Had in an interesting experience last week...

[RAMA]

Nonsense, it is usually the negative response that is the knee-jerk panic attack.

Not "usually." Guarded skepticism is the more common response, but is often mistaken as "knee jerk panic attack" by people who find it hard to imagine any reaction other than technophilic rapture.

Mainly that's because the other side of the "knee jerk" coin is "Cool invention! What a great time to be alive!"

Not EVERY technological breakthrough is indicative of the approaching singularity, or even indicative of any sort of revolution in AI/cybernetics technology. Most are actually quite mundane developments of existing technology, and a few are old classes of little-known technology that is finally reaching maturity.

It takes greater care and wisdom to think things through, see what we've done right and where the areas are we can improve and fix, and where the technologies lie that realistically can do these things.

And that long and careful thought process is rarely exhibitted by proponents of singularity theory.

In other words, drawing pictures and spreading the word. Because hyping future developments is the same thing as helping to bring them about.

If I was younger I'd probably seek to go to the Singularity University, which I think is the most important one in the world for leaders, economists, technologists.

You COULD do that, but you'd probably be better off going to MIT or Cal Tech... you know, a REAL university that produces actual technologists (like, for example, Ray Kurzweill).

Hell, if Singularity University is an option, you're better off going to Devry. At least there you can learn a programming language and actually develop working software apps instead of just spamming threads about how exciting computers are.

unfortunately the people who say we can't do things in the future are the ones who WON'T accomplish anything

Which is all well and good, but the people who hype singularity theory don't accomplish anything either. You may be excited about what you think could be happening in technology these days, but you're not PART of that process any more than we are.

Well the virtual element goes a bit further than drawing pictures, but yes I am not programming anything or advancing the technology itself, I'm only hoping to add the richness of the experience to a VR that will one day come to be part of everyday humanity. It's not there yet. I actually think this is almost as important an element as going to Devry...it almost seems superfluous for me to go there as I already think the development of programs and such technology to be at a point of no return...we are already increasing it at a rate we need for a Singularity. Besides, I'm too old to start a career over again, I don't have time to deal with that much study(well, it is true I don't think it likely I will reap much in the way of benefits in life-extension tech, but if I do, I'll be sure to let you know I'm going back to university again..and no Singularity University isn't an option right now).

I also think that politics is the slowest mover in this development, and although it is likely to be ineffectual at stopping a Singularity, its important to spread the message (as I said knowing about it can make it progress even faster and solve problems) politically. I also feel satisfied that I've spread knowledge of it over the last few years.

Again, your view is small and probably always well be...I'm not talking about a "cool invention" I'm talking about a pattern of developments in technology, the "inventions" are only noted as parts coming together to create the whole. I've also said before that it's integrated with many developments something that several of you still fail to understand after all this time. In other words, missing the big picture as usual. It takes all these conditions happening with technology, politics, energy, economics I've listed over time to create it. I've also pointed out the individuals and organizations making it happen, and how their awareness of it is expanding it's frontiers. If I'm excited about it, it is because it is the first time in human history that we are reaching this crux point. Again you don't realize it, business as usual for you.

I think it quite telling when you mention old technology reaching maturity! That's part of accelerated change! Not seeing the forest for the trees again. I've also pointed out technologies that have stalled over the years that have accelerated as of late before.

I'll likely be more involved in the process more than you will be, I don't have the skills to go out and create the technology myself, but part of it is being willing to assist, to be accepting when the evidence is present. If I'm able, I'll also be the first to adopt the technologies, which is certainly a huge part of it, whether it is biotech, brain implants, etc. I do plan on being a part of it, though maybe I'll be unlikey to get all the benefits of it.

In conclusion, being a skeptic to a positive future is usually a bias, often a very tough one based on biological thought drives. It takes real consideration to see positive data. There is of course data that shows we have lots of problems, I'm here to point out it is not the ONLY view. Too often the bias presented as fact by "authority" and media without taking into account mitigating circumstances trickles down to average people and compounds their bias.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

Now if you want to speculate even further into the future, cumulative effects of the merger will eventually destroy the solar system due to gravitic disruption of the neighboring stars..

