You Are Not A Gadget

[NickL]

yes, that is correct.

it's the point at which AI is able to improve itself, each time it does, it gets faster/better, until the creation of a super-intelligence (wether growth could be infinite or not is an unanswered question). after which it is impossible to predict what will happen.

again, it has nothing to do with the uploading of human consciousness to a machine.

personally, i think that it's possible for a human mind to be copied on to a machine (and for a live individual to exist in such a state), but not sure about transfer of consciousness..

thanks,

Oh I'm not saying the singularity necessarily has anything to do with that, I'm saying that Kurtzweil has suggested consciousness uploading as a positive progression in his writings. Strangely enough, however, many Kurtzweil followers reject that this suggestion has ever been made by him but if you read Kurtzweil's The Singularity Is Near, it's self-evident. He discusses the process of carefully scanning and replicating a human mind in depth and predicts a utopian paradise created through this technology.
But nevertheless, I and now this Lanier are full of shit and don't know how to read and retain information properly.

 

[NickL]

Well... perhaps the singularity *is* like a religion in that it purports to be a universal truth, but fuckwits like us still interpret it in many different ways!

In all seriousness, I think the comparison to a religion is flawed. There are no supernatural elements, there are no gods being mentioned, there are no airy-fairy concepts that are difficult to latch on to, and there is no reliance on concepts of good, evil, spirituality, and immortality.

If anything it is science taken to its ultimate logical conclusion.

Kurzweil promotes improvement, not replacement. He talks about adding and modifying our existing framework. Downloading consciousness is not his agenda, and a direct quote where he says that would be good to see. His agenda is this - we have natural flaws, we can improve them.

Now *my* problem with it is that it is a bit of a utopian pipe dream. But that's a different criticism to one mentioned. I feel about Kurzweils singularity theory as I do about the venus project, et al.

At any rate - this book sounds like a good read.

He does talk about immortality though, his comments on mind uploading suggest and may even explicitly discuss (though I can't quite remember) immortality as one of its primary benefits.

The one big thing that gives me a religious vibe about the singularity followers is the concept that the human condition and the state of being made of flesh is somehow inherently flawed and will become perfect once we reach some other state of being.

I can see where you're coming from for sure! You obviously like his writings and I respect you more as an individual than many many other simply for picking up a book in this day and age at all, let alone one about the future of technology! A sad truth but a truth nonetheless. Sorry if we hijacked your thread James!

 

[drew_drummer]

I'd have to go back and re-read it, but I'm pretty sure he talks about life extension. In the Singularity Is Near at least, I don't think he does talk about immortality. They are two subtly different things.

I respect you and James as well, and I'm not trying to turn this into a fight. It's just a discussion brought on by Laniers comments.

Now I'd say there are obviously faults with the human condition. Checkout Dan Dennett's work on consciousness - our senses and receptors are easily fooled by external phenomena, and give thought to the illnesses we suffer daily. These things are plain to see - it should be common sense that we are not without fault biologically or socially. And to recognise that and want to do something about it... I don't accept that this makes it have a religious vibe. You might as well then say that all eutopian ideals have a religious vibe, because they imagine a higher level of existence.

But I will say that its a little naive to think that technology can cure all these problems of the world. As we say in rate-my-mix-threads... these are just tools. It's the skills of the person wielding the tools that makes it sound good or not.

Same with technology in the world.

Religion and futurism are two very distinct things. I'd be happy to keep it that way - or else you end up with an even more fucked up form of Scientology. Where it's all the same old bullshit in new pants.

And I like many writers. Doesn't mean I agree with them entirely, but anything thought provoking is worth reading.

 

[NickL]

It's all good, I didn't think you were starting anything but I remember the argument getting kind of brutal last time and I'm not really a fighter haha.

To be honest I like being human. We have tons of problems and I can't stand what most of the species chooses to do with their time and energy but dehumanization leads to a whole mountain of other compromises. Any robot can paint a picture but I refuse to believe any robot could ever match van gough in sheer expressive ability. So at a very visceral level I could just never accept the fact that our entire state of being needs improvement.

Edit: Van Gough killed himself so maybe that's a bad example

 

[drew_drummer]

I'd be more impressed with Van Gogh if he cut his penis off and threw out the window. The ear??? Pffft.

