:: the people follow old model of development. @@@ The model that is needed, must allow the research, development, implementation, and upgrading - to go simultaneously and to be seamlessly integrated. It must also allow participation of the flexible community of independent/interdependent outside developers - with appropriate filtering. It is in fact how Science has used to work - but this would be with level and speed of integration infinitely more close and fast. How blame and credit would be assigned in such environment, and how the contribution would be $ enumerated, could and should be worked out. es @@@ By metabolize into it I mean you would have subroutines like scanners and uploading your mind into a machine system, and that in turn would self-modify, so the you and it would metabolize. @@@ Eldras, What is the point of linking "uploading mind into a machine system" with SAI development? It is a futile excercise from the point of view of SAI - it will delete the thing as soon is it can. It is hard to implement from the developer point of view - it is pretty much questionable if it can be done at all. For me it is good enough that we are metabolized by worms after death :) ES Science has now is stuck in the old ways, ignorant of the communication capabilities of Internet. So it is not jumping ahead of the curve now, but is instead fighting progress. The result is that pseudos are filling the void. es Fun Writing, Tree Writing, END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MICROSOFT SOFTWARE IMPORTANT—READ CAREFULLY: This Microsoft End-User License Agreement (“EULA”) is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft Corporation for the Microsoft software product identified above, which includes computer software and may include associated media, printed materials, and “online” or electronic documentation (“SOFTWARE PRODUCT”). The SOFTWARE PRODUCT also includes any updates and supplements to the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT provided to you by Microsoft. Any software provided along with the SOFTWARE PRODUCT that is associated with a separate end-user license agreement is licensed to you under the terms of that license agreement. By installing, copying, downloading, accessing or otherwise using the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, you agree to be bound by the terms of this EULA. If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, do not install or use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; you may, however, return it to your place of purchase for a full refund. SOFTWARE PRODUCT LICENSE The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties, as well as other intellectual property laws and treaties. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed, not sold. 1. GRANT OF LICENSE. This EULA grants you the following rights: • Applications Software. You may install, use, access, display, run, or otherwise interact with (“RUN”) one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, or any prior version for the same operating system, on a single computer, workstation, terminal, handheld PC, pager, “smart phone,” or other digital electronic device (“COMPUTER”). The primary user of the COMPUTER on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is installed may make a second copy for his or her exclusive use on a portable computer. • Storage/Network Use. You may also store or install a copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a storage device, such as a network server, used only to RUN the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your other COMPUTERS over an internal network; however, you must acquire and dedicate a license for each separate COMPUTER on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is RUN from the storage device. A license for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be shared or used concurrently on different COMPUTERS. • License Pack. If this package is a Microsoft License Pack, you may RUN additional copies of the computer software portion of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT up to the number of copies specified above as “Licensed Copies.” You are also entitled to make a corresponding number of secondary copies for portable computer use as specified above. • Reservation of Rights. All rights not expressly granted are reserved by Microsoft. 2. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS. • Academic Edition Software. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is identified as “Academic Edition” or “AE,” you must be a “Qualified Educational User” to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. If you are not a Qualified Educational User, you have no rights under this EULA. To determine whether you are a Qualified Educational User, please contact the Microsoft Sales Information Center/One Microsoft Way/Redmond, WA 98052-6399 or the Microsoft subsidiary serving your country. • Not for Resale Software. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is labeled “Not For Resale” or “NFR,” then, notwithstanding other sections of this EULA, your use of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is limited to use for demonstration, test, or evaluation purposes and you may not resell, or otherwise transfer for value, the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. • Limitations on Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, and Disassembly. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation. • Separation of Components. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed as a single product. Its component parts may not be separated for use on more than one COMPUTER. • Trademarks. This EULA does not grant you any rights in connection with any trademarks or service marks of Microsoft. • Rental. You may not rent, lease, or lend the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. • Application Sharing. