What are your top 5 technologies of the next 15 years?

[RAMA]

On the topic of jobs from earlier in the thread, found this interesting article: http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ting-a-second-economy-without-workers/255618/

Also, as I mentioned, as older non-information jobs are lost new ones are created, 14 million of them from the cloud!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joemcke...e-14-million-jobs-by-2015-thats-a-good-start/

The expansion of jobs in formerly lower income countries.

http://indiacurrentaffairs.org/elec...e-next-4-years-intel-india-managing-director/

 

[RAMA]

You have one false assumption. Exponential technology.

http://www.technologyreview.com/business/40016/?p1=BI

Here I would argue that social evolution must follow intelligence

It doesn't, though. Social evolution follows the complexities of human interaction on a small and large scale and is influenced by many things, most significantly religious, economic and environmental circumstances. It has nothing much to do with intelligence, except insofar as intelligent people tend to do better economically and their social status reflects this. On the other hand, intelligent people are not the ONLY ones who do better economically; naked ambition and selfishness can also contribute, especially for people who are pre-positioned to take full advantage of those traits.

The human brain builds upon itself, older parts still exist in it and some suggest this is responsible for some of our baser instincts. As we learn, we see our world differently...

Some of us, yes. But not everyone is interested in learning OR seeing the world differently, nor is everyone even capable of doing so. Unfortunately for your theory, many of the willfully ignorant/hyper-ambitious nutjobs running around today are in positions of high political influence.

Assuming that cooperation IS the best adaptation for all situations. On the small scale, this is not always the case.

If the technologically inclined and upwardly mobile inhabitants of nations ride the wave created by this exponential technology access (don't forget 3 billion people will have internet who did not have it by 2020) then they can wind up better adpated to it than the ones making the laws, including dictators...

That's exactly what I mean. The exponential technology access works BOTH ways; don't forget, the dictators want to survive too, and they too have an opportunity to adapt. The difference between the dictators and the "upwardly mobile inhabitants of nations" is that the dictators can more easily marshal the resources needed to protect their position and can ultimately deploy that very same technology against their own populations to eliminate potential competitors.

3 billion more people will have internet access by 2020; the dictators who rule them will be getting access to UCAVs and satellite surveillance around the same time.

as the statistics demonstrate from the links, after WWII 20% of countries were democracies, today it's 80%, I believe we are seeing evidence already in Africa and the Arab world their technological and political backwardness is ending. Stay tuned..

When the list of democracies includes such nations as Maldives and Liberia, I don't think it matters all that much. Technically, even Somolia is still a democracy.

My point is, without development of the human brain through evolution and it's corresponding size and intelligence (plus the fact that "new" information" increases synapse connections ad cognitive function) you don't get technological innovation either. Of course other things are involved, such as social interaction, environment, etc, but they really work hand in hand...biological evolution also works exponentially but over longer periods of time. We are now at a point where we can surpass it totally within a few decades.

Speaking of evolution, brain and also cooperation vs conflict, this article sprang up recently:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...how-intelligence-evolved&WT.mc_id=SA_facebook

It is the transition to a cooperative group that can lead to maximum selection for intelligence," said study researcher Luke McNally, a doctoral candidate at Trinity College Dublin. Greater intelligence, in turn, leads to more sophisticated cooperation, McNally told LiveScience.

I'm not trying to say that in this world of exponential change, that there are not those who aren't malicious, devious, power hungry, only that this period in time is the best opportunity we've had--technologically based--to distance ourselves from such thinking. I feel the balance is heading more towards real social evolution as well, but please don't mistake the idea that I think all is well and good in the world, its not, but we do and will have more tools to eliminate what we don't like about it. Right now, the positives are outweighing the negatives, and in some areas for the first time in history. Dictators may get UCAVs (or maybe not--maybe the rebels will have them instead) but there are fewer of them, weilding less power, in ever smaller spheres of influence..in in part because of technology and it's ability to spread social communication.

http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page497784?oid=536584&sn=2009+Detail

http://www.talkafrique.com/issues/african-dictators-revolutio-wave-popular-uprising

http://www.nyasatimes.com/malawi/2011/10/21/tyrants-–-an-endangered-species/

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...Slh9Zu_GBqUXDZu8w&sig2=cZibsxNqXmEEUbrXQx5Oiw

Fortunately, military dictator- ships are becoming extinct in Latin America and during the last decade this has brought a period of relative economic and political ...

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

Another fantastic technology of the 21st century, sort of our poor man's replicator..3D printing: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/04/print-your-own-mit-robot/
..and then you can build more robots with it!

RAMA

 

[Verteron]

You know, 15 years isn't a long time really. Hell, I've been posting on this BBS for 11 years. In this relatively modern timeframe I think we might see:

1. Augmented reality becoming more useful/ubiquitous. Possibly in the form of Google Glasses type devices. The theoretical ability to record everything you 'see', and the associated rise of the citizen journalist (a trend started already) but not sufficient technology to categorize it or make sense of it all yet. Limited Agent-type artificial intelligence will assist you with this and with common tasks such as ordering groceries or doing deep semantic searches of the Internet.