Gravitational effects of nearby stars are unlikely to be felt at all. The gravitational effects of the galaxy as a whole will be tremendous, but they would barely differ from one side of the solar system to the other. The solar system won't notice any of them as a result. Aside from ejecting the entire system, or grabbing it, Andromeda will hardly affect a single orbit in it.

Eventually it will but on a much larger timescale than I was originally talking about...but still in a finite timescale before the end of the universe. Its a cumulative effect.

We should definitely see solar system effects through radiation and such in the merged galaxy, as I said our solar system won't be part of it. Humanity as a galactic entity will likely be though.

 

[RAMA]

The legal and political ramifications of the collision with Andromeda will be tremendous. Once-stable star empires will find their territory being violated by other star empires' actual stars. How do the lawyers sort that out? Is the empire whose stars have the higher average velocity relative to the average of the two galaxies considered the interloper? Will we have to define inter-stellar "right of way" to resolve disputes? Will the interloping star systems have to pay damages for orbital disruptions? It will be chaos.

I shudder at the thought of the Kzin parked right next to our solar system.

 

[sojourner]

Now if you want to speculate even further into the future, cumulative effects of the merger will eventually destroy the solar system due to gravitic disruption of the neighboring stars..

Gravitational effects of nearby stars are unlikely to be felt at all. The gravitational effects of the galaxy as a whole will be tremendous, but they would barely differ from one side of the solar system to the other. The solar system won't notice any of them as a result. Aside from ejecting the entire system, or grabbing it, Andromeda will hardly affect a single orbit in it.

Eventually it will but on a much larger timescale than I was originally talking about...but still in a finite timescale before the end of the universe. Its a cumulative effect.

We should definitely see solar system effects through radiation and such in the merged galaxy, as I said our solar system won't be part of it. Humanity as a galactic entity will likely be though.

These changes will take place on such a slow and immense timeline that no one will even notice except in an abstract way. Even the ejection of our solar system would take hundreds of thousands of years.

This is like amoeba in a pond during the coming of winter. The time scale is just so off that each generation will just consider the conditions during their life time to be status quo.

 

[RAMA]

Gravitational effects of nearby stars are unlikely to be felt at all. The gravitational effects of the galaxy as a whole will be tremendous, but they would barely differ from one side of the solar system to the other. The solar system won't notice any of them as a result. Aside from ejecting the entire system, or grabbing it, Andromeda will hardly affect a single orbit in it.

Eventually it will but on a much larger timescale than I was originally talking about...but still in a finite timescale before the end of the universe. Its a cumulative effect.

We should definitely see solar system effects through radiation and such in the merged galaxy, as I said our solar system won't be part of it. Humanity as a galactic entity will likely be though.

These changes will take place on such a slow and immense timeline that no one will even notice except in an abstract way. Even the ejection of our solar system would take hundreds of thousands of years.

This is like amoeba in a pond during the coming of winter. The time scale is just so off that each generation will just consider the conditions during their life time to be status quo.

Well the overall timescale we were discussing was to survivng the end of the universe, or not surviving it-a topic which I didn't bring up--so that doesn't seem to be a timescale that's out of the question.

RAMA

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Well the virtual element goes a bit further than drawing pictures, but yes I am not programming anything or advancing the technology itself, I'm only hoping to add the richness of the experience to a VR that will one day come to be part of everyday humanity.

If you're not working on anything in terms of an actual end user product -- with or without software innovation -- then you're not adding to the richness of anything, you're just drawing (elaborate) pictures.

Tell me you own some realestate in Second Life.

I actually think this is almost as important an element as going to Devry...it almost seems superfluous for me to go there as I already think the development of programs and such technology to be at a point of no return...we are already increasing it at a rate we need for a Singularity.

