"The Singularity Is Near" by Ray Kurzweil, How Close?? - Page 3

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Science, Math, and Philosophy

"The Singularity Is Near" by Ray Kurzweil, How Close??

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 3 of 25

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 13 23

Last

Page 3 of 25

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 13 23

Last

08-01-2010 , 08:17 PM

#51

durkadurka33

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 8,709

Subfallen: have you heard of survivorship bias?

Quote

08-01-2010 , 08:29 PM

#52

Subfallen

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 7,243

Karganeth -

Good post imo.

dd33 -

No, but it sounds interesting actually.

Quote

08-01-2010 , 08:34 PM

#53

econophile

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 11,319

my beef with kurzweil isn't his technological bona fides, but his tendency to downplay the importance of political, economic and social factors

Quote

08-01-2010 , 08:36 PM

#54

TomCowley

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 5,649

Whatever else he is, he's completely intellectually dishonest. Following the link he posted (hi dip****) to his actual letter back at the bottom half of

http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/mi...9-predictions/

his responses to criticism are just comically awful. The guy's a delusional liar. Creationists routinely come up with less ******ed tripe.

Quote

08-01-2010 , 08:38 PM

#55

jb9

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,147

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subfallen

Did you miss the first paragraph of my post? Only a handful of people are qualified to critique Kurzweil.

I assumed it was either a joke or religious ranting.

Quote

08-01-2010 , 08:41 PM

#56

jb9

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,147

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karganeth

if you logically think about it you'll realize that it's not such an unreasonable prediction.

1. We do not know quite what consciousness is.
2. But we think whatever it is some day machines will wake up and have it because they are getting faster and consciousness is probably some function of faster even though we don't know what it is.
3. Then they will run the world.
QED.

Quote

08-01-2010 , 10:23 PM

#57

vixticator

clutch

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 117,339

SF, Kurzweil has plenty of critics. Are none of them qualified? Specifically, Dennett, Lainer, Searle, Penrose.

Quote

08-01-2010 , 11:09 PM

#58

Subfallen

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 7,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by vixticator

SF, Kurzweil has plenty of critics. Are none of them qualified? Specifically, Dennett, Lainer, Searle, Penrose.

Of course they are! As I noted, disagreeing with Kurzweil puts you in good company. It's the random ridicule by relative idiots that drags me into these threads.

Quote

08-01-2010 , 11:09 PM

#59

PrinceOfPokerstars

adept

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 934

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subfallen

PrinceOfPokerstars -

At present, the facts are: Kurzweil is one of the world's most successful---certainly the most influential----futurists, and a world-class inventor.

You may disagree with Kurzweil and be in enviable company, but I don't see how you can ridicule him with a straight face. Yet so many do. Why?

You've listed nothing but your opinions. Most successful, opinion. Most influential, opinion. Futurist? Not a real science. World-class inventor? Opinion. Also what are his world class inventions.

Quote

08-01-2010 , 11:10 PM

#60

PrinceOfPokerstars

adept

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 934

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subfallen

Did you miss the first paragraph of my post? Only a handful of people are qualified to critique Kurzweil.

How are you qualified to believe him? If you aren't qualified to critique him, then you aren't qualified to know if he's correct. Are you qualified to refute the scientists that disagree with him? As it stands, you are trusting him on nothing but faith, since you aren't qualified to accurately gauge his theories.

Last edited by PrinceOfPokerstars; 08-01-2010 at 11:16 PM.

Quote

08-01-2010 , 11:14 PM

#61

PrinceOfPokerstars

adept

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 934

Can you skynet terminator guys give me a bullet points of all the evidence we are going to hit a singularity with conscious immortal machines running things within 50 years? People being able to make better computers is the evidence?

Forget the singularity, I'd be impressed if Windows made a decent operating system within 50 years.

Quote

08-01-2010 , 11:37 PM

#62

vixticator

clutch

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 117,339

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subfallen

Of course they are! As I noted, disagreeing with Kurzweil puts you in good company. It's the random ridicule by relative idiots that drags me into these threads.

I'm one of those random idiots by my own admission but I feel like ridiculing it anyways. It's fun. Or I'll say that I've read both sides of the debate and believe the critics, even though I don't understand the intricacy of the debate or what have you.

Quote

08-01-2010 , 11:51 PM

#63

plaaynde

Poker Historian

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 20,067

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karganeth

I think many people see the predictions that Kurzweil has and, without seeing the supporting evidence, throw his theories into the 'crazy nonsense' catagory along with scientology and never give the theory a fair consideration. People need to stop thinking with their emotions and start thinking with their logical brains. Sure, it doesn't 'feel' right that in 50 years time AIs will be running the world, but if you logically think about it you'll realize that it's not such an unreasonable prediction.

I don´t think it will be in 50 years. It is very tempting to think about changes oneself gets to experience, and maybe Kurzweil has that bias. That´s ego. But I´m afraid we cant dismiss this thing because of how one guy behaves.

The question still is: what will happen when the computers/robots get smarter and smarter? (yes, I use the word "smart")

Last edited by plaaynde; 08-01-2010 at 11:57 PM.