2. Continued moves away from traditional PC formats to cloud-connected ubiquitous devices centred on the mobile phone and/or tablet. Many home users will stop buying traditional PCs, and instead interacting with the Internet via connected televisions, tablets, and other household devices. Touch and Voice user interfaces will become more important relative to the Keyboard and Mouse, especially in the home, where people will use Touch or Siri-like software to do everything from order groceries to set the timer on the washing machine to changing the TV channel. People typically own many devices, in many innovative form factors (including paper thin OLED tablet and wallpaper television type devices) all of which synchronise with eachother automatically (provided you stick to the same ecosystem, e.g. Google or Apple).

3. The death or near-death of broadcast television except for live events (sports and news). People will use connected streaming TVs which are much more interactive and allow people to pick and choose what they want to watch for various price plans. TV channels/networks will cease to be important, instead people will buy directly from the big content producers, and indie labels, much as has happened for Music.

4. Hybrid and electric cars will become more commonplace, and better/more efficient, largely driven by higher petrol prices rather than concerns about global warming. This will in turn drive battery technologies forward for other devices. Quick charing for battery-powered cars will become more common, although Hydrogen fuel cells will still be some way off.

5. New drugs from treating common cancers and certain other critical diseases passing their clinical trials and becoming more readily available. Some alternatives to immuno-supressants for transplant patients, and some developments with rejection-tree transplants via tissue engineering, but no cloning or 'growing' of organs yet. Continued improvements in the artificial heart and other artificial organ designs to the point they become relatively commonplace as a bridge to eventual transplant or for those who are too old or too sick for transplants to be viable.

 

[sojourner]

You have one false assumption. Exponential technology.

http://www.technologyreview.com/business/40016/?p1=BI

And? The article referenced refers to one aspect of one technology. That's too small a sample set to conclude that technology in general is advancing exponentially.

Optimism is nice, but you should temper it with realism. Something Mr. Kurzweil seems to have lost.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

My point is, without development of the human brain through evolution and it's corresponding size and intelligence (plus the fact that "new" information" increases synapse connections ad cognitive function) you don't get technological innovation either.

Technological innovation is yet another adaptation to our environment, and an extremely useful one at that. It still isn't a progressive step except insofar as technology has sharply reduced the mortality rate for human beings and allowed us to proliferate to ridiculous numbers. But, again, technological innovation doesn't drive evolution, neither does intelligence, as both are merely byproducts of that process.

I'm reminded of the Krogan backstory from "Mass Effect." Prior to the invention of gunpowder, the leading cause of death was "eaten by predators." After the invention of gunpowder, the leading cause of death was "killed by firearms."

Of course other things are involved, such as social interaction, environment, etc, but they really work hand in hand...

No, they really don't. Intelligence is a byproduct of evolution, not a causal factor. Conditions can (and in some places DO) exist where intelligence has no survival benefit whatsoever and evolution selects a different set of traits to proliferate.

Speaking of evolution, brain and also cooperation vs conflict, this article sprang up recently

You're quoting an awful lot of articles lately and I'm beginning to notice that an alarming number of them are complete nonsequitors.

I'm not trying to say that in this world of exponential change, that there are not those who aren't malicious, devious, power hungry, only that this period in time is the best opportunity we've had--technologically based--to distance ourselves from such thinking.

It's not the THINKING that's the problem, Rama. The same technology that allows us to pursue more constructive aims just as easily empowers malicious deviants in their destructive intent. And the really sad thing is, we are STILL spending a lot more of our resources on military technology than its civilian counterparts, which is why the civilian market is some 20 years behind the military in almost every respect. You yourself mentioned that 3 billion more people will have internet access by 2020; that puts them, what, 30 years behind the Bosnian militia?

we do and will have more tools to eliminate what we don't like about it.

And my point is, other people less well intentioned have even MORE tools to fill the world with everything we don't like about it.

 

[RAMA]

My point is, without development of the human brain through evolution and it's corresponding size and intelligence (plus the fact that "new" information" increases synapse connections ad cognitive function) you don't get technological innovation either.

Technological innovation is yet another adaptation to our environment, and an extremely useful one at that. It still isn't a progressive step except insofar as technology has sharply reduced the mortality rate for human beings and allowed us to proliferate to ridiculous numbers. But, again, technological innovation doesn't drive evolution, neither does intelligence, as both are merely byproducts of that process.

I'm reminded of the Krogan backstory from "Mass Effect." Prior to the invention of gunpowder, the leading cause of death was "eaten by predators." After the invention of gunpowder, the leading cause of death was "killed by firearms."

Of course other things are involved, such as social interaction, environment, etc, but they really work hand in hand...

