I like to keep up with the technolarmists and the technocalypsts, what can I say? So last week we had scientists who apparently don't read comic books.
Now, it's the end of the world as we know it.
I was reading this this blogpost that notes the similarity of the Matrix and Terminator trilogies: namely, they both posit a future in which machines outsmart us -- and [use Brain voice] try and take over the world!.
Fundamentally, though, both the Terminator stories and the Matrix stories are the same story: at some point within the future, the machines become smarter than we are. In the Matrix world we start the war with them; in the Terminator world they start the war with us. But either way, humans lose. That's because the computers can be mass-produced and they get smarter, faster, than humans do. They evolve on a much faster time scale.So, what do you all think? (Bonus points for actually reading Vinge's piece first.) Are we all doomed, Doomed, DOOMED?!?Science fiction author Vernor Vinge calls the rise of intelligent machines The Singularity, and he has written about it extensively. It's bad news for us carbon-based life forms.
In the end, there are only four possible futures:
1 - We destroy our technical capacity to bring about The Singularity before it happens. (I don't think that this will be the case, but a nuclear war might do the trick.)
2 - The Singularity isn't technically possible --- computers will never get that smart. (I don't think that this is the case either.)
3 - The Singularity happens, and the computers decide to keep us around out of pity.
4 - The Singularity happens, and within 20-30 years humans simply cease to matter.I'm hoping for pity. But given the way that humans treat lesser beings, animals, and civilization, I'm expecting #4.
| End Of The World | Artificial Intelligence | Robots | Matrix | Science Fiction |
No question about it — doomed. Cebra and I have talked about this, and while I give some credit to his thought that we will coevolve with the machines, I firmly believe that someone, somewhere will give one intelligence whether intentionally or not. Being the short-sighted creatures that we are (automobile fuel-efficiency, anyone?), enough people will say “Cool!” and eventually the sentient machines will be pretty tired of having to take our crap.
However, I do think that none of the four options happen. I think that the result is either like The Matrix, where our biology serves some purpose for the machines and they reduce us to that purpose (such as, say, factory farms) or it&38217;s a pretty quick snuffing. Once nanotech hits, we’ll all be living with little robots in us (and those who resist will just not know that they have the little robots in them, since they are able to enter through orifices undetected) and those robots will be given the kill signal.
Nighty-night Homo sapiens.
My thoughts?
Disagree that there are only four possible futures.
Agree with Penrose and Searle that machine sapience is impractical. Strongly agree with Platt that the expectation that we will have AI in 30 years is silly, and the "30 year window" has been in vogue for over 30 years (and we still can barely get a good chess game out of our silicon friends, much less a passing grade on a Turing test).
Will go with option 7: By the time "sentient machines" arise, comparable technological advances in other areas will have substantially changed the nature of society anyway, possibly including the role machines play in our life and how they are controlled/used."
Vaguely reminds me of the sub-genre of apocolypse literature dealing with overpopulation: stern warnings about "maximum" planet capacity that are well below our current population, firm dates for food wars that have long past, etc. Fun to think about, a definite issue to keep in mind, but far from imminent.
Basically - "alarmist crap," which I believe Mike has already been chastised for . . . . (sorry, can't find the link, but it was pretty funny).
Ah yes, but "alarmist crap" does generate comments, each of one which gives me an egoboo. When I get enough of those, I can get a dirt bike!
Comment #3 :: link :: November 14, 2003 09:00 AMHaven't read all the references but what about Asimov's three laws of robotics. These were convieniently glossed over in both films, even in the animatrices which was disappointing, and we should be able to prolong our existence a little longer.
Robocop dealt with them, and fairly well too. We could slip in one to prevent duplication of machines or building of new ones without the laws embedded.
There is also a good book called I think Computer One, but I can't remember who by which posits pre-emptive aggression as the problem. If smart computers get built then they will at some point get smart enough to realise that (and it all enters a nasty circle here) if we realise that it is that smart then we will shut it down. We realise that it will realsie this ect ect ect until the computer uses pre-emptive aggression to justify killing us. That is a pretty bad description but hey...
sorry its so long
It is called Computer One and is by Warwick Collins...description at amazon
Comment #5 :: link :: November 18, 2003 09:00 AMI was lambasted several weeks ago when I made roughly the same point as TK and Cebra, in a discussion about Stephen Hawking and mind-controlled robots. NOW you understand me... NOW, when it's TOO LATE!!!!
Comment #6 :: link :: November 19, 2003 09:00 AM