Quote

08-02-2010 , 12:18 AM

#64

bobneptune

banned

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,400

Quote:

Originally Posted by plaaynde

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0f3JeDVeEo

Quote

08-02-2010 , 12:24 AM

#65

jt217

veteran

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,020

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiki

2045: The Singularity

* $1000 buys a computer a billion times more powerful than the human brain. This means that average and even low-end computers are hugely smarter than even highly intelligent, unenhanced humans.
* The Singularity occurs as artificial intelligences surpass human beings as the smartest and most capable life forms on the Earth. Technological development is taken over by the machines, who can think, act and communicate so quickly that normal humans cannot even comprehend what is going on; thus the machines, acting in concert with those humans who have evolved into postbiological cyborgs, achieve effective world domination. The machines enter into a "runaway reaction" of self-improvement cycles, with each new generation of A.I.s appearing faster and faster. From this point onwards, technological advancement is explosive, under the control of the machines, and thus cannot be accurately predicted.
* The Singularity is an extremely disruptive, world-altering event that forever changes the course of human history. The extermination of humanity by violent machines is unlikely (though not impossible) because sharp distinctions between man and machine will no longer exist thanks to the existence of cybernetically enhanced humans and uploaded humans.

for those debating about what kurzweil says the singularity is

Quote

08-02-2010 , 12:27 AM

#66

Micturition Man

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 5,159

Subfallen -

I think you're kind of fetishizing intelligence here.

Making specific extrapolations about a vastly complex open system (human civilization) far into the future is a fool's (or a charlatan's) game. There are both empirical and theoretical reasons we know this.

And the suggestion that anyone is too smart to fall into a basic fallacy of argument is just wrong. Every human is subject to cognitive biases, attachment to theories, rationalization, etc.

Having said that I haven't read the link yet...

Quote

08-02-2010 , 01:18 AM

#67

durkadurka33

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 8,709

I think that it's possible that the human mind can do things that turing machines can't...you also have to recognize that his predictions depend on computational functionalism being true, which it may not be.

Quote

08-02-2010 , 01:24 AM

#68

Subfallen

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 7,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by econophile

my beef with kurzweil isn't his technological bona fides, but his tendency to downplay the importance of political, economic and social factors

That makes sense. I do feel that Kurzweil consciously sugarcoats how anti-egalitarian a Singularity event is likely to be. (I.e. if it happens, probably only a small elite will benefit.)

Quote

08-02-2010 , 01:35 AM

#69

Subfallen

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 7,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micturition Man

I don't think 40 years qualifies as "far into the future"; other than that I agree.

Quote:

And the suggestion that anyone is too smart to fall into a basic fallacy of argument is just wrong. Every human is subject to cognitive biases, attachment to theories, rationalization, etc.

True, but I don't see any evidence that Kurzweil is committing a basic fallacy. Douglas Hofstadter put it this way: "It’s as if you took a lot of very good food and some dog excrement and blended it all up so that you can't possibly figure out what's good or bad. It's an intimate mixture of rubbish and good ideas, and it's very hard to disentangle the two, because [Kurzweil] is a smart person; he's not stupid."

If a Pulitzer Prize-winning cognitive scientist can't muster a simple refutation of Kurzweil, I'm bloody certain that durkadurka33 can't.

Quote

08-02-2010 , 01:49 AM

#70

PrinceOfPokerstars

adept

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 934

How can they refute him when he just throws out wild ideas for the future? His past predictions that have hit their date have been wrong however.

Quote

08-02-2010 , 02:03 AM

#71

Subfallen

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 7,243

PrinceOfPokerstars -

Here is a transcript of a very short Kurzweil interview with leading bio. If you read that and come to any conclusion other than Kurzweil is an extraordinarily well-organized and deep thinker (who may nonetheless be extremely wrong), you are an idiot.

Quote

08-02-2010 , 02:04 AM

#72

durkadurka33

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 8,709

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subfallen

I don't think 40 years qualifies as "far into the future"; other than that I agree.

True, but I don't see any evidence that Kurzweil is committing a basic fallacy. Douglas Hofstadter put it this way: "It’s as if you took a lot of very good food and some dog excrement and blended it all up so that you can't possibly figure out what's good or bad. It's an intimate mixture of rubbish and good ideas, and it's very hard to disentangle the two, because [Kurzweil] is a smart person; he's not stupid."

If a Pulitzer Prize-winning cognitive scientist can't muster a simple refutation of Kurzweil, I'm bloody certain that durkadurka33 can't.

Refute the flying spaghetti monster.

Same sort of thing.

Quote

08-02-2010 , 02:08 AM

#73

Subfallen

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 7,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by durkadurka33

Refute the flying spaghetti monster.

Same sort of thing.

Um...no. How much Hofstadter have you read? He takes great care with his language (hint: Pulitzer Prize winner, world-class cognitive scientist.) The correct analogy is the one he gave.

Quote

08-02-2010 , 03:48 AM

#74

ZeeJustin

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 7,064

Quote:

Originally Posted by durkadurka33

Except that it's not falsifiable.

It will come at 2015.

2015 comes and goes...it'll happen at 2025.

2025 comes and goes...it'll happen at 2050...

etc.

He'd never stop making the prediction that it's "just around the corner" or whatever.

Hack.

Unfair IMO.The vast majority of his predictions have been incredibly accurate, and he's never pushed back the date of a prediction by more than 10% or so.