No, they really don't. Intelligence is a byproduct of evolution, not a causal factor. Conditions can (and in some places DO) exist where intelligence has no survival benefit whatsoever and evolution selects a different set of traits to proliferate.


You're quoting an awful lot of articles lately and I'm beginning to notice that an alarming number of them are complete nonsequitors.

I'm not trying to say that in this world of exponential change, that there are not those who aren't malicious, devious, power hungry, only that this period in time is the best opportunity we've had--technologically based--to distance ourselves from such thinking.

It's not the THINKING that's the problem, Rama. The same technology that allows us to pursue more constructive aims just as easily empowers malicious deviants in their destructive intent. And the really sad thing is, we are STILL spending a lot more of our resources on military technology than its civilian counterparts, which is why the civilian market is some 20 years behind the military in almost every respect. You yourself mentioned that 3 billion more people will have internet access by 2020; that puts them, what, 30 years behind the Bosnian militia?

we do and will have more tools to eliminate what we don't like about it.

And my point is, other people less well intentioned have even MORE tools to fill the world with everything we don't like about it.

Yeah, there's so much information and generally if I speak about this subject people need to know I'm not speaking from a vacuum, so I generally like to "footnote" my claims with links. Some of the links have to do with recent convos, for example, the latest link about how social communication helped our brain evolve had a dual meaning...it also contains info on how cooperation was more important in evolution than "survival of the fittest".

Ah but technology is starting to affect evolution, and will eventually become evolution. I think that's a major point in the discussion...

Well, what I am seeing here is you simply think things are going to stay the same, that humans will not progress socially, and often concurrent with technological advancement (which we have), that dictators and force will trump the means being created to create change (in the face of evidence), that wealth is not being spread amongst the world's citizens which is demonstrably untrue according to the UN data...and again by this I don't mean there aren't dictators or the world's perfect...It even may be possible that as you say, there may be flareups of gov'ts that manage to get the upper hand in the info "war", but you are far too enamored with conflict in my opinion to see that for the first time in history things are actually changing.

 

[RAMA]

You have one false assumption. Exponential technology.

http://www.technologyreview.com/business/40016/?p1=BI

And? The article referenced refers to one aspect of one technology. That's too small a sample set to conclude that technology in general is advancing exponentially.

Optimism is nice, but you should temper it with realism. Something Mr. Kurzweil seems to have lost.

This was a case of posting an addendum to the last response I gave you where I believe I posted 4 links on the subject, this was one from an "independent" technology site that in itself negates your comment that exponential technology does not exist. The other links do quite well in support of that.

 

[sojourner]

So your saying the existence of the website is proof of exponential technology, not the article linked??? As for the other 4 links you mentioned, you're going to have to re-link them as I have become lost in the sea of links.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

the latest link about how social communication helped our brain evolve had a dual meaning...it also contains info on how cooperation was more important in evolution than "survival of the fittest".

Which is a non-sequitor, since the ability to work cooperatively IS a fitness trait. You're putting yourself in the awkward position of arguing that technology will free us from the forces of evolution while at the same time insisting that our evolution into a more altruistic species is inevitable. In fact, it doesn't work that way; technology or not, we will evolve into whatever is best suited for the environment, whether that means evolving into a race of cyber-enhanced liberal arts philosophers or into a gang of gun-toting bible-thumping neoconservatives with a direct-brain interface to FOX news.

Ah but technology is starting to affect evolution

No it isn't. Evolution happens on too long a timescale for technology to be a factor, except insofar as the extinction rate of species who don't react well to industrial pollution (extinction, unlike evolution, happens VERY quickly).

Social evolution is another matter, but its cycle still moves too slowly for technology to be a prime factor.

and will eventually become evolution

No it won't.

Well, what I am seeing here is you simply think things are going to stay the same, that humans will not progress socially, and often concurrent with technological advancement (which we have), that dictators and force will trump the means being created to create change (in the face of evidence), that wealth is not being spread amongst the world's citizens which is demonstrably untrue according to the UN data...

First of all, I'm not arguing that humans will not progress socially. I'm saying that IF we do, it will have next to nothing to do with technology. In point of fact there are a number of places where progressive social development is more likely to occur among populations who LACK access to wealth or technology and therefore lack an incentive to keep things the way they are. That's my point about technology not driving evolution: depending on the environment, progressive development might actually have a negative effect on the existing power structure and they would instead employ that technology to stifle such development.

Second of all, dictators and force DO trump the means you're talking about. The reason there are fewer military dictators in the world today is because so many of them have been forcibly overthrown, either by a well-armed rebellion seizing a moment of weakness, or were toppled from outside by a superior foreign power. In very few cases were these dictators removed without a fight, and in NO cases were they removed purely by college kids networking on facebook. Local grassroots movements cannot topple the remaining dictators until and unless they are able to marshal superior firepower than their masters; all the smartphones and tablet computers in the world aren't going to change that (hell, the Palestinians have been using smartphones as their primary means of communication since mid 2003; how's that working for them?)

