Moore's Law and the power of exponential advancement

[David.]

But its a script though... right? Except you haven't noticed that he was hired by the god damn co-founder of arguably the best tech company on the planet 5 years ago...

Just saying...

No, i missed the press release and interviews that he did about google and what he's accomplished there. I apologize. I guess that makes me stupid.

Was i right about what was in the article? Did it follow the script?

If you google his name, and do another search for "ray kurzweil google", what percentage of results and news stories are about 1. Accelerating advances in technology 2. The singularity or 3 predictions? 97.5%? 39/40?

 

[gourimoko]

I think that's a bit simplified

It is, surely.

and I think the process to get to where you ultimately think this will go (of which, I pretty much agree), could be a very, very messy affair, complete with some particularly difficult ethical ramifications.

Oh?

I'm curious as to what you mean by difficult ethical ramifications

I want to specifically address the following (just off the top of my head):

- Who has access to the latest technology in the buildup to the Technological Singularity?

In the build-up?

Well, at the present state of affairs, this depends.

In the sense that we're building an artificial brain; well, that's mostly a publicly funded, open-source, open-research project. So the product of said project would very likely be open to everyone. The product; an artificial brain, would have it's software likely publicly made available, however, not many entities would have the resources (outside of governments) to build such a device... Nations could potentially build their own; but to what end?

In the sense of an artificial neuron; well... this would likely be for the well-to-do. Not necessarily millionaires, etc, but, those with the means to put down six figures per person to pay for such .. augmentation. There's also the likelihood that the first people who get augmented would be the most likely to be at risk of something going wrong, which could mitigate costs potentially.

And finally, in the sense of some other form of consciousness-transfer where a synthetic brain is not required as an intermediary condition, then it's very difficult to say who would control or be able to afford such a transition in the earliest stages. It might be very inexpensive... It might be massively expensive. Without understanding the technology, it's impossible to make any meaningful predictions or even to openly speculate.

- When, ultimately, will technology advance to this assumingly "blissful" state of evolution where we see ourselves as being part of the same living organism, with each entity having an equal amount of risk at stake... where we are so enlightened and our intelligence is so evolved/enhanced that greed, power, and selfishness are superceded by the overall urge to help our "transhuman race" succeed?

I'm not sure...

I don't really think that such a transition is around the corner. I think that transhumanism is really more about bridging the gap between the biological and the technological. But we'd still be the same greedy, hungry, organisms; however, without the fear of death, the pressing need to procreate, etc - then the driving forces behind human behavior would invariably change. One has to think (hope) for the better.

But even if we were to enter a simulated world for a long duration (for whatever reasons), one would still imagine that a free world entails a world with very real crime.

That is to say, if we're all programs running around a virtual machine, and one program lusts after and .. rapes .. another program; there likely isn't going to be any mechanism in place to prevent such a thing from happening without turning such a simulation into a living hell. Essentially, we still need our individuality, and freedom of choice. Even if that entails the potential for criminality, brutality, etc. Because the alternative would be to live in an unfree society and have no way out.

And if we're not programs, but physical machines in the physical world (which I think is inefficient for the total population); then again, you will have criminality. At least, until such time as people stop thinking the way we do now -- which is unlikely to happen anytime soon since this generation would be close to the the last.

- is the Singularity an "unstoppable" phenomenon?

Yes.

It is the natural technological progression of the various sciences that would be required to construct an artificial brain.

If human progression does not stop, then eventually, we would reach such a point that we would realize a future where biological processes would simply be unnecessary for the continuation of the species.

- Assuming the aforementioned state of "enlightenment", or something close to it, is inevitable when it occurs, could those with initial access to it as it is about to occur stop it? In other words, considering there is an incentive for those with primary/inital accesss to such technology to withhold it from the larger population, would they be able to? I'd be willing to bet "they" are going to try.

If you were among the first doctors/scientists to develop and artificial neural system that could replace, in-place, a human brain. And you had the procedure done on several patients, and finally yourself; thus realizing a transhumanist state yourself... Would you think to deny this .. salvation .. from everyone else?

What.. would be gained by doing such a thing?

Personally, I would think the impetus would be towards getting as many people transitioned as possible prior to their death. Thus, prioritizing the sick and the elderly. Dangerous jobs would cease. A universal wage implemented. With people essentially stopping everything to wait their turn for their transition. Obviously, not everyone would want this; and in fact, many would reject it... But I think the majority of people would openly encourage it.

 

[Deezus]

No, i missed the press release and interviews that he did about google and what he's accomplished there. I apologize. I guess that makes me stupid.

Was i right about what was in the article? Did it follow the script?