Then you're content to sit on the sidelines and wait for your faith to be rewarded. Which is fine, but it DOES leave the rest of us (here on this board, at any rate) wondering how real it could really be since the only person who is really excited about it has no educational or practical background in AI science and is otherwise too busy to pursue the subject academically.

I mean, if it's not important enough for YOU to change careers, how important should it be for me?

I also think that politics is the slowest mover in this development, and although it is likely to be ineffectual at stopping a Singularity, its important to spread the message

"Spreading the message" is irrelevant in politics.

Have you considered becoming a lobbyist?

Again, your view is small and probably always well be...

You don't know my views, and aren't all that interested in learning them (your own views are far more interesting to you). Suffice to say, I actually wrote and published a novel that dealt directly with the implications of what YOU would consider "singularity" technology in the developing world. To say that I have "explored" this issue would be a massive understatement.

On the other hand, you strike mas a person who has NOT deeply explored the issue beyond the sweeping assumptions about what should be possible based on the most optimistic visions of futurists. Every single time it has been pointed out to you that these technologies -- or even their development -- will have unintended consequences, you have simply handwaved those objections as "cynical" or "skepticism." When I pointed out to you all the reasons why sentient AI would never be intentionally developed as a labor replacement, you responded by trying to "enlighten" me on the assumption that this was just another ignorant knee-jerk reaction.

You are, in other words, in the exact same position as your chat skeptic: you are convinced that no data EXISTS that could contradict your worldview. You are correct, only insofar as your worldview isn't based on data, but on your personal feelings. Because those feelings are not shared by anyone who isn't a Singularity Evangelist, you are constantly chafing against the other members of the board who keep seeing your threads and responding "So what?"

I've also said before that it's integrated with many developments something that several of you still fail to understand after all this time. In other words, missing the big picture as usual.

The big picture includes the good AND the bad. The thing about objectivity is that you do not have the luxury of assuming a positive outcome when evidence for the negative remains present.

I think it quite telling when you mention old technology reaching maturity! That's part of accelerated change!

And "accelerated change" is another article of faith that has been debunked here time and time again. Your case isn't all that convincing when it depends on concepts that do not bear close scrutiny.

I'll likely be more involved in the process more than you will be, I don't have the skills to go out and create the technology myself, but part of it is being willing to assist, to be accepting when the evidence is present.

Except that:

1) I DO have the skills. It's what I do for a living

2) You're NOT willing to assist; you just said you're "too old to change careers, remember?

3) I accept the evidence just fine. It DOESN'T point to the singularity.

As to the third, what it points to is a revolution in disruptive technology that -- as I once wrote -- could potentially lead to a biggest geopolitical upheaval since the invention of the atomic bomb. It was a point I made very clear to you in a previous thread: Smartphones aren't evidence of a singularity or any other significant progress in the third world, not until the smartphones are DESIGNED AND BUILT in those countries using knowledge cheaply obtained from other sources. So-called singularity technology -- brain-machine interfaces, sentient AIs, memory uploading, etc -- have the potential to shift the balance of power to the developing world if they are allowed to adopt those technologies. The current global hegemony and its vassals abroad have no shortage of reasons to prevent these technologies from proliferating, and have already demonstrated a pattern of doing so even with existing technologies.

Speaking of missing the forest for the trees, I have seen you make NO mention of 3D printing technologies, computer-aided design, CNC machining and industrial automation, rapid prototyping, expert systems, or any other PRACTICAL technology currently in use today, the aggregate of which are ALREADY examples of AI in industry. The trends in all of THOSE fields are leading in an entirely different direction than the "singularity" you have been prophecying here. They lead, among other things, to portability/modularity of both manufacturing and educational infrastructure to such a degree that access to competitive manufacturing capabilities becomes possible even in the global ghetto, both as a force for economic empowerment and as a tool for terrorism and barbarity. The current American Empire has a vested interest in preventing this from happening, although we are essentially fighting against the tide and are destined to lose that race eventually.