Third, we talked about the statistics. The wealth isn't being distributed more evenly among the people, it's being distributed among the nations. In a depressingly large number of cases it is in fact still controlled by the same people as before, they just happened to have moved their operations into the third world for tax purposes.

you are far too enamored with conflict in my opinion to see that for the first time in history things are actually changing.

Things are ALWAYS changing, Rama, and they always will be. We've already passed SEVERAL singularity events with respect to our ancestors, and yet history continues to repeat itself along similar lines in each new iteration of the cycle.

It's not that I'm enamored with conflict, it's just that I am severely unimpressed by the lofty promises to Singularity Prophets who assume that new technology necessarily means a newer and better paradigm for everyone. I'm sure that somebody said the same thing about electricity during the Enlightenment, or for that matter about chemistry during the Renaissance. And though it is indeed true that chemistry has allowed us to manufacture new medicines and helpful new substances, just as electricity has brought heat and light to our homes and powered vital life-benefiting technologies the world over, those benefits find a perfect balance with the negative aspects of their use. When you a wire electricity to every home in your country, you're suddenly in the position of fighting wars to protect your fuel supply; when you develop new medicines and new material substances using chemistry, you also have to deal with a biblical flood of highly addictive substances manufactured in basements and sold on the streets.

It is not a theory or even a guess, it is a FACT that not everyone who adopts the new technologies will use them for things that are beneficial to anyone. The best we can do is take the good with the bad and hope the good outweighs the bad. Most of the time it does... but only just, even in times of exponential growth.

 

[RAMA]

You know, 15 years isn't a long time really. Hell, I've been posting on this BBS for 11 years. In this relatively modern timeframe I think we might see:

1. Augmented reality becoming more useful/ubiquitous. Possibly in the form of Google Glasses type devices. The theoretical ability to record everything you 'see', and the associated rise of the citizen journalist (a trend started already) but not sufficient technology to categorize it or make sense of it all yet. Limited Agent-type artificial intelligence will assist you with this and with common tasks such as ordering groceries or doing deep semantic searches of the Internet.

2. Continued moves away from traditional PC formats to cloud-connected ubiquitous devices centred on the mobile phone and/or tablet. Many home users will stop buying traditional PCs, and instead interacting with the Internet via connected televisions, tablets, and other household devices. Touch and Voice user interfaces will become more important relative to the Keyboard and Mouse, especially in the home, where people will use Touch or Siri-like software to do everything from order groceries to set the timer on the washing machine to changing the TV channel. People typically own many devices, in many innovative form factors (including paper thin OLED tablet and wallpaper television type devices) all of which synchronise with eachother automatically (provided you stick to the same ecosystem, e.g. Google or Apple).

3. The death or near-death of broadcast television except for live events (sports and news). People will use connected streaming TVs which are much more interactive and allow people to pick and choose what they want to watch for various price plans. TV channels/networks will cease to be important, instead people will buy directly from the big content producers, and indie labels, much as has happened for Music.

4. Hybrid and electric cars will become more commonplace, and better/more efficient, largely driven by higher petrol prices rather than concerns about global warming. This will in turn drive battery technologies forward for other devices. Quick charing for battery-powered cars will become more common, although Hydrogen fuel cells will still be some way off.

5. New drugs from treating common cancers and certain other critical diseases passing their clinical trials and becoming more readily available. Some alternatives to immuno-supressants for transplant patients, and some developments with rejection-tree transplants via tissue engineering, but no cloning or 'growing' of organs yet. Continued improvements in the artificial heart and other artificial organ designs to the point they become relatively commonplace as a bridge to eventual transplant or for those who are too old or too sick for transplants to be viable.

I just made the move myself to total streaming video...I eliminated cable tv completely, but increased my internet speed to 30Mbps to improve my download speeds.

 

[RAMA]

So your saying the existence of the website is proof of exponential technology, not the article linked??? As for the other 4 links you mentioned, you're going to have to re-link them as I have become lost in the sea of links.

Um no....that's not what I said at all...

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

the latest link about how social communication helped our brain evolve had a dual meaning...it also contains info on how cooperation was more important in evolution than "survival of the fittest".

Which is a non-sequitor, since the ability to work cooperatively IS a fitness trait. You're putting yourself in the awkward position of arguing that technology will free us from the forces of evolution while at the same time insisting that our evolution into a more altruistic species is inevitable. In fact, it doesn't work that way; technology or not, we will evolve into whatever is best suited for the environment, whether that means evolving into a race of cyber-enhanced liberal arts philosophers or into a gang of gun-toting bible-thumping neoconservatives with a direct-brain interface to FOX news.

Ah but technology is starting to affect evolution

No it isn't. Evolution happens on too long a timescale for technology to be a factor, except insofar as the extinction rate of species who don't react well to industrial pollution (extinction, unlike evolution, happens VERY quickly).