If you google his name, and do another search for "ray kurzweil google", what percentage of results and news stories are about 1. Accelerating advances in technology 2. The singularity or 3 predictions? 97.5%? 39/40?

First of all, You're not stupid. You're intelligent... and that is why I'm even giving you the time to respond to you (notice how little I respond to this type of shit on RCF?).

You are right about the fact that the article posted about Ray-Ray revolved around accelerating growth in technology, The Singularity, and predictions... but I guess I don't really understand your reasoning for pointing it out so flamboyantly. What are you getting at here? The insinuation that I took from it was that Kurzweil was somehow reduced, less influential, or needed to come up with "new material".

In my perception this is like you saying "If you google 'Albert Einstein', what percentage of results and news stories will be about 1.) The theory of relativity 2.) Nuclear Energy 3.) Atomic Warfare? 99%?!" or "If you google 'Elon Musk', what percentage of results and news stories will be about 1.) Electric Cars 2.) Private Space Exploration or 3.) Colonizing Mars?"

Ahhh... Ok. Because all of those things are big fucking deals and they are the most relevant topics with regards to the people referenced.

So...What was it you were getting at? That's all I want to know.
@David.

 

[Deezus]

It is, surely.



Oh?

I'm curious as to what you mean by difficult ethical ramifications



In the build-up?

Well, at the present state of affairs, this depends.

In the sense that we're building an artificial brain; well, that's mostly a publicly funded, open-source, open-research project. So the product of said project would very likely be open to everyone. The product; an artificial brain, would have it's software likely publicly made available, however, not many entities would have the resources (outside of governments) to build such a device... Nations could potentially build their own; but to what end?


In the sense of an artificial neuron; well... this would likely be for the well-to-do. Not necessarily millionaires, etc, but, those with the means to put down six figures per person to pay for such .. augmentation. There's also the likelihood that the first people who get augmented would be the most likely to be at risk of something going wrong, which could mitigate costs potentially.

And finally, in the sense of some other form of consciousness-transfer where a synthetic brain is not required as an intermediary condition, then it's very difficult to say who would control or be able to afford such a transition in the earliest stages. It might be very inexpensive... It might be massively expensive. Without understanding the technology, it's impossible to make any meaningful predictions or even to openly speculate.



I'm not sure...

I don't really think that such a transition is around the corner. I think that transhumanism is really more about bridging the gap between the biological and the technological. But we'd still be the same greedy, hungry, organisms; however, without the fear of death, the pressing need to procreate, etc - then the driving forces behind human behavior would invariably change. One has to think (hope) for the better.

But even if we were to enter a simulated world for a long duration (for whatever reasons), one would still imagine that a free world entails a world with very real crime.

That is to say, if we're all programs running around a virtual machine, and one program lusts after and .. rapes .. another program; there likely isn't going to be any mechanism in place to prevent such a thing from happening without turning such a simulation into a living hell. Essentially, we still need our individuality, and freedom of choice. Even if that entails the potential for criminality, brutality, etc. Because the alternative would be to live in an unfree society and have no way out.

And if we're not programs, but physical machines in the physical world (which I think is inefficient for the total population); then again, you will have criminality. At least, until such time as people stop thinking the way we do now -- which is unlikely to happen anytime soon since this generation would be close to the the last.



Yes.

It is the natural technological progression of the various sciences that would be required to construct an artificial brain.

If human progression does not stop, then eventually, we would reach such a point that we would realize a future where biological processes would simply be unnecessary for the continuation of the species.



If you were among the first doctors/scientists to develop and artificial neural system that could replace, in-place, a human brain. And you had the procedure done on several patients, and finally yourself; thus realizing a transhumanist state yourself... Would you think to deny this .. salvation .. from everyone else?

What.. would be gained by doing such a thing?

Personally, I would think the impetus would be towards getting as many people transitioned as possible prior to their death. Thus, prioritizing the sick and the elderly. Dangerous jobs would cease. A universal wage implemented. With people essentially stopping everything to wait their turn for their transition. Obviously, not everyone would want this; and in fact, many would reject it... But I think the majority of people would openly encourage it.

Its too late for me to write out a really detailed response, and I'll be at a bachelor party all weekend in Athens (wish me luck so I dont die )... So it may be a while. But, as a very short reply to a very detailed response I'd say the following: I think your faith in humankind (or transhumankind) is awesome, and its what I hope for our future as well... but I am skeptical of the current mindset of humankind. I believe that until this state of "enlightenment" is reached, 'we' will continue to pursue domination, power, and wealth above all else.

To be fair, when I said "build up", I meant in the years/months/weeks/days/hours before the singularity occurs. Not necessarily the literal "building" of the creation/device/software that ultimately causes The Singularity to occcur.

