/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5130523
>singularity
inb4 shitstorm.

>>5130523
you mean will you get to modify your body with nano machines, or jack into the internet ala GITS?
not during your life buddy.

5 to 10 years.

when you get off 4chains

Boy, have I got a website for you. Answer these questions or choose one of various "expert" opinions. Then it'll give you the odds as a function of time.

http://www.theuncertainfuture.com/

Given that none of the trends associated with it have show any signs of slowing down I'd say its pretty likely to happen by Kurzweil's timeline. I think we are going to start seeing large scale automation (Robotics/3D Printing) and early stem cell life extension tech as soon as the early 2020's. Domestic Robots and powerful Intelligent Agents won't be far behind all the while tech continues to get twice as powerful and cheaper yearly. Once we have all that all in place its only a matter of time before somebody creates a real AGI using one of the dozen methods currently under research when computers more powerful than our actual brains become the norm. So yeah I'd say around the 2040s.

>>5130523
Very likely.
Two months.

>>5131658

First computer power isn't stopping AI. Even if we suddenly got quantum computers it's unclear how we would create powerful AI that isn't more than brute force crap we got to solve Chess.

Also, Kurzweil's theory is a piece of crap. All he says is that technology will explode, but technology is actually slowing down.

CPU power hasn't even got that more powerful and we now have to use multiple cores to create more powerful machines.

>thorium reactor
>2034

Whaaaaaat

Already happened. Improving nutrition, tools (including computers) and widespread education have already made us far more intelligent than our ancestors.
>Kurzweil
Take him with a heaping grain of salt. I don't know about AI, but none of his predictions related to biology even pass the laugh test.

>>5132389

Computing power is insufficient for a full human-brain-simulation.

Spoiler: there will never be a singularity in your lifetime. Exponential increases in capabilities are almost universally met with exponential increases in the scope of problems tackled.

Two hundred years ago it wouldn't even occur to any country that it should consider making enough food to feed half the world. When your capabilities grow, the kinds of problems you didn't even think existed suddenly become important. This tends to dampen any of the god-tier shit that is supposed to come from exponential growth.

>>5132411

Food production has never been the problem, the problem is always with distribution.

>>5132402

no one could possibly know that, because no one knows exactly how a human brain works. you can't fully simulate something you don't fully understand, and no one could possibly judge how much space that would require

>>5132411
Conversely though, look at how far we've come.
I think it's possible within the next century.

>>5132402
It's more than enough for a rat-brain simulation, and we still don't have one.

>>5132389
>CPU power hasn't even got that more powerful
ALLRIGHT, ALLRIGHT, I'm goint back to work.
Jesus! Don't be so pushy.

>>5132420

same point again, how can you possibly make that claim? exactly how much space does a rat brain require? and please cite the relevant paper, i'm extremely interesting in this ground breaking work that discovered the entire mechanism of action of mammalian brain

>>5132420

We have simulated part of a rat brain already.

>>5132416
> you
> the point

>How likely?
It's inevitable. Not even the most powerful forces on earth would be able to stop it, even the most dramatic measures taken could only prolong it's coming.

>How soon?
Some point in the next 100 years. But by 2050 or so there should no longer be any doubt about what's coming. It will be obvious to even those who insist on denying it.

never

>>5132459

It's flying car bullshit.

Failed Predictions:
“The majority of text is created using continuous speech recognition.” Comment: Nope. Not even close. Speech recognition, as it turns out, is a harder problem than previously thought. This *might* be true in another decade – speech recognition is definitely getting better – but it’s not true now.
“Most routine business transactions (purchases, travel, reservations) take place between a human and a virtual personality. Often, the virtual presentation includes an animated visual presence that looks like a human face.” Comment: This actually could have happened, but as it turns out, people *hate* interfacing this way. (Remember Clippy?) Routine stuff is now done with a few clicks online, rather than dealing with an inefficient virtual personality.
“Translating telephones (speech-to-speech language translation) are commonly used for many language pairs.” Comment: Like the dictation prediction, this is probably a good decade or so off. The tech is in its infancy right now in 2011.
“Human musicians routinely jam with cybernetic musicians.” Comment: Most programs that ‘create’ music are pretty bad. Except for the Bieber android, of course, which is a technological marvel even if I don’t personally care for the music.
“Bioengineered treatments for cancer and heart disease have greatly reduced the mortality from these diseases.” Comment: Kurzweil doesn’t specifically define what he means by bioengineering, but from context in the book, I’m treating this as gene therapies. Mortality for heart disease and cancer has declined, not because of bioengineering, but because of refinements in pharmaceuticals and – particularly – surgery.

>>5132474
>>5132482

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/03/21/ray-kurzweil-defends-his-2009-predictions/

To summarize the report, I made 147 predictions for 2009 in ASM. Of these, 115 (78 percent) are entirely correct as of the end of 2009, and another 12 (8 percent) are “essentially correct” — a total of 127 predictions (86 percent) are correct or essentially correct.