Social evolution is another matter, but its cycle still moves too slowly for technology to be a prime factor.

No it won't.

Well, what I am seeing here is you simply think things are going to stay the same, that humans will not progress socially, and often concurrent with technological advancement (which we have), that dictators and force will trump the means being created to create change (in the face of evidence), that wealth is not being spread amongst the world's citizens which is demonstrably untrue according to the UN data...

First of all, I'm not arguing that humans will not progress socially. I'm saying that IF we do, it will have next to nothing to do with technology. In point of fact there are a number of places where progressive social development is more likely to occur among populations who LACK access to wealth or technology and therefore lack an incentive to keep things the way they are. That's my point about technology not driving evolution: depending on the environment, progressive development might actually have a negative effect on the existing power structure and they would instead employ that technology to stifle such development.

Second of all, dictators and force DO trump the means you're talking about. The reason there are fewer military dictators in the world today is because so many of them have been forcibly overthrown, either by a well-armed rebellion seizing a moment of weakness, or were toppled from outside by a superior foreign power. In very few cases were these dictators removed without a fight, and in NO cases were they removed purely by college kids networking on facebook. Local grassroots movements cannot topple the remaining dictators until and unless they are able to marshal superior firepower than their masters; all the smartphones and tablet computers in the world aren't going to change that (hell, the Palestinians have been using smartphones as their primary means of communication since mid 2003; how's that working for them?)

Third, we talked about the statistics. The wealth isn't being distributed more evenly among the people, it's being distributed among the nations. In a depressingly large number of cases it is in fact still controlled by the same people as before, they just happened to have moved their operations into the third world for tax purposes.

you are far too enamored with conflict in my opinion to see that for the first time in history things are actually changing.

Things are ALWAYS changing, Rama, and they always will be. We've already passed SEVERAL singularity events with respect to our ancestors, and yet history continues to repeat itself along similar lines in each new iteration of the cycle.

It's not that I'm enamored with conflict, it's just that I am severely unimpressed by the lofty promises to Singularity Prophets who assume that new technology necessarily means a newer and better paradigm for everyone. I'm sure that somebody said the same thing about electricity during the Enlightenment, or for that matter about chemistry during the Renaissance. And though it is indeed true that chemistry has allowed us to manufacture new medicines and helpful new substances, just as electricity has brought heat and light to our homes and powered vital life-benefiting technologies the world over, those benefits find a perfect balance with the negative aspects of their use. When you a wire electricity to every home in your country, you're suddenly in the position of fighting wars to protect your fuel supply; when you develop new medicines and new material substances using chemistry, you also have to deal with a biblical flood of highly addictive substances manufactured in basements and sold on the streets.

It is not a theory or even a guess, it is a FACT that not everyone who adopts the new technologies will use them for things that are beneficial to anyone. The best we can do is take the good with the bad and hope the good outweighs the bad. Most of the time it does... but only just, even in times of exponential growth.

*sigh* You could argue that the altering of the planet started during the industrial evolution began it's effect on human beings, and would eventually influence our evolution, however, this is not what I mean, it won't have a chance to...I am saying part of the very issue dealing with transhumanism and the Singularity is self-evolution, the altering of the very substance of humanity, the mechanisms are in play, but they won't really be apparent for a few decades. The Singularity itself, and our part to lay in the resulting AI would be a huge leap in our evolution. If humans succeed in supplanting machine AI, then we would finally have achieved a way to take evolution away from natural adpatation(some might say chance). Of course if the machines take over, then that is adaptation as well.

You need to look at the data again, it's there for the nations, but is also broken down into data for groups of people...both at the lower end of the wage scale and above. This clearly shows that people in the UN defined poverty scale are slowly disappearing and joining the middle income pack...while there are still those who exist in the largest 20% range of wealthy people and lower 20% of poor people. The numbers are staggering, 100s of million of individual people have been taken out of the poverty range in the last few decades.

Firstly I'm not a prophet, I'm the last person you would think would blindly follow anyone--there just happen to be some vocal technophiles who are publicizing what's already been happening on it's own. I believe in the scientific method, and I am convinced the numbers show which direction we are headed in, and although those numbers mean we just might wind up as inconsequential players in our "own" world, I've seen how we might just avoid that fate. I'm completely unimpressed with the many people in their own industries that can't see the forest for the trees. It's just as hard for humans to imagine this accelerated change as it is to understand the size of the universe, even for intelligent people. However many do, and I'm hoping the information spreads.

As I've pointed out before to others, there's a difference between exponential paradigms in technology (also called a "phase change")and a Singularity event...in no sense can technological advancement in the past be considered unfathomable. The very definition means that computing power + intelligence of AI is beyond our understanding.

