Comments on: Three Major Singularity Schools http://singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/ The Singularity Institute exists to confront the challenge of powerful AI, both the opportunity and the risk. Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:21:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: La singularidad tecnolĂłgica: UtopĂ­a o fin de la humanidad | caracas 10N, 67W http://singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-306500 La singularidad tecnolĂłgica: UtopĂ­a o fin de la humanidad | caracas 10N, 67W Wed, 13 Jul 2011 01:35:33 +0000 http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-306500 [...] El tĂŠrmino singularidad tecnolĂłgica se inspira en el concepto de singularidad en astrofĂ­sica, que se refiere a aquello que es el resultado de la creaciĂłn de un agujero negro. En el lĂ­mite, cuando el radio de una estrella en proceso de colapso gradual se aproxima a cero y la masa a infinito, la fuerza de gravedad ha crecido tanto que ni siquiera la luz puede escapar del agujero negro. Por tanto, no es posible tener informaciĂłn sobre lo que ocurre en el interior del agujero negro. En este momento, la curvatura del espacio-tiempo que produce el agujero negro es mĂĄxima en la vecindad del horizonte de eventos y se produce la singularidad. Este tĂŠrmino hace referencia a una ignorancia esencial en lo que respecta a ese fenĂłmeno. Es esta ignorancia la idea que se quiere conservar al realizar la extensiĂłn del concepto para describir la aceleraciĂłn exponencial del cambio tecnolĂłgico que ya estamos experimentando y que algunos futurĂłlogos predicen va a crear una Singularidad TecnolĂłgica . En el momento en que ĂŠsta surja, la historia de la humanidad sufrirĂĄ un cambio tan radical en su magnitud y alcance, que representarĂĄ un corte absoluto (se puede leer una clasificaciĂłn de los tres enfoques sobre la singularidad en este link). [...] [...] El tĂŠrmino singularidad tecnolĂłgica se inspira en el concepto de singularidad en astrofĂ­sica, que se refiere a aquello que es el resultado de la creaciĂłn de un agujero negro. En el lĂ­mite, cuando el radio de una estrella en proceso de colapso gradual se aproxima a cero y la masa a infinito, la fuerza de gravedad ha crecido tanto que ni siquiera la luz puede escapar del agujero negro. Por tanto, no es posible tener informaciĂłn sobre lo que ocurre en el interior del agujero negro. En este momento, la curvatura del espacio-tiempo que produce el agujero negro es mĂĄxima en la vecindad del horizonte de eventos y se produce la singularidad. Este tĂŠrmino hace referencia a una ignorancia esencial en lo que respecta a ese fenĂłmeno. Es esta ignorancia la idea que se quiere conservar al realizar la extensiĂłn del concepto para describir la aceleraciĂłn exponencial del cambio tecnolĂłgico que ya estamos experimentando y que algunos futurĂłlogos predicen va a crear una Singularidad TecnolĂłgica . En el momento en que ĂŠsta surja, la historia de la humanidad sufrirĂĄ un cambio tan radical en su magnitud y alcance, que representarĂĄ un corte absoluto (se puede leer una clasificaciĂłn de los tres enfoques sobre la singularidad en este link). [...]

]]> By: The End of Suffering? -Humanity+ UK 2010 http://singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-248997 The End of Suffering? -Humanity+ UK 2010 Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:12:34 +0000 http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-248997 [...] risk, radical life-extension and the (contested!) prospects of some kind of technological Singularity. Clearly, transhumanism is a broad church. What ties link such seemingly diverse [...] [...] risk, radical life-extension and the (contested!) prospects of some kind of technological Singularity. Clearly, transhumanism is a broad church. What ties link such seemingly diverse [...]

]]> By: Eliezer on the singularity « Brains Lab http://singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-152107 Eliezer on the singularity « Brains Lab Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:19:38 +0000 http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-152107 [...] His notion of the singularity involves I. J. Good’s “intelligence explosion.” More here. [...] [...] His notion of the singularity involves I. J. Good’s “intelligence explosion.” More here. [...]

]]> By: Ambition, Intelligence, and Artificial Intelligence | B Frank http://singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-96150 Ambition, Intelligence, and Artificial Intelligence | B Frank Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:38:48 +0000 http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-96150 [...] For starters, Yudkowsky pointed out that Lanier was taking “Singularity” to mean at least three different things (elsewhere Yudkowsky has delineated “Three Major Singularity Schools“). [...] [...] For starters, Yudkowsky pointed out that Lanier was taking “Singularity” to mean at least three different things (elsewhere Yudkowsky has delineated “Three Major Singularity Schools“). [...]