 

[John_C]

I'd be more impressed with Van Gogh if he cut his penis off and threw out the window. The ear??? Pffft.

haha

 

[NickL]

I'd be more impressed with Van Gogh if he cut his penis off and threw out the window. The ear??? Pffft.

bahahaha

 

[James Murphy]

no James, Moore's law is related to the number of transistors that can fit into a computer die, and whilst it's held true for a long time (doubling every 18-24 months), it's tapering out, as we're reaching the limits of how small silicon based transistors can go. I have no doubt that some alternative technology will come to alleviate this issue, but even if a transistor could be made into 1 atom, that's still an upper limit on how many transistors you can fit.

the singularity (and more generally, the technological singularity) are primarily concerned with AI improving itself faster and faster each time, with exponential growth occurring.

well, either that, or i'm in trouble when i come to do my finals in june.

thanks,

sorry Dan.... Kurzweil himself references Moore's Law in regards to his theories... it is the model upon which he bases the ever increasing speed of technological advancement in the Singularity. his own words.

i don't really want to discuss Kurzweil though... this isn't a Singularity thread..... i wanted to discuss Lanier's book, the key points of which i outlined in the OP, before the Interview.

 

[drew_drummer]

Well... kind of need to read it first.

 

[Morgan C]

The thought of human consciousness becoming one with computers is a scary one.

It's blatantly going to happen somewhere along the way. Ghost In The Shell... that is our future.

It's not going to 'blatantly happen', it'll happen very slowly that we'll hardly realise it. It's already happening. Why would you bother memorising anything anymore if you can just look it up on Google anywhere, anytime, from your iPhone? Why remember someone's birthday if Facebook reminds you the day before?

I'ma try and get this book. James can you elaborate on what this means, until then?

• Why a new humanistic technology is necessary.

 

[James Murphy]

I'ma try and get this book. James can you elaborate on what this means, until then?

well, i can talk about why Lanier thinks it's necessary, which is really the main thrust of the book: So that we don't lose the innovation that can occur in "closed shop" operations where individuals or relatively small focused groups can polish and hone ideas and products to high standards, to the mediocrity he feels is inherent in "collective" technologies, like web 2.0, etc.... which also basically disenfranchise the artistic and creative middle-class.

As for my personal take on the book and the author's themes as a whole... i don't think i'm informed enough yet to have a strong opinion, though i find myself leaning toward the author's POV currently. He makes a lot of sense so far... but i'm less than half way through the book at this moment, actually.

 

[El_Gato]

Didn't read any of his books or the thread cause I don't have much time now but from this interview bits, I think he got a few points but saying the internet is evil, information shouldn't be free, creativity is killed...

Well, look at this forum: Internet is good, information is free, creativity is boosted.

AND

We're discussing this on the WEB.

Still curious about this "visionary".

 

[James Murphy]

^honestly, i don't think you really read the interview either, lol... at least you didn't understand it well.

 

[ratsapprentice]

The problem is not inherent in the Internet or the Web. Deterioration only began around the turn of the century with the rise of so-called "Web 2.0" designs. These designs valued the information content of the web over individuals. It became fashionable to aggregate the expressions of people into dehumanized data. There are so many things wrong with this that it takes a whole book to summarize them. Here’s just one problem: It screws the middle class. Only the aggregator (like Google, for instance) gets rich, while the actual producers of content get poor. This is why newspapers are dying. It might sound like it is only a problem for creative people, like musicians or writers, but eventually it will be a problem for everyone. When robots can repair roads someday, will people have jobs programming those robots, or will the human programmers be so aggregated that they essentially work for free, like today’s recording musicians? Web 2.0 is a formula to kill the middle class and undo centuries of social progress.

anyone care to explain this to a simple man, who has just had his intellect severly bruised by a simple internet forum thread......

 

[drew_drummer]

Lets hope it isn't just another diatribe about how the middle classes are under attack.

 

[James Murphy]

Lets hope it isn't just another diatribe about how the middle classes are under attack.

yeah, cuz us posh fuckers here on the super-swanky sneap forum are far too upper class to care about any of that rubbish, lol