As another addendum...the evolution of the brain by social communication has a third meaning I didn't bring up, a central theme for the Singularity is that the brain is understandable and quantifiable, and this understanding is useful in creating the next stage of AI. Learning how it aided our evolution is important.

So there is no confusion...this link about the concept of accelerating change is meant to clear up views about the periods of technological advancements in the past, as well as the relation of social development to technological progress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change

Here's a real in depth article by John Smart:

http://www.accelerationwatch.com/history_brief.html

Who is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Smart_(futurist)

RAMA

 

[sojourner]

So your saying the existence of the website is proof of exponential technology, not the article linked??? As for the other 4 links you mentioned, you're going to have to re-link them as I have become lost in the sea of links.

Um no....that's not what I said at all...

RAMA

Then you need to work on sentence structure, because that's what you wrote. I think I get what you meant now, which puts us right back at my "sample size of one".

As for the thread in general, you seem to be ignoring a lot of the problems our runaway growth is causing resource wise on the planet. We are over fishing the oceans, reaching the point of exhausting basic element supplies, teetering on the edge of financial collapse, and last but not least consuming oil at an ever increasing rate. some information technology "singularity" is not going to save us from that.

 

[RAMA]

So your saying the existence of the website is proof of exponential technology, not the article linked??? As for the other 4 links you mentioned, you're going to have to re-link them as I have become lost in the sea of links.

Um no....that's not what I said at all...

RAMA

Then you need to work on sentence structure, because that's what you wrote. I think I get what you meant now, which puts us right back at my "sample size of one".

As for the thread in general, you seem to be ignoring a lot of the problems our runaway growth is causing resource wise on the planet. We are over fishing the oceans, reaching the point of exhausting basic element supplies, teetering on the edge of financial collapse, and last but not least consuming oil at an ever increasing rate. some information technology "singularity" is not going to save us from that.

Actually I'm not ignoring any those things, those problems are all solvable, though I'm not going to be able to cover everything without lots of link footnotes!!

1. I've already covered the financial issues, and mentioned why the stock market is undervalued and how it will change. I've covered where the new economy and employment will come from in multiple posts. I've linked to how the economies of underdeveloped countries have exploded in the years since 1960, whole new markets in the East are now coming online. Africa may well skip a whole technological generation through exponential info technologies already pervading the country, GDP increasing and poverty eliminating smartphones will have 70% penetration in Africa by 2020.

2. I've covered renewable technologies and future technologies that are already being worked on right now (ITER, DEMO, IVth generation fission). Solar energy is now less expensive than natural gas worldwide, its growth can be measured exponentially. Wind power is replacing nuclear in several countries. Fuel cells or hybrids may replace oil in the next few decades...

3. I mentioned vertical farming and cultured meat as future food technologies that are safe and can replace current techniques, they can create another dematerialization effect in the food industry. Genetically modified foods are going to be the future.

4. I pasted a pdf link about nanotechnology used for environmental cleanup including fisheries.

For more on any of these you can watch:

Abundance

Or read:

http://www.amazon.com/Abundance-Future-Better-Than-Think/dp/1451614217

Then you need to work on sentence structure, because that's what you wrote. I think I get what you meant now, which puts us right back at my "sample size of one".

This was a case of posting an addendum to the last response I gave you where I believe I posted 4 links on the subject, this was one from an "independent" technology site that in itself negates your comment that exponential technology does not exist. The other links do quite well in support of that.

This clearly means the evidence from the linked site negates your claim. I mention it's an independent site rather than a site dedicated to exponential technologies, so you couldn't claim bias.

There is also a graph that includes examination of technological advancements from different sources used for the accelerated returns of technology claim linked in one of my posts.

RAMA

 

[sojourner]

We'll be lucky if half the technologies you mention come to fruition in time, never mind reaching a "singularity". There are going to be some lean years ahead and I have serious skepticism about a sudden utopia erupting in the next 20.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I am saying part of the very issue dealing with transhumanism and the Singularity is self-evolution, the altering of the very substance of humanity, the mechanisms are in play, but they won't really be apparent for a few decades.

Unless you're talking about eugenics and/or genetic engineering to improve the biological basis of humans in general -- I.E. the DNA of the entire human race -- then it's just high-tech gimmicks; remove that technology and we're still just hairless apes with highly developed language skills.

When humans gain the ability to modify their own genomes to adapt to radically new environments -- say, a permanent Lunar or Martian colony -- then we might have something. Otherwise, it's SSDD: same humans, new technology.

The Singularity itself, and our part to lay in the resulting AI would be a huge leap in our evolution.

You're again conflating evolution with progress. They are NOT the same thing and happen over vastly different timescales. Barring some sort of widespread genetic modification program designed to fundamentally change the entire species, that single event isn't going to affect our evolution substantially UNLESS it coincides with some sort of mass extinction incident.

If humans succeed in supplanting machine AI, then we would finally have achieved a way to take evolution away from natural adpatation(some might say chance). Of course if the machines take over, then that is adaptation as well.

