Singularity

[blakehaydn]

I just listend to seti.org's "singularity" and wanted to know what you folks think about it.

"Every three years, the amount of computer processing you can buy for a thousand dollars doubles. By 2025, your desktop machine will have more computational power, and more memory, than you do. Is Homo sapiens about to replace himself? Guest Ray Kurzweil is suggesting that machines will soon outstrip human intelligence, leading to a discontinuity in our existence called The Singularity. Join us as we discuss this singular topic... and bring a machine with you."

http://seti.sitestream.com/AWA_05-11-27.mp3

[Roboramma]

So is drexlerian nanotechnology possible?

Maybe not in exactly the way he suggested, maybe even not quite as powerful as he suggested, but is it possible to build tiny machines that can manipulate matter on a molecular level? More efficiently than living things do?

I can't see why not, but all I know about it is what I read in his Drexler's book (it was a long time ago... Engines of Creation I think).

ETA, this is weird, I entered "Is Drexlerian Nanotechnology possible?" into yahoo, and it seems china doesn't want me to see any websites that have anything to do with nanotechnology. Odd, I wonder why.

[Iamme]

Ha. Up until my post...you only had a singular(ity) reply.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by blakehaydn

I just listend to seti.org's "singularity" and wanted to know what you folks think about it.

"Every three years, the amount of computer processing you can buy for a thousand dollars doubles. By 2025, your desktop machine will have more computational power, and more memory, than you do. Is Homo sapiens about to replace himself? Guest Ray Kurzweil is suggesting that machines will soon outstrip human intelligence, leading to a discontinuity in our existence called The Singularity. Join us as we discuss this singular topic... and bring a machine with you."

http://seti.sitestream.com/AWA_05-11-27.mp3

The obsession with "computing power" is really misplaced. For example, you can make a chip that takes two bunches of numbers as input, pairs them up and multiplies each pair, then outputs those numbers as a new bunch. Do that fast enough, and you'll have more "computational power" than any computer that exists right now. But you won't have created anything more intelligent than your pocket calculator (in fact, less so). It takes a lot more than computational power to make intelligence, and on THAT front, we are not even approaching animals, let alone humans. To do that, we're going to need software much more complicated and sophisticated than anything we've got, and we don't know if we're even smart enough to ever do that. Hell, we still have problems making an operating system that doesn't crash.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The obsession with "computing power" is really misplaced. For example, you can make a chip that takes two bunches of numbers as input, pairs them up and multiplies each pair, then outputs those numbers as a new bunch. Do that fast enough, and you'll have more "computational power" than any computer that exists right now. But you won't have created anything more intelligent than your pocket calculator (in fact, less so). It takes a lot more than computational power to make intelligence, and on THAT front, we are not even approaching animals, let alone humans. To do that, we're going to need software much more complicated and sophisticated than anything we've got, and we don't know if we're even smart enough to ever do that. Hell, we still have problems making an operating system that doesn't crash.

I think that you spat on the nose of the donkey!

Whether we like it or not, computers are digital binary logic engines and animal brains are nothing of the sort (most likely analog, stimulus-based cascade receiver/transmitters). No matter how much 'computation power' you throw at a computer, it's still a dumb calculator - just faster. The difference is the underlying architecture (as noted in the first sentence). Brains don't (or don't appear) to work on binary logic, but rather on threshold stimuli response.

That noted, it will be interesting to see what kind of intelligence emerges from a complex digital binary system. You might not want to be around when it does!

[NeilC]

Surely software takes computers away from merely being binary calculators. It's possible that one might be able to design software models closely matching the function of "analog, stimulus-based cascade receiver/transmitters" or whatever it takes.

Clearly merely increasing h/w power isn't enough but is bound to be a factor.

[kuroyume0161]

As a developer, at the core, all computers operate on binary values (1's and 0's). There are macro operations, but nothing on the order of the coherence exhibited by organic nervous systems of any sophistication.