]]> By: Cesium http://singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-92105 Cesium Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:04:12 +0000 http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-92105 Jeff -- Why? Processing power is processing power. It doesn't matter if it is in vivo or in silico. Distributed processing and shared memory processing are isomorphic. Why will "Strong AI" be qualitatively different? Jeff — Why? Processing power is processing power. It doesn’t matter if it is in vivo or in silico. Distributed processing and shared memory processing are isomorphic. Why will “Strong AI” be qualitatively different?

]]> By: Cesium http://singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-92104 Cesium Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:00:56 +0000 http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-92104 The core claims of the Event Horizon and Intelligence Explosion schools of thought are hugely flawed. Event Horizon says "technology will advance to the point of improving on human intelligence". Intelligence Explosion says "If technology can significantly improve on human intelligence - create minds smarter than the smartest existing humans". The problem is that superhuman intelligence already exists. Putting a man on the moon required more than one person's mental abilities. Building modern cpu processors consumes more than one person's intelligence. We don't sit around waiting for someone to invent a super human intelligence and then everything goes "foom". We are currently in the rapid feedback cycle where our very modest artificial processing power contribute to coordinating global human processing power to build slightly more powerful artificial processing power. These are not three separate schools. Accelerating Change and Intelligence Explosion are tightly coupled. Event Horizon is completely orthogonal and asks whether or not one can sensibly talk about what the world will look like after a sufficient amount of change. The strong claims are not in conflict. Accelerating Change says that we can confidently predict that new technologies will arrive by certain periods of time. It does not specify what those technologies are. Intelligence Explosion says that one of the areas that will be changed by Accelerating Change is the amount of processing power available to humans. Together, Accelerating Change and Intelligence Explosion state that we can confidently predict that we will someday have a *lot* of processing power available. Event Horizon asks whether or not we can imagine what the world will be like once that much processing power is available. The timing of the Singularity needs to be taken with a great grain of salt. Current timings suggest that when we build a cubic-foot box of processing power that is as powerful as a human brain, things will get quite interesting. However, it doesn't matter if computation is performed on a distributed computer or within a single square foot box. There are enough different problems to work on that distributing the processing of the problems around the world isn't a problem. Thus, the point at which we build cubic-foot boxes that contain human equivalent intelligence is roughly the point at which we build, in one year, an amount of processing power equal to the processing power of existing humans. It's the point at which we start doubling the total processing power available to humanity every couple of years. It will still take an additional 14 years or so to get "orders of magnitude more" processing power than is available to unaugmented humans. We also need to note that today, we are not utilizing much of the available human processing power. Roughly half the world population is well connected. Africa is poorly connected; education rates are low in many parts of the world; rural farmers are poorly connected. Improvements in education and the interconnectedness of people will grow human processing power much faster for most of the next few decades than building faster artificial processing power. The core claims of the Event Horizon and Intelligence Explosion schools of thought are hugely flawed.

Event Horizon says “technology will advance to the point of improving on human intelligence”.

Intelligence Explosion says “If technology can significantly improve on human intelligence – create minds smarter than the smartest existing humans”.

The problem is that superhuman intelligence already exists. Putting a man on the moon required more than one person’s mental abilities. Building modern cpu processors consumes more than one person’s intelligence.

We don’t sit around waiting for someone to invent a super human intelligence and then everything goes “foom”. We are currently in the rapid feedback cycle where our very modest artificial processing power contribute to coordinating global human processing power to build slightly more powerful artificial processing power.

These are not three separate schools. Accelerating Change and Intelligence Explosion are tightly coupled. Event Horizon is completely orthogonal and asks whether or not one can sensibly talk about what the world will look like after a sufficient amount of change.

The strong claims are not in conflict. Accelerating Change says that we can confidently predict that new technologies will arrive by certain periods of time. It does not specify what those technologies are. Intelligence Explosion says that one of the areas that will be changed by Accelerating Change is the amount of processing power available to humans.

Together, Accelerating Change and Intelligence Explosion state that we can confidently predict that we will someday have a *lot* of processing power available.

Event Horizon asks whether or not we can imagine what the world will be like once that much processing power is available.

The timing of the Singularity needs to be taken with a great grain of salt. Current timings suggest that when we build a cubic-foot box of processing power that is as powerful as a human brain, things will get quite interesting. However, it doesn’t matter if computation is performed on a distributed computer or within a single square foot box. There are enough different problems to work on that distributing the processing of the problems around the world isn’t a problem.