For the machines, sure. It doesn't mean squat for OUR evolution.

You need to look at the data again, it's there for the nations, but is also broken down into data for groups of people...both at the lower end of the wage scale and above.

I have, several times in the past few days. The reduction of income inequality appears to be occurring only in a handful of areas, while the gap is widening everywhere else. It also doesn't help much that the U.N. definition of poverty has been whittled down dramatically since the last round of Bush appointees to the IMF.

Firstly I'm not a prophet, I'm the last person you would think would blindly follow anyone--there just happen to be some vocal technophiles who are publicizing what's already been happening on it's own.

Technophiles have been making these kinds of predictions for a hundred years, forecasting that humanity was only two decades away from being uplifted into some transcendent godlike condition by breakthroughs in technology. The usual suspects -- A.I., genetic engineering, flying cars, cheap/clean/renewable energy, cities on the moon, etc -- are always said to be just around the corner, but either never materialize or never make it past the concept stage. I don't see that anything you're saying right now is any different from those past forecasts, especially since you're quoting most of the same kinds of sources to back it up.

I'm completely unimpressed with the many people in their own industries that can't see the forest for the trees. It's just as hard for humans to imagine this accelerated change as it is to understand the size of the universe, even for intelligent people. However many do, and I'm hoping the information spreads.

What difference does it make if it spreads? If you're correct, then it's inevitable and we'll find out sooner or later anyway. If you're incorrect, nobody will notice or even care, the world keeps spinning and we both get to be surprised by what happens next.

As I've pointed out before to others, there's a difference between exponential paradigms in technology (also called a "phase change")and a Singularity event...in no sense can technological advancement in the past be considered unfathomable.

Yes it can, from the point of view of those who lived BEFORE those changes. The singularity is so named only because it represents a paradigm shift so dramatic that we (well, actually futurists who believe in that sort of thing) cannot make accurate predictions about what will happen after it. The only difference between the AI singularity and, say, the electricity singularity or the alchemy/chemistry singularity is that we can see this one coming and our ancestors could not.

The very definition means that computing power + intelligence of AI is beyond our understanding.

It's NOT beyond our understanding, just beyond our PRESENT ability to relate it and/or apply human values to it. The one flaw with singularity theory is that it assumes a relationship between humans and AI wherein humans retain their present value structure while AI continues to evolve independently of it. Theorists don't take into account the fact that since AI begins as a tool used by humans, it is likely that those first sentient AIs will be intentionally imbued with human-like values and intelligence, if only because the humans who built them had a specific purpose in mind by doing so. If and when those AIs transcend those original values, their path of social evolution may not be drastically different from that of their creators.

As another addendum...the evolution of the brain by social communication has a third meaning I didn't bring up, a central theme for the Singularity is that the brain is understandable and quantifiable

The mind, however, is not. That's the main hurdle facing AI theorists today.

Have you perhaps taken into account that most machines don't really need real human-like minds in order to do their jobs? A general-purpose thought engine is a very inefficient thing to put to the task of designing car parts or exploring strange new worlds.

 

[RAMA]

We'll be lucky if half the technologies you mention come to fruition in time, never mind reaching a "singularity". There are going to be some lean years ahead and I have serious skepticism about a sudden utopia erupting in the next 20.

Its not a utopia necessarily...I'm pointing out the conditions exist for a Singularity event. This event may well take the form of something negative, but I'm suggesting there is also hope for something positive. I do feel we are going to have some hard issues to deal with, and it won't always be an easy road. The negativity in some circles leads people to not see the possibilities out there.

The great thing about the solutions I bring up is that most are being developed right now, they are not on a drawing board somewhere only. Others won't be around in useful versions till the 2030s or so, which for energy and food production is plenty of time to make a dent in those issues. Nanotech is already a multi-billion a year business. Biotech is already used in environmental cleanups.

 

[RAMA]

I am saying part of the very issue dealing with transhumanism and the Singularity is self-evolution, the altering of the very substance of humanity, the mechanisms are in play, but they won't really be apparent for a few decades.

Unless you're talking about eugenics and/or genetic engineering to improve the biological basis of humans in general -- I.E. the DNA of the entire human race -- then it's just high-tech gimmicks; remove that technology and we're still just hairless apes with highly developed language skills.

When humans gain the ability to modify their own genomes to adapt to radically new environments -- say, a permanent Lunar or Martian colony -- then we might have something. Otherwise, it's SSDD: same humans, new technology.

Transhumanism by definition means just that...extension of life, intelligence, memory, et al by both genetic and technological means. By transhumanism, I'm referring to a timeline in the 15-25 year range for significant change, and roughly 40-45 years before it merges or diverges with strong AI that surpasses human intelligence.

