Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by RAMA, Apr 7, 2012.
2) iBrain 2
3) iBrain 3
4) Windows 9
Oh! Someone even more cynical than me. Well done sir!
Space technologies could come later, let's assume we do reach a singularity, then a natural progression would be to spread smart matter through the galaxy. Nanotech spacecraft, starseed robots would be child's play by then. In the near term, space based lasers transmitting power would transform the earth.
Nanotech is pretty revolutionary. Despite it's current growth, it won't be a change overnight, it'll only be in that 15-20 year range when we start seeing what it can really do.
If you look at my top 5, they all connect in some way, which I note at the end of the entry, making them more than individual advancements but a sum of the parts...human biotech improving humans-->AI providing the "brain", or expansion/extension of knowledge and info storage-->nanotech providing the "body"...this could mean foglet bodies or some extension of machine tech--->clean, nearly limitless power generation to run it all.
I was pretty doubtful about the future of humanity as we know it in the advance of machine AI after the mid-90s (Minsky), but it's been mitigated by the fact that there is a chance that human AI would replace the machine centered AI...while it's true I can't predict the outcome, I'd speculate that the pre-singluarty exponential growth of transhuman type tech might somehow transform human thinking into something more long-view and complex. This could carry over into the post-singularity AI infoscape. Might there be an "Artilect" war? Sure. Let's hope not.
There's a distinction to be made, exponential growth has indeed been happening even longer than Moore's and other related laws, but the Singularity is a whole other animal.
Or...the long-view (long-view for humans at least, in terms of our historical time, if we become a spacefaring race, even 50-100 years from now--a mere 100-150 years after man ventured into space--is a tiny a fraction of the human technological age, and a tinier fraction still of modern man) I pointed out would lead to a literal saturation of the galaxy.
Like I said, to someone from the 1700's, it's already occurred. The future will always look like a singularity if you project far enough. It's just a matter of perception from where you are on the curve.
Self-driving cars can GTFO, some people actually enjoy driving, though I guess real cars with proper engines that aren't restricted by pointless feel-good eco regulations, aerodynamics that aren't shaped by pedestrian safety committees, proper mechanical or hydraulic controls that don't nanny the driver with every input, proper manual gearboxes, and without stupid gadgets that add absolutely nothing to the driving experience other than expensive bills when they go wrong and have to be repaired at approved garages with the right proprietary ECU interfaces, will probably be banned/taxed out of existence/forcibly phased out long before self-driving cars are on the market anyway, so it's not like there will be any enjoyment left to lose.
Or they could become strictly for hobbyists like most old cars are today. With the mathematical elegance of self-driving cars reducing stop-and-go and even the space needed between cars, traffic would be much less of an issue for manual drivers. I wouldn't be surprised to see "automated" lanes replacing the carpool lanes in a couple decades.
There's no "perhaps" about it. We're a species right now with a massive disparity between wealthy and poor; a few thousand well-placed political and industrial elites already make decisions that affect (and often devastate) the lives of the other 6 billion people here. One way or another, a small group of individuals would use the "upgrade" to either protect their privileged position, or to gain that position in the first place. Either way, everyone else is screwed.
OR you could just install a "manual control" switch in a self-driving car.
Hopefully, people will realise that using the “manual control” switch is as bad as DUI, and its use will be banned except under extreme circumstances.
OR just forget self-driving cars and even cars with drive-by-wire controls altogether, and just go back to using proper direct cable and hydraulic links behind the controls, that aren't filtered by some stupid electronic eco-nanny?
People should and probably would be free not to "upgrade" but eventually they would fade away without any conflict at all. Eventually evolution would catch up to them. Think of it as a transition period.
^LOL, that's like saying all those poor people in other countries will just "go away" eventually and let the rich get on with things..
Doubtful, considering old/low-end cars still wouldn't have those features installed for several years. More importantly, the early auto-drive systems probably wouldn't be appropriate for all situations anyway and would first be used for highway driving. Once more advanced designs come out that can be used for urban driving they might consider banning manual drive, but the need for a manual backup system would probably forestall that.
Suppose you're right... suppose that the automobile reached its universally perfect form in 1994 and that nothing that came before or after it is "proper." Suppose that most drivers secretly yearn for exactly the kind of car YOU would like to drive. In fact, let's take that a step farther and assume that you know more about cars -- and about what people want in their cars -- than anyone else in the world.
What in the hell does any of that have to do with placing a car under computer control?????
But uploaded rich people don't need cheap sneakers or cheap servants ... or do they?
Actually it SHOULDNT be like that at all...firstly its the rich informed people who may be more likely to make that choice, in a singularity or just before it, the price-performance of AI would make the tech available to everyone: ie: now there are early adopters, people with money usually, and the tech gets adopted down the line by everyone else...the frequency of the separation of these two events has been diminishing exponentially for years....by the 2030s or 40s this will almost disappear, hence availability to everyone.
Yeah, but will the rich want the poor, the blacks, and the jews in their exclusive club?
They wont have the power to keep anyone who chooses to enhance out because everyone will have equal access. Information rules over all, making everyone truly free for the first time.
You have never actually been to a poor country have you?
This question I feel assumes that society will keep progressing. There are studies that indicate our society and others may be heading to a major crisis by 2030 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7951838.stm). I hope they are wrong, and that our society and others will continue to progress.
I do believe that many advances will arise in countries outside the US. Our education system is in crisis as states cut funding, layoff teachers and increase class size, and the colleges and universities raise tuition to make up for the deficiency in their budgets. I find it troubling for our nation's future is that when the good times do roll in that states never ever return funding to education. So, with each crisis, the funding for education gets smaller. Equally troubling is that educated people, especially on the conservative side, are on a downward trend when it comes to believing in science and math. Decades ago, these people had more faith in science and math, and supported major initiatives which later benefited our society.
I think it's important to keep these facts in mind when thinking of what the next advances will be. For myself, I don't know what the next advances may be. I am just attempting to survive from one day to the next.
Separate names with a comma.