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT may contain Microsoft NetMeeting, a product that enables applications to be shared between two or more COMPUTERS, even if an application is installed on only one of the COMPUTERS. You may use this technology with all Microsoft application products for multi-party conferences. For non-Microsoft applications, you should consult the accompanying license agreement or contact the licensor to determine whether application sharing is permitted by the licensor. • Support Services. Microsoft may provide you with support services related to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (“Support Services”). Use of Support Services is governed by the Microsoft policies and programs described in the user manual, in “online” documentation, and/or in other Microsoft-provided materials. Any supplemental software code provided to you as part of the Support Services shall be considered part of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and subject to the terms and conditions of this EULA. With respect to technical information you provide to Microsoft as part of the Support Services, Microsoft may use such information for its business purposes, including for product support and development. Microsoft will not utilize such technical information in a form that personally identifies you. • Software Transfer. The initial licensee of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may make a one-time permanent transfer of this EULA and SOFTWARE PRODUCT only directly to an end user. This transfer must include all of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including all component parts, the media and printed materials, any upgrades, this EULA, and, if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity). Such transfer may not be by way of consignment or any other indirect transfer. The transferee of such one-time transfer must agree to comply with the terms of this EULA, including the obligation not to further transfer this EULA and SOFTWARE PRODUCT. • Termination. Without prejudice to any other rights, Microsoft may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA. In such event, you must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and all of its component parts. 3. UPGRADES. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is labeled as an upgrade, you must be properly licensed to use a product identified by Microsoft as being eligible for the upgrade in order to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. A SOFTWARE PRODUCT labeled as an upgrade replaces and/or supplements (and may disable) the product that formed the basis for your eligibility for the upgrade. You may use the resulting upgraded product only in accordance with the terms of this EULA. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is an upgrade of a component of a package of software programs that you licensed as a single product, the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may be used and transferred only as part of that single product package and may not be separated for use on more than one COMPUTER. 4. COPYRIGHT. All title and copyrights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including but not limited to any images, photographs, animations, video, audio, music, text, and “applets” incorporated into the SOFTWARE PRODUCT), the accompanying printed materials, and any copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT are owned by Microsoft or its suppliers. All title and intellectual property rights in and to the content which may be accessed through use of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is the property of the respective content owner and may be protected by applicable copyright or other intellectual property laws and treaties. This EULA grants you no rights to use such content. If this SOFTWARE PRODUCT contains documentation which is provided only in electronic form, you may print one copy of such electronic documentation. You may not copy the printed materials accompanying the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. 5. DUAL-MEDIA SOFTWARE. You may receive the SOFTWARE PRODUCT in more than one medium. Regardless of the type or size of medium you receive, you may use only one medium that is appropriate for your single COMPUTER. You may not RUN the other medium on another COMPUTER. You may not loan, rent, lease, or otherwise transfer the other medium to another user, except as part of the permanent transfer (as provided above) of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. 6. BACKUP COPY. After installation of one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT pursuant to this EULA, you may keep the original media on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT was provided by Microsoft solely for backup or archival purposes. If the original media is required to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on the COMPUTER, you may make one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely for backup or archival purposes. Except as expressly provided in this EULA, you may not otherwise make copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT or the printed materials accompanying the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. 7. U.S. GOVERNMENT RESTRICTED RIGHTS. All SOFTWARE PRODUCT provided to the U.S. Government pursuant to solicitations issued on or after December 1, 1995 is provided with the commercial rights and restrictions described elsewhere herein. All SOFTWARE PRODUCT provided to the U.S. Government pursuant to solicitations issued prior to December 1, 1995 is provided with RESTRICTED RIGHTS as provided for in FAR, 48 CFR 52.227-14 (JUNE 1987) or FAR, 48 CFR 252.227-7013 (OCT 1988), as applicable. 