If I'm able, I'll also be the first to adopt the technologies, which is certainly a huge part of it

You won't be able to afford them.

 

[RAMA]

This is a fantastic article, amused me too:

http://transhumanity.net/articles/e...bic-no-whats-true-is-deathists-are-vitaphobic

I've been discussing this topic with David Brin privately as well, he's still insisting that although he thinks such things are possible, his contrary nature is telling him it's theology. I'm working on him though...

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

Well the virtual element goes a bit further than drawing pictures, but yes I am not programming anything or advancing the technology itself, I'm only hoping to add the richness of the experience to a VR that will one day come to be part of everyday humanity.

If you're not working on anything in terms of an actual end user product -- with or without software innovation -- then you're not adding to the richness of anything, you're just drawing (elaborate) pictures.

Tell me you own some realestate in Second Life.

I actually think this is almost as important an element as going to Devry...it almost seems superfluous for me to go there as I already think the development of programs and such technology to be at a point of no return...we are already increasing it at a rate we need for a Singularity.

Then you're content to sit on the sidelines and wait for your faith to be rewarded. Which is fine, but it DOES leave the rest of us (here on this board, at any rate) wondering how real it could really be since the only person who is really excited about it has no educational or practical background in AI science and is otherwise too busy to pursue the subject academically.

I mean, if it's not important enough for YOU to change careers, how important should it be for me?

"Spreading the message" is irrelevant in politics.

Have you considered becoming a lobbyist?

You don't know my views, and aren't all that interested in learning them (your own views are far more interesting to you). Suffice to say, I actually wrote and published a novel that dealt directly with the implications of what YOU would consider "singularity" technology in the developing world. To say that I have "explored" this issue would be a massive understatement.

On the other hand, you strike mas a person who has NOT deeply explored the issue beyond the sweeping assumptions about what should be possible based on the most optimistic visions of futurists. Every single time it has been pointed out to you that these technologies -- or even their development -- will have unintended consequences, you have simply handwaved those objections as "cynical" or "skepticism." When I pointed out to you all the reasons why sentient AI would never be intentionally developed as a labor replacement, you responded by trying to "enlighten" me on the assumption that this was just another ignorant knee-jerk reaction.

You are, in other words, in the exact same position as your chat skeptic: you are convinced that no data EXISTS that could contradict your worldview. You are correct, only insofar as your worldview isn't based on data, but on your personal feelings. Because those feelings are not shared by anyone who isn't a Singularity Evangelist, you are constantly chafing against the other members of the board who keep seeing your threads and responding "So what?"

The big picture includes the good AND the bad. The thing about objectivity is that you do not have the luxury of assuming a positive outcome when evidence for the negative remains present.

And "accelerated change" is another article of faith that has been debunked here time and time again. Your case isn't all that convincing when it depends on concepts that do not bear close scrutiny.

I'll likely be more involved in the process more than you will be, I don't have the skills to go out and create the technology myself, but part of it is being willing to assist, to be accepting when the evidence is present.

Except that:

1) I DO have the skills. It's what I do for a living

2) You're NOT willing to assist; you just said you're "too old to change careers, remember?

3) I accept the evidence just fine. It DOESN'T point to the singularity.

As to the third, what it points to is a revolution in disruptive technology that -- as I once wrote -- could potentially lead to a biggest geopolitical upheaval since the invention of the atomic bomb. It was a point I made very clear to you in a previous thread: Smartphones aren't evidence of a singularity or any other significant progress in the third world, not until the smartphones are DESIGNED AND BUILT in those countries using knowledge cheaply obtained from other sources. So-called singularity technology -- brain-machine interfaces, sentient AIs, memory uploading, etc -- have the potential to shift the balance of power to the developing world if they are allowed to adopt those technologies. The current global hegemony and its vassals abroad have no shortage of reasons to prevent these technologies from proliferating, and have already demonstrated a pattern of doing so even with existing technologies.