With regards to the ethical ramifications, I'm referring to the process and change humankind will undergo in order to reach a point where a large portion of our population has access to this technology. Lets look at how technology, specifically personal computing, 3G/4G telephony, and internet access, has propagated around the world... The poor regions have typically been the last to receive the technology and a very significant number doesnt have it. If we assume that humankind's inherent greed, lust for power, etc. will not be eradicated until that moment of singularity/enlightenment, we can assume that those poor populations will be further exploited in a similar way as they already are today... So that we, in the "rich" population can get our fix. This is the "build-up" I'm referencing and encompasses some of the ethical ramifications I was getting at.


This is the last thing I'll be able to write on the topic for a few days at least... but I'll at least say that I almost quit my comfy job as an Engineer that works from home every day 6 years ago to pursue these types of thoughts/this type of research. I found a program at Georgia Tech related to the Sociology of Technology, but I (possibly wisely, possibly stupidly) decided to go the family route and be a corporate whore.

I love this shit. Looking forward to discussing this further with everyone.

 

[David.]

First of all, You're not stupid. You're intelligent... and that is why I'm even giving you the time to respond to you (notice how little I respond to this type of shit on RCF?).

You are right about the fact that the article posted about Ray-Ray revolved around accelerating growth in technology, The Singularity, and predictions... but I guess I don't really understand your reasoning for pointing it out so flamboyantly. What are you getting at here? The insinuation that I took from it was that Kurzweil was somehow reduced, less influential, or needed to come up with "new material".

In my perception this is like you saying "If you google 'Albert Einstein', what percentage of results and news stories will be about 1.) The theory of relativity 2.) Nuclear Energy 3.) Atomic Warfare? 99%?!" or "If you google 'Elon Musk', what percentage of results and news stories will be about 1.) Electric Cars 2.) Private Space Exploration or 3.) Colonizing Mars?"

Ahhh... Ok. Because all of those things are big fucking deals and they are the most relevant topics with regards to the people referenced.

So...What was it you were getting at? That's all I want to know.
@David.

I've already stated that I'm not downplaying anything he's accomplished and went further to appreciate that i will likely "not even sniff his ass". I don't understand why you think I'm pissing in dudes cheerios.. I've stated that pretty much everything that I've heard from him for a decade is about the same thing.. So similar that every interview or press release was script like.

I correctly summarized the article without reading anything more than the first line. You asked if that is script like.. I'd say it is. It could have been written 10 years ago.

That is not knocking his previous accomplishments. It is, again, confirmimg that for the last ten years, 99% of kurzweil news is about the same thing. Ive seen him give the same interview spaced years apart, almost word for word.. Used to be to push his book. I've never seen that from anyone else. Its just odd. Remarkable by definition.

I guess the angle is "what has ray thought of this time"? Ok, i guess i get that. But threre is basically nothing on him since 2007 besides the aforementioned, and google (where upon a brief search theres not been much published) and winning whats basically a lifetime achievment award for things that he did earlier in life.

Im not knocking his earlier life and i didnt know about google, on which there isn't much published info. Im not even knocking his later life, i have no idea what hes doing at google. But this is the first ive heard of it and a preponderance of "new ray news", for a decade, seems to be related to literally the exact same thing.

Thats just unusual. Thats all. Every bit of breaking news is about the same thing. Its like promoting the same episode of a tv show for ten years. Or seeing Madden 07 pushed in 2017. I guess thats because most people arent familiar with him, and every piece requires introducing him.

So google. His work there isnt reported on much. If someone missed that, and for literally ten years theyve heard, watched and read the same thing in slightly different packaging, can you see how someone would think "jesus, again? This is year ten. Wtf?"

 

[David.]

Flamboyant

Ps i like turgid better

 

[KI4MVP]

So google. His work there isnt reported on much. If someone missed that, and for literally ten years theyve heard, watched and read the same thing in slightly different packaging, can you see how someone would think "jesus, again? This is year ten. Wtf?"

One dramatic thing that has changed is he's moved the timeframe forward. The target was 2045. In the article Max posted, that has moved to 2029. That's a massive change.

 

[The Oi]

The thing about Kurzweil is that he hasn't really done anything himself. He's just making predictions about what other people are going to do. He's really just riding the coat-tails of others if you think about it.

Not particularly impressive.

@David. @Deezus

 

[David.]

The thing about Kurzweil is that he hasn't really done anything himself. He's just making predictions about what other people are going to do. He's really just riding the coat-tails of others if you think about it.

Not particularly impressive.

@David. @Deezus

Wrong.