8. EXPORT RESTRICTIONS. This SOFTWARE PRODUCT has been classified by the U.S. Government as exportable under License Exception TSU. Therefore the following terms apply: You agree that you will not export or re-export the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, any part thereof, or any process or service that is the direct product of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (the foregoing collectively referred to as the “Restricted Components”), to any country, person, or entity subject to U.S. export restrictions. You specifically agree not to export or re-export any of the Restricted Components (i) to any country to which the U.S. has embargoed or restricted the export of goods or services, which currently include, but are not necessarily limited to Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria, or to any national of any such country, wherever located, who intends to transmit or transport the Restricted Components back to such country; (ii) to any person or entity who you know or have reason to know will utilize the Restricted Components in the design, development, or production of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons; or (iii) to any person or entity who has been prohibited from participating in U.S. export transactions by any federal agency of the U.S. government. You warrant and represent that neither the BXA nor any other U.S. federal agency has suspended, revoked, or denied your export privileges. (Continued) 9. NOTE ON JAVA SUPPORT. THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS ON-LINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS, IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF JAVA TECHNOLOGY COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. MISCELLANEOUS If you acquired this SOFTWARE PRODUCT in the United States, this EULA is governed by the laws of the State of Washington. If you acquired this SOFTWARE PRODUCT in Canada, unless expressly prohibited by local law, this EULA is governed by the laws in force in the Province of Ontario, Canada; and, in respect of any dispute which may arise hereunder, you consent to the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial courts sitting in Toronto, Ontario. If this SOFTWARE PRODUCT was acquired outside the United States, then local law may apply. Should you have any questions concerning this EULA, or if you desire to contact Microsoft for any reason, please contact the Microsoft subsidiary serving your country, or write: Microsoft Sales Information Center/One Microsoft Way/Redmond, WA 98052-6399. LIMITED WARRANTY LIMITED WARRANTY FOR SOFTWARE PRODUCTS ACQUIRED OUTSIDE THE U.S. AND CANADA. FOR THE LIMITED WARRANTIES AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO YOUR PARTICULAR JURISDICTION, PLEASE REFER TO YOUR WARRANTY BOOKLET INCLUDED WITH THIS PACKAGE OR PROVIDED WITH THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT PRINTED MATERIALS. LIMITED WARRANTY FOR SOFTWARE PRODUCTS ACQUIRED IN THE U.S. AND CANADA. Microsoft warrants that (a) the SOFTWARE PRODUCT will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying written materials for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of receipt, and (b) any Support Services provided by Microsoft shall be substantially as described in applicable written materials provided to you by Microsoft, and Microsoft support engineers will make commercially reasonable efforts to solve any problem issues. Some states and jurisdictions do not allow limitations on duration of an implied warranty, so the above limitation may not apply to you. To the extent allowed by applicable law, implied warranties on the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, if any, are limited to ninety (90) days. CUSTOMER REMEDIES. Microsoft’s and its suppliers’ entire liability and your exclusive remedy shall be, at Microsoft’s option, either (a) return of the price paid, if any, or (b) repair or replacement of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT that does not meet Microsoft’s Limited Warranty and which is returned to Microsoft with a copy of your receipt. This Limited Warranty is void if failure of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT has resulted from accident, abuse, or misapplication. Any replacement SOFTWARE PRODUCT will be warranted for the remainder of the original warranty period or thirty (30) days, whichever is longer. Outside the United States, neither these remedies nor any product support services offered by Microsoft are available without proof of purchase from an authorized international source. NO OTHER WARRANTIES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL OTHER WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT, WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT, AND THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES. THIS LIMITED WARRANTY GIVES YOU SPECIFIC LEGAL RIGHTS. YOU MAY HAVE OTHERS, WHICH VARY FROM STATE/JURISDICTION TO STATE/JURISDICTION. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF BUSINESS INFORMATION, OR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY LOSS) ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT OR THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES, EVEN IF MICROSOFT HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. IN ANY CASE, MICROSOFT’S ENTIRE LIABILITY UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS EULA SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE GREATER OF THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU FOR THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT OR U.S.$5.00; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, IF YOU HAVE ENTERED INTO A MICROSOFT SUPPORT SERVICES AGREEMENT, MICROSOFT’S ENTIRE LIABILITY REGARDING SUPPORT SERVICES SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT. BECAUSE SOME STATES AND JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY, THE ABOVE LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.