Which Sci-fi future will we reach?
- Thread starter Crewman47
- Start date
Well, as I always post in threads like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
Which means in 15-25 years, life will be significantly different in ways we can't imagine. Think of the last 15. Hell, when I first went to college (92-5), we had just heard of Win 3.1, running ion DOS 3.22, and this internet thing sounded interesting. Now look at it! I was rewatching the Cringely series 'Nerds 2.0.1' and Excite was the fabulous search engine gateway company thing. That was made in 1998. Who could foresee what would happen a year later? From Wikipedia:
Now, if we can get to that Singularity, and keep moving up, as a people and a civilisation, rather than descending into darkness, then in 200-300 years, we could have the Culture. And if you've never read Iain M Banks's novels, you should.
Another thing I foresee is that as computers become more interlinked and connected, they'll collate existing information in new ways that we've never thought of and find answers we never imagined. Maybe the answer to FTL travel is already out there, waiting to be compiled...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
Which means in 15-25 years, life will be significantly different in ways we can't imagine. Think of the last 15. Hell, when I first went to college (92-5), we had just heard of Win 3.1, running ion DOS 3.22, and this internet thing sounded interesting. Now look at it! I was rewatching the Cringely series 'Nerds 2.0.1' and Excite was the fabulous search engine gateway company thing. That was made in 1998. Who could foresee what would happen a year later? From Wikipedia:
No one can see what's around the corner. Something unexpected always pops out of the woodwork.
Now, if we can get to that Singularity, and keep moving up, as a people and a civilisation, rather than descending into darkness, then in 200-300 years, we could have the Culture. And if you've never read Iain M Banks's novels, you should.
Another thing I foresee is that as computers become more interlinked and connected, they'll collate existing information in new ways that we've never thought of and find answers we never imagined. Maybe the answer to FTL travel is already out there, waiting to be compiled...
I think that's all a bit fantastical. While computing power has grown by leaps and bounds in the past couple decades, there hasn't really been any kind of revolution in how we program them. The most powerful hardware in the world doesn't get you much unless it's got equally-powerful software to drive it. As much as I hate car analogies, it's like having a tremendously powerful engine that's not attached to the rest of a car. It doesn't get you anywhere.
I do think the Technological Singularity is a possibility, but not in the next 15-25 years, and doubtfully within our lifetimes. Energy is probably the greatest limiter. If we have an energy revolution in the near future, that changes everything, but we don't seem to be close to any breakthroughs in that domain. Cost-effective fusion power is still a ways off.
To boil it all down to a few bullet points, to achieve Technological Singularity we need three things:
1. Much more powerful computers than we have now.
2. New adaptive/AI programming techniques. What we have is insufficient and I don't see how it could drive us toward TS at all.
3. An energy ecosystem that's nowhere near being in crisis.
#1 will happen incrementally. #2 is a Hard Problem--we've been working on AI and more intelligent programs for decades and have not made any huge leaps recently. #3 hinges on finding a room-temperature superconductor, developing efficient nuclear fusion, or some other energy technology that is ecologically sustainable, cost-effective, and inexhaustible.
Humans are laughably inefficient machines. However, I have seen articles on using techniques to reclaim kinetic and thermal energy from human activity. It would make a nice supplement to the power grid but wouldn't replace anything.
Well, that's why we'll invent the Matrix. 
Our robot overlords would be better off wiping us out and using fusion, though.
Our robot overlords would be better off wiping us out and using fusion, though.
Yeah. Until we've got a full-scale plant with net power output it's still just an unfulfilled promise, though.
Or Atari refusing to market the NES in America.
Problem with looking back on these sort of dumb decisions is, we simply don't know how things would have turned out had the decision been made another way.
Say, for example, Excite did buy Google. Whose to say they wouldn't have fired everybody involved in the creation of Google, put in their own "yes men", and turned the whole thing into a big turd. There is no reason to assume that events would play out exactly as they have! There are simply too many variables to make a prediction.
I'm betting it will be like John Romero's Daikatana.
Everybody will turn into blocky, lo-res models that have huge bricks for hands, and who talk without mouth movement. Workers will randomly run through factories screaming like little girls, all in the same manner. Swamps will be overrun with robotic mosquitos and frogs...
And Romero will have the last laugh, because we were all wrong. He really did make us his bitch.
Here's a classic example of what I'm talking about.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/24/2963066.htm
Another little example: GPS technology is changing farming techniques, making for more and better production. Who knew that, when they started making a device for people not to get lost?
It really is only a matter of time.
BTW, those saying computers aren't smart enough: They aren't smart enough yet. Moore's Law is still holding. Where do you think they'll be circa 2025?
Link to article:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/24/2963066.htm
Another little example: GPS technology is changing farming techniques, making for more and better production. Who knew that, when they started making a device for people not to get lost?
It really is only a matter of time.
BTW, those saying computers aren't smart enough: They aren't smart enough yet. Moore's Law is still holding. Where do you think they'll be circa 2025?
^ the faster they go, the more they process, the more they process, the smarter they get. The key will be some kind of 'holisitic' processing, the ability to draw in a number of factors not directly related to the topic at hand, much as people do when weighing up decisions.
Here's another one:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/24/2963206.htm
I can think of a few uses for this outside of military applications - the thing is I bet there are a dozen things I haven't thought of.
Here's another one:
Link:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/24/2963206.htm
I can think of a few uses for this outside of military applications - the thing is I bet there are a dozen things I haven't thought of.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Yes, the singularity - "rapture for nerds".
An ideea unsupported by facts:
Being able to process more mathematical operations is not equal to being smarter. Not even close.
And a software that could actually make computers intelligent is nowhere close to being within our grasp. The last few decades of AI research came up empty, with no significant discoveries.
Moore's law is barely holding by now - with dual core, quad core, etc. To put it simply, one can't make smaller microchips with current litography so one makes bigger ones.
The microcip technology is close to being mature. After that point, Moore's law will fail.
You may have noticed how there were no improvements in fire arms technology for a century - or in swords and spears for millenia.
Or in internal combustion engines or chemical fuel rockets (despite all sci-fi authors ffrom the '50 being convinced of the opposite).
Etc, etc - this applies to every mature technology humanity ever developed.
You make the assumption that there's no 'upper' limit where the tech matures - an assumption always proven wrong in the history of science.
ONLY according to scientists working on the polywell.
THe ones working on the tokomak claim they're on the verge of achieving economical fusion with their pet method.
And the ones working on laser ignition claim the same of their method.
^ I think you're wrong.
The silicon technology is reaching its limits. Mind you, I remember them saying that ten years ago, that silicon chips had reached their limit. And yet we carried on. Optical technology is coming. And other technologies too.
I'm surprised so many here doubt that things will progress. Read The Spike by Damien Broderick. Then we'll talk.
Or we'll just have to wait and see.
The silicon technology is reaching its limits. Mind you, I remember them saying that ten years ago, that silicon chips had reached their limit. And yet we carried on. Optical technology is coming. And other technologies too.
I'm surprised so many here doubt that things will progress. Read The Spike by Damien Broderick. Then we'll talk.
Or we'll just have to wait and see.