 

[KI4MVP]

The thing about Kurzweil is that he hasn't really done anything himself. He's just making predictions about what other people are going to do. He's really just riding the coat-tails of others if you think about it.

Not particularly impressive.

@David. @Deezus

I guess you missed Max's post where he posted this:

He was the recipient of the $500,000 Lemelson-MIT Prize for 2001,[6] the world's largest for innovation. And in 2002 he was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, established by the U.S. Patent Office​

The reason so many people listen to Kurzweil in the first place is because he has accomplished so much, primarily by projecting where technology would be by the time he finished his project.

 

[The Oi]

 

[Maximus]

Would YOU choose to live forever? Age-reversing pill that Nasa wants to give to astronauts on Mars will begin human trials within six months

• Scientists have discovered a key signalling process in DNA repair
• They have used this process in the development of a drug to reverse ageing
• Trials on mice found that the pill repaired DNA damage after a week
• Nasa wants the new technology to protect its astronauts from solar radiation

By Harry Pettit For Mailonline

PUBLISHED: 14:03 EDT, 23 March 2017 | UPDATED: 14:04 EDT, 23 March 2017

Scientists have made a discovery that could lead to a revolutionary drug that actually reverses ageing.

The drug could help damaged DNA to miraculously repair and even protect Nasa astronauts on Mars by protecting them from solar radiation.

A team of researchers developed the drug after discovering a key signalling process in DNA repair and cell ageing.

Scroll down for video

+2
Scientists have made a discovery that could lead to a revolutionary drug that actually reverses ageing. A team of researchers developed the drug after discovering a key signalling process in DNA repair and cell ageing


Professor Sinclair and his colleague Dr Lindsay Wu were winners in NASA's iTech competition in December last year.

'We came in with a solution for a biological problem and it won the competition out of 300 entries,' Dr Wu said.

Cosmic radiation is not only an issue for astronauts. We're all exposed to it aboard aircraft, with a London-Singapore-Melbourne flight roughly equivalent in radiation to a chest x-ray.

+2
Professor David Sinclair (front centre) and his research team. During trials on mice, the group found that their anti-ageing pill directly repaired DNA damage caused by radiation exposure or ageing. Human trials will begin within six months

In theory, the anti-ageing pill could mitigate any effects of DNA damage for frequent flyers.

The other group that could benefit from this work is survivors of childhood cancers.

Dr Wu says 96 per cent of childhood cancer survivors suffer a chronic illness by age 45, including cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, and cancers unrelated to the original cancer.

'All of this adds up to the fact they have accelerated ageing, which is devastating,' he said.

'It would be great to do something about that, and we believe we can with this molecule.'

The experiments in mice, from a team at the University of New South Wales, suggest a treatment for these issues is possible through a new drug.

While our cells can naturally repair DNA damage - such as damage caused by the sun - this ability declines with age.

The scientists identified that the call signalling molecule NAD+, which is naturally present in every cell in the body, has a key role in protein interactions that control DNA repair.

Treating mice with an NAD+ 'booster' called NMN improved their cells' ability to repair DNA damage caused by radiation exposure or ageing

For the past four years, Professor Sinclair and Dr Wu have been working on making NMN into a drug substance with their companies MetroBiotech NSW and MetroBiotech International.

The human trials will begin this year at Brigham and Women's Hospital, in Boston.


THE ANTI-AGEING DRUG TRIALS
The experiments in mice, from a team at the University of New South Wales, suggest a treatment is possible for DNA damage from ageing and radiation.

It is so promising it has attracted the attention of Nasa scientists in their quest to reach Mars.

While our cells can naturally repair DNA damage - such as damage caused by the sun - this ability declines with age.

The scientists identified that the call signalling molecule NAD+, which is naturally present in every cell in the body, has a key role in protein interactions that control DNA repair.

Treating mice with an NAD+ 'booster' called NMN improved their cells' ability to repair DNA damage caused by radiation exposure or old age.

Human trials of NMN therapy will begin within six months.

 

[KI4MVP]

Bumping this because nobody talked about Max's post. A drug that potentially reverses aging (at least to some extent) is preparing for human trials and no comment? There are testing Nicotinamide Mononucleotide. There are supplements on the market which contain Nicotinamide Riboside, which is supposed to have similar effects. One is this:

https://www.elysiumhealth.com

Which is a direct result of this research:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/a-new-and-reversible-cause-of-aging

 

[Maximus]

Thought this was pretty cool...im guessing all the Chinese workers that lost their jobs do not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=_QndP_PCRSw

 

[Deezus]

Thought this was pretty cool...im guessing all the Chinese workers that lost their jobs do not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=_QndP_PCRSw

My 3rd child was conceived to the song in that video.