Thus, the point at which we build cubic-foot boxes that contain human equivalent intelligence is roughly the point at which we build, in one year, an amount of processing power equal to the processing power of existing humans. It’s the point at which we start doubling the total processing power available to humanity every couple of years. It will still take an additional 14 years or so to get “orders of magnitude more” processing power than is available to unaugmented humans.

We also need to note that today, we are not utilizing much of the available human processing power. Roughly half the world population is well connected. Africa is poorly connected; education rates are low in many parts of the world; rural farmers are poorly connected. Improvements in education and the interconnectedness of people will grow human processing power much faster for most of the next few decades than building faster artificial processing power.

]]> By: BrainsLab.net » Blog Archive » Eliezer on the singularity http://singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-63305 BrainsLab.net » Blog Archive » Eliezer on the singularity Fri, 04 Jul 2008 16:02:27 +0000 http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-63305 [...] His notion of the singularity involves I. J. Good’s “intelligence explosion.” More here. [...] [...] His notion of the singularity involves I. J. Good’s “intelligence explosion.” More here. [...]

]]> By: Greg http://singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-57596 Greg Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:37:00 +0000 http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-57596 I would like to favour the Exploding Intelligence theory for future technological change, with a mixture of both the core claim and the strong claim, If human intelligence could match pace? I don't think it could just by been augmented, if there were other pure super intelligences computer based. For human intelligence to keep pace it would have to go like Kurzweil thinks where humans upload there minds to a computer or android but would the new person recognize themselves as the same person as their former selves. If the former human version still was alive after transfering their mind to an android, wouldn't it be like identical twins. While knowning that eachother are very similar, they both recognize eachother as different persons. Not one and the same, but if a human uploaded their minds to an android and then the instant it was activated the human was killed or at least put into some kind of suspended animation, then the android might be able to recognize themself as the former human. Another way might be to try and keep the knowledge of one version of the person from the other, but how could the original human forget that they had just uploaded. The knowledge of uploading their minds along with all other knowledge would be transfered as well to the android. Unless this information could be deleted from both. It might be possible for the two versions to exist at the same time until the human version died naturally then of course the android version would have evolved a lot different and faster than the human version.and would have evolved into soneone entirely different but still having knowledge from its human past. If humans at that time knew that the uploaded version of themselves became someone entirely different and their own conscious was not transfered then they might not bother to transfer. This type of question will need to be addressed, either starting now or some time in the near future when more knowledge is available. I would like to favour the Exploding Intelligence theory for future technological change, with a mixture of both the core claim and the strong claim, If human intelligence could match pace? I don’t think it could just by been augmented, if there were other pure super intelligences computer based. For human intelligence to keep pace it would have to go like Kurzweil thinks where humans upload there minds to a computer or android but would the new person recognize themselves as the same person as their former selves. If the former human version still was alive after transfering their mind to an android, wouldn’t it be like identical twins. While knowning that eachother are very similar, they both recognize eachother as different persons. Not one and the same, but if a human uploaded their minds to an android and then the instant it was activated the human was killed or at least put into some kind of suspended animation, then the android might be able to recognize themself as the former human.
Another way might be to try and keep the knowledge of one version of the person from the other, but how could the original human forget that they had just uploaded. The knowledge of uploading their minds along with all other knowledge would be transfered as well to the android. Unless this information could be deleted from both. It might be possible for the two versions to exist at the same time until the human version died naturally then of course the android version would have evolved a lot different and faster than the human version.and would have evolved into soneone entirely different but still having knowledge from its human past.
If humans at that time knew that the uploaded version of themselves became someone entirely different and their own conscious was not transfered then they might not bother to transfer.
This type of question will need to be addressed, either starting now or some time in the near future when more knowledge is available.

]]> By: The Singularity Institute Blog : Blog Archive : IEEE Spectrum special report on the Singularity http://singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-56675 The Singularity Institute Blog : Blog Archive : IEEE Spectrum special report on the Singularity Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:36:50 +0000 http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-56675 [...] Russell123 on Three Major Singularity Schools [...] [...] Russell123 on Three Major Singularity Schools [...]

]]> By: Russell123 http://singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-55982 Russell123 Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:02:16 +0000 http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-55982 Interesting article, but its unclear which one leads to robot sword fights in outer space. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDrbbe7lgyE&feature=related My guess would be apocalypticism. Interesting article, but its unclear which one leads to robot sword fights in outer space.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDrbbe7lgyE&feature=related

My guess would be apocalypticism.

]]>