Comments on: Singularity, part 4

By:

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:24:29 +0000

‘a. upload the learned skill from the first robot to the second
Efficient, but may not be true AI.’
I’m of the firm opinion that early AI will be industry/company owned and run. Since this is the most efficient way, it will be the way. Its also what we all (secretly or not so secretly) wish we were able to do.

‘If my guesses are right, by 2030 we would be beginning to see some significant economic pressure from the AI sector. And the 30s will be interesting times.’ This is what I want to read more of- also, the smart application of off the shelf tech that exists right now could put a preasure on workers the way Marshall Brain talks about it. Kiosks, kiosks everywhere. VOIP like the one Peter Voss is pushing… You don’t need anything approaching human level AI to gut most of the work force.

By:

Sun, 01 Mar 2009 01:08:39 +0000

Understanding how AI would progress i guess would largedly depend on how do we understand how our I’s work. If a spacious frontier in our intelligence is still unknown, how could we succeed in AI’s in the real sense of the term?
Let AI alone without I… is only A. What is not natural is not lasting and destructive!

By: Accelerating Future » How Long Before Superintelligence?

Accelerating Future » How Long Before Superintelligence? — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:04:35 +0000

[...] Recently on Nanodot, Foresight Institute President J. Storrs Hall said: [...]

By: JamesG

JamesG — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:58:03 +0000

‘This whole singularity thing is starting to take on the tone of discussions of the “End Times” and the “Second Coming.” ‘

So? It’s just a coincidence that many things described in religion, will finally be possible with nanotechnology and AI. That does not mean nanotech and AI are religion, only an ignoramus would suggest that.

By:

Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:49:19 +0000

This whole singularity thing is starting to take on the tone of discussions of the “End Times” and the “Second Coming.”

By:

Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:50:31 +0000

The “trick” of AI was fully describd by Jeff Hawkins in “On Intelligence” like a decade ago. He’s making it a reality right now at Numenta.

By: Instapundit » Blog Archive » STILL MORE ON THE SINGULARITY, from J. Storrs Hall….

Mon, 23 Feb 2009 03:18:01 +0000

[...] STILL MORE ON THE SINGULARITY, from J. Storrs Hall. [...]

By: JamesG

JamesG — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:36:22 +0000

I disagree with the timeframe. The nanofactory collaboration (Freitas, Merkle, Zyvex, etc.) plans to have DMS by 2012. Now, think about that, because I really doubt it is going to take 18 – 28 years to get to nanofactories/nanorobotics from DMS. Probably more like 2 or so, imo. I think people are afraid of telling this, because of all the ridicule they get from ignorant people, but that’s how it is.

By:

Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:37:42 +0000

In the post, Dr. Hall says:

“In nanotech, I think that if there were a major, well-funded effort focused on getting to nanomachinery by trying lots of different pathways simultaneously — a full-court press — we might see some early limited lab prototypes in a decade; but there won’t be such an effort. Thus a better estimate would be 2030 or even 2040. (Counting from 1960, how soon would there have been a manned moon landing if there had been no Apollo project?)”

I must disagree with him on this point. Government funded multi-year projects are generally
required to achieve goals that are beyond the reach of private individuals or organizations.

Things like the Manhattan Project, the Apollo Moon Missionr, and, more recently, ITER, the new fusion reactor are perfect examples of this class of activity. In each case, this goal is beyond the reach of even the largest multinational corporations due to the sheer expense. Only governments, more specifically, The United States, Europe via the EU and Japan (and possibly China) have the
resources to throw at these kind of projects.

Molecular Nanotechnology is quite different. Companies in this field can be started with a relatively
small amount of capital. Zyvex, the company started by James von Ehr is a perfect example of this.

I foresee true molecular manipulation being developed organically via a multitude of different
companies and technologies all coming together at the right time, rather than needing a
“Manhattan Project” style effort.

By:

Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:29:52 +0000

a robot smart enough to learn a human-type task might well be sufficiently complex to be quite non deterministic, so that each learning session would produce a different result, even on the same machine which raises a problem with (b). Also in your list, i think method (a) is a subcase of (c) anyway, so overall I think (c) is a nice idea !