Speaking of missing the forest for the trees, I have seen you make NO mention of 3D printing technologies, computer-aided design, CNC machining and industrial automation, rapid prototyping, expert systems, or any other PRACTICAL technology currently in use today, the aggregate of which are ALREADY examples of AI in industry. The trends in all of THOSE fields are leading in an entirely different direction than the "singularity" you have been prophecying here. They lead, among other things, to portability/modularity of both manufacturing and educational infrastructure to such a degree that access to competitive manufacturing capabilities becomes possible even in the global ghetto, both as a force for economic empowerment and as a tool for terrorism and barbarity. The current American Empire has a vested interest in preventing this from happening, although we are essentially fighting against the tide and are destined to lose that race eventually.

If I'm able, I'll also be the first to adopt the technologies, which is certainly a huge part of it

You won't be able to afford them.

You need to re-read my top 5 technologies thread which you participated in, many mentions of all sorts of important, interweaving technologies. In fact that was the pattern I set for my responses.

 

[sojourner]

I've been discussing this topic with David Brin privately as well, he's still insisting that although he thinks such things are possible, his contrary nature is telling him it's theology. I'm working on him though...

Like a true evangelist.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You need to re-read my top 5 technologies thread which you participated in, many mentions of all sorts of important, interweaving technologies. In fact that was the pattern I set for my responses.

Yes, your pattern was to respond to criticism by mentioning still more emerging technologies and then claiming the EXISTENCE of those technologies supported your assertion that the singularity was both inevitable and destined to unfold the way you expected it to. You did the same thing -- on Page 10 of that thread -- when I pointed out to you that you had not satisfactorially addressed the fact that exponential growth has the same pattern as a logistic curve before it begins to approach the point of diminishing returns; your reply to that criticism was essentially "Look at this article about this cool new technology!"

You may FEEL that the singularity is coming and you may FEEL that all these new technologies are just pieces of a larger puzzle. But to people who actually understand how technology develops and what the process entails, they don't fit so neatly into that picture. You fall into "technology of the gaps" thinking because you don't actually know how that technology works or what it can do and you simply assume it can do what you want it to do because The Singularity is Coming, dammit!"

 

[RAMA]

I've been discussing this topic with David Brin privately as well, he's still insisting that although he thinks such things are possible, his contrary nature is telling him it's theology. I'm working on him though...

Like a true evangelist.

Hoping to convince logically with the vast and ever-growing information at hand, no strong arming, no torture, no bible thumping. He's already part-way there. I got another response from him yesterday.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

You need to re-read my top 5 technologies thread which you participated in, many mentions of all sorts of important, interweaving technologies. In fact that was the pattern I set for my responses.

Yes, your pattern was to respond to criticism by mentioning still more emerging technologies and then claiming the EXISTENCE of those technologies supported your assertion that the singularity was both inevitable and destined to unfold the way you expected it to. You did the same thing -- on Page 10 of that thread -- when I pointed out to you that you had not satisfactorially addressed the fact that exponential growth has the same pattern as a logistic curve before it begins to approach the point of diminishing returns; your reply to that criticism was essentially "Look at this article about this cool new technology!"

You may FEEL that the singularity is coming and you may FEEL that all these new technologies are just pieces of a larger puzzle. But to people who actually understand how technology develops and what the process entails, they don't fit so neatly into that picture. You fall into "technology of the gaps" thinking because you don't actually know how that technology works or what it can do and you simply assume it can do what you want it to do because The Singularity is Coming, dammit!"

Nah, Ive been over this already, while there is a lot of speculation (obviously because it's about the future) involved it is based on things happening now, its not just feeling, its based on data, something lacking in most previous futurism. I also think you're misunderstanding the posting of technological advances...they are not there simply because they are cool (but certainly they are that too) as I said in the last post...it's not just one isolated development leading to a Singularity it is much more.