You're again conflating evolution with progress. They are NOT the same thing and happen over vastly different timescales. Barring some sort of widespread genetic modification program designed to fundamentally change the entire species, that single event isn't going to affect our evolution substantially UNLESS it coincides with some sort of mass extinction incident.

Mass extinction is possible, then our creation, machine AI will be our legacy. Most likely they will be the ones pervading the galaxy in centuries to come.

For the machines, sure. It doesn't mean squat for OUR evolution.

Exactly...I look at it one of two ways: Either we evolve artificially before they do, and keep going as AI, which will then be "humanity", OR our "children" will inherit the Earth. This used to bother me, but I've come to terms with it, doubtless 98% of humanity doesn't agree with me on this.

I have, several times in the past few days. The reduction of income inequality appears to be occurring only in a handful of areas, while the gap is widening everywhere else. It also doesn't help much that the U.N. definition of poverty has been whittled down dramatically since the last round of Bush appointees to the IMF.

Seems to me it has been raised. The blanket range for the UN is $1 to $10 per day. In the USA though, the poverty level has risen for many years. As pointed out in many sources, even the poorest people in America generally have "luxuries" undreampt of 100 years ago.

Technophiles have been making these kinds of predictions for a hundred years, forecasting that humanity was only two decades away from being uplifted into some transcendent godlike condition by breakthroughs in technology. The usual suspects -- A.I., genetic engineering, flying cars, cheap/clean/renewable energy, cities on the moon, etc -- are always said to be just around the corner, but either never materialize or never make it past the concept stage. I don't see that anything you're saying right now is any different from those past forecasts, especially since you're quoting most of the same kinds of sources to back it up.

There have been a few who have predicted that our information processing and tech advancement would one day reach proportions beyond our understanding. Some of them are pointed out in the link I posted the other day http://www.accelerationwatch.com/history_brief.html Interestingly, some of the predictions range around the same time as the Singularity prediction of recent years!! What happens more often in the past is that many scientists and intelligent men predict that we have reached finite knowledge and intelligence! Obviously silly! The claims since the early 80s for a Singularity are different than earlier claims mainly in the forecasting, both in historical evidence, and wider agreement within technological circles. There's a gigantic difference between videos made my GM in the 50s explaining the world of tomorrow and an actual Singularity event.

It's NOT beyond our understanding, just beyond our PRESENT ability to relate it and/or apply human values to it. The one flaw with singularity theory is that it assumes a relationship between humans and AI wherein humans retain their present value structure while AI continues to evolve independently of it. Theorists don't take into account the fact that since AI begins as a tool used by humans, it is likely that those first sentient AIs will be intentionally imbued with human-like values and intelligence, if only because the humans who built them had a specific purpose in mind by doing so. If and when those AIs transcend those original values, their path of social evolution may not be drastically different from that of their creators.

True enough, anyone part of the AI/Singularity curve won't think there's much difference happening, it'll seem normal, anyone outside the bubble will notice.

I don't think anyone claims that AIs will retain present value structure, they suggest we won't know! I claimed transhumans may well have a different outlook on things once they can upload/uplink their minds with other humans and machines.

Personally, if I speculate on machine AI I can't really believe they would share similarities with us for too long after a Singularity. It would be a different scale of thinking altogether.

As another addendum...the evolution of the brain by social communication has a third meaning I didn't bring up, a central theme for the Singularity is that the brain is understandable and quantifiableThe mind, however, is not. That's the main hurdle facing AI theorists today.

One way I noticed the exponential nature of technology over the last 5-6 years is how differently I perceived my personal devices, there has been radical change. The same goes with tech news: in the 90s reports used to be monthly or yearly about significant events, today I see them every single day! The very day I brought up a topic here on the BBS about the 6th generation of processor technology, a breakthrough was announced that will bring it to commercial markets within a year or two. I see the same development with brain research...a field barely scratched in a 100 years of the 20th century, it is now exploding. Many researchers now think we will understand how the mind works.

Have you perhaps taken into account that most machines don't really need real human-like minds in order to do their jobs? A general-purpose thought engine is a very inefficient thing to put to the task of designing car parts or exploring strange new worlds.

I know this to be true, AI doesn't need to be human-like to do what the Singularity popularizers claim, which really makes it more likely rather than the reverse to me. However, the math is there, it should be possible especially if it's human derived AI.

Its funny you bring up strange new worlds...I think our first and best hope for early space exploration are Von Neuman machines, its a better way to explore lots of space instead of using starships (ok so there's no Kirk for us and it's less exciting). They tend to be speculated as much like insects, and will probably only have rudimentary decision-making capability...{devoid of indigenous life--raw materials and energy available--land and reproduce--move on} .

 

[iguana_tonante]

Have you ever seen interviews of Russian scientists, politicians, generals on documentaries from long after the cold war's end? I have. You've never seen a more extreme group of paranoid delusional people in your life. They thought the US was just as much an evil empire as Reagan thought of them.

And what does it tell you about Reagan and his cohorts?