>>5132501

bullshit

>>5132429
Ooooh, you were talking about a full physican and chemical simulation. But that has nothing to do with AI. We won't make AI by fully simulating a brain (that would be retardedly power-consuming), but by making a computer imitate its functioning.
We know how much operations a brain does, we are very close to a human one with common computers, and supercalculators are already above it.
The point is we have no idea how to program an AI.

>>5132482
I think you have to let him off on the virtual personality interactions. Like you said, we don't have it because we hate it - he's only misjudged taste. Plus, I pay for about half of the stuff I buy at self-service machines, which are kinda in that direction, but not so annoying.

Unlikely. Never. The CIA secretly kills anyone who makes any attempts at free energy, anti-gravity, etc.

>>5132624
any proof/source to backup this claim?

>>5132624
Source?

>>5132699
>>5132751
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/13/nikola-tesla-was-murdered-by-otto-skorzeny/

>>5133174
Oh yeah, this sounds legit.

>>5132624
I once saw a reptilian uncloak in front of me...

The singularity is the secular alternative to religion.

It makes all the same promises, but with different prophets.

Kurzweil is also a con artist, he uses his ill-founded clout to plug health books that advocate dismissal of western medicine and the adoption of alkaline water supplements and other alternative medicine supplements.

If someone isn't smart enough to know that tap water is already alkaline, then they're not smart enough to have any real accuracy of the future.

His charts are all fallacious and silly as well.

>>5133216
Science and rationality has always been the secular alternative to religion. Using observable trends to try to understand or anticipate future advancements/events is the norm in every area of human interest. So some people bring these two together for the realm of science/technology and its observable upward trends and discover how it gets extremely hard to predict what really happens after a certain point and explore the possibilities of what that means and suddenly its con-artistry? I really don't see how....

>>5133293

Nono, you miss my point. The the singularity isn't science. it's just a religion that co-opts science to bolster it's claims.

It tells you everything you want to hear, and it only asks for your money in return.

>>5133216
Dear god, what a ridiculous plot. And people take that guy seriously?

>>5133322
Thats an interesting viewpoint and I've see that played out sometimes with the "we are all gonna be 2000 year old hyper smart cyborgs living on Mars" thing, but I think the majority of people (am I projecting here?) are more interested in the near term 2020-2040 timescale of current technology becoming mature and how that changes things. I just want to be properly positioned for any major economic changes coming down the line (tho i admit I love robots/videogames too so super tech is a thing I like to speculate about). It just seems way less dire to me than a new religion would.

The issue with things like AI and NLP is that while it may look like progress is being made, the truth is that we are so clueless the best we can do is create the illusion of intelligence with statistical trickery.

Imagine that someone is claiming that we will see warp drives in 40 years. A chart showing that velocity over time is exponential (from horses to cars, planes and spacecraft) doesn't change the fact that we have zero fucking idea how to even answer whether FTL is possible; not to mention how it might be achieved.

We don't even know what questions to ask when it comes to hard AI.

>>5133368

It's a big impressive graph. That's enough to sway about 85% of the planet.

>>5133369
>It just seems way less dire to me than a new religion would.

Then how come you see a lot of henny-penny's that shout how we're all doomed unless we do things like go into space or perfect immortality?

>Imagine that someone is claiming that we will see warp drives in 40 years

There are a lot of people hopping on that bandwagon because of evidence so thin and vague that it barely counts as evidence at all.

Like christians seeing angels in clouds think they have evidence of god, any small alteration to a theory concerning warp drive means they have evidence that warp drives WILL happen soon and anyone who disagrees, and i paraphrase; "is just a stupid doody head"

>>5133371

Ah yes, Hard AI is the jesus-proxy for the singularity. For lo, if we dedicate ourselves to making a recursive AI, it will solve all of our problems without creating any new ones and it will shepard us unto a new heavenly utopia, one of uploaded mind-afterlife and perpetual peace on earth.

This sort of blatant wish-fulfillment is one of the major reasons why it should be discredited.

>>5131658
>Artificial photosynthesis
lel

>>5133392
We'll probably have some type of strong AI within the next 40-80 years so I'd rather we have more people like you and Hugo de Garis popping people's party balloons now and making sure if they are gonna do it they do it smart. I don't see much harm in the conversation itself so long as we get more than one viewpoint.

It happened around 1100 hours (eastern seaboard time) on the sixth of June, 1969. You were born during the post-singularity era and lived all your life in it without ever realizing it, and here you are casually wondering when it's going to happen over the world wide net on a computer so powerful that a lot of computer experts wouldn't believe it could exist. At least not as early as this current year.

Some time from now people will still be arguing about when the singularity is going to happen, but they'll be doing it as avatars controlled by their brains in virtual reality.

And when uploaded consciousnesses have long been considered normal, they'll be arguing about it too.

The real question is not when the singularity happened, it's when people are going to agree that it has.