RAMA

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Nah, Ive been over this already, while there is a lot of speculation (obviously because it's about the future) involved it is based on things happening now, its not just feeling, its based on data, something lacking in most previous futurism.

Futurism has ALWAYS been based on data. The reason futurism has always been so hit and miss is because futurists limit their data sets to what is TECHNICALLY possible and ignore the social/political/economic realities that shape how technology really develops. They look at what is POSSIBLE and assume that it is both feasible and profitable when it may actually be neither. It's the same mistake made by science fiction writers trying to predict what space exploration would look like in the 21st century; they looked at the technology, the state of the art, the capabilities of the rockets and the relative cost and ran from there. They never looked at America's relative lack of public support for space exploration, the incestuous relationship between defense contracts and space projects, the lack of a robust industrial infrastructure, the lack of widespread participation in the technological development that could sustain temporary failure by one or more contractors. In short, they failed to notice that the technology was the ONLY thing that was in place for it to happen and nothing else was.

It's the same mistake YOU continue to make: just because something is possible doesn't make it feasible or profitable. And the reverse also needs to be considered: some things that are currently impossible may wind up jumping the curve just because somebody out there realizes there's a market for them and figures out how to make it happen.

I also think you're misunderstanding the posting of technological advances...they are not there simply because they are cool (but certainly they are that too) as I said in the last post...it's not just one isolated development leading to a Singularity it is much more.

And you have never demonstrated -- or, it seems, even ATTEMPTED to demonstrate -- that any of those technologies fit into a progression towards the singularity. A number of them explicitly don't.

 

[gturner]

Futurism has ALWAYS been based on data.

You wouldn't happen to have the 2014 Sports Almanac on hand, would you?

 

[RAMA]

Nah, Ive been over this already, while there is a lot of speculation (obviously because it's about the future) involved it is based on things happening now, its not just feeling, its based on data, something lacking in most previous futurism.

Futurism has ALWAYS been based on data. The reason futurism has always been so hit and miss is because futurists limit their data sets to what is TECHNICALLY possible and ignore the social/political/economic realities that shape how technology really develops. They look at what is POSSIBLE and assume that it is both feasible and profitable when it may actually be neither. It's the same mistake made by science fiction writers trying to predict what space exploration would look like in the 21st century; they looked at the technology, the state of the art, the capabilities of the rockets and the relative cost and ran from there. They never looked at America's relative lack of public support for space exploration, the incestuous relationship between defense contracts and space projects, the lack of a robust industrial infrastructure, the lack of widespread participation in the technological development that could sustain temporary failure by one or more contractors. In short, they failed to notice that the technology was the ONLY thing that was in place for it to happen and nothing else was.

It's the same mistake YOU continue to make: just because something is possible doesn't make it feasible or profitable. And the reverse also needs to be considered: some things that are currently impossible may wind up jumping the curve just because somebody out there realizes there's a market for them and figures out how to make it happen.

I also think you're misunderstanding the posting of technological advances...they are not there simply because they are cool (but certainly they are that too) as I said in the last post...it's not just one isolated development leading to a Singularity it is much more.

And you have never demonstrated -- or, it seems, even ATTEMPTED to demonstrate -- that any of those technologies fit into a progression towards the singularity. A number of them explicitly don't.

They certainly do, Ive even given the context...but I'm basically ticking off the milestones one by one...so far it's all proceeding apace...even in some cases, possibly faster than expected.

RAMA

 

[Crazy Eddie]

They certainly do, Ive even given the context...

You gave HYPERLINKS. Not the same thing.

but I'm basically ticking off the milestones one by one...

You're listing inventions and CLAIMING they're milestones without explaining how or why. It's one thing to claim these things are part of a pattern, but it's really obvious that you don't UNDERSTAND that supposed pattern well enough to support that claim rationally.