I will submit that given enough 'digital power', the semblence might emerge. But, from recent findings, we are problably discussing immediate-access storage on the order of quintobytes (TeraByte*MegaByte) and parallel processing on massive scales (not this dual-core junk). This would appear to be the minimum for a digital system to start emulating a complex organic analog system.

There are analog computers out there. They might be the only real worthwhile path to artificial intelligence/sentience - only time and experience wil tell.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161

Whether we like it or not, computers are digital binary logic engines and animal brains are nothing of the sort (most likely analog, stimulus-based cascade receiver/transmitters).

Doesn't matter. A digital system can model an analog system to an arbitrary degree of accuracy.

There are reasons to think that the Singularity might not eventuate, but that's not one of them.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161

I will submit that given enough 'digital power', the semblence might emerge. But, from recent findings, we are problably discussing immediate-access storage on the order of quintobytes (TeraByte*MegaByte)

If by that you mean millions of terabytes, then the term is exabyte.

Quote:

and parallel processing on massive scales (not this dual-core junk).

Dual-core is for entry level servers and mid-range desktops today, not for serious work. Even the Xbox 360 has three cores.

Quote:

There are analog computers out there. They might be the only real worthwhile path to artificial intelligence/sentience - only time and experience wil tell.

There's certainly no reason to think so.

[Soapy Sam]

Doesn't matter. A digital system can model an analog system to an arbitrary degree of accuracy.- PixyMisa.

Can an analogue system model a digital system to the same degree?

[hammegk]

And might we recall that "real time" actually is a factor?

[kuroyume0161]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

If by that you mean millions of terabytes, then the term is exabyte.

Thanks for that. Wasn't concerned to go look up the prefix as I was tired and ready for bed and could not think of it offhand.

Quote:

Dual-core is for entry level servers and mid-range desktops today, not for serious work. Even the Xbox 360 has three cores.

Yes, but I'm talking about super-super computer parallelism - the ability to process information with millions (in not hundreds of millions) of concurrent processes (neurons). No computer today (or in the near future) will be capable of this in real-time. Not SETI time 'share'. If you've seen 'neural cascades', you do realize that this is millions of neural firings. It used to be thought that a neuron could be modeled in a simplistic weighted stimulus system, but recent discoveries point to a much, much, much more complex system 'per neuron' (and there are billions of neurons in a human brain).

[kuroyume0161]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Doesn't matter. A digital system can model an analog system to an arbitrary degree of accuracy.- PixyMisa.

Can an analogue system model a digital system to the same degree?

Actually, all electronics are essentially analog. What we call digital binary is just the modification of voltages which are analog current and potential within components and traces. So, in the most fundamental sense, all digital systems are modeled from an analog one. It is just the interpretation of the signals that we deem digital.

I think that there are some limitations to the degree of accuracy that a digital system can be pushed to simulate an analog one (analog to digital sampling error - due to insufficient sampling rates and causing false harmonics (or data correlation) - comes to mind as a well-known issue).

[PixyMisa]

Yep. So-called "digital" systems are really analog systems doing their best to act digital. I know Hammy doesn't like me pointing this out, but computers aren't deterministic. Although designers do their best to minimise the frequence of hardware errors, they do occur, and are in many cases entirely random.

Now, let's go back to the question of computing power. Say we need, for the sake of argument, 1MFLOP (one million floating point calculations per second) to simulate one neuron. The Cell processor (which will show up next year in the Playstation 3) can perform, hang on, 3.2x10⁹x9x4x2=230.4x10⁹ floating point operations per second. 230,000 MFLOPS, so it can simulate 230,000 neurons. So, 4.3 million Playstation 3s networked together could simulate - simulate, mind you - a human brain in real time.

And by the end of 2006 we will have that many Playstation 3s networked together... Though they will mostly be used for playing Final Fantasy XII.

Wait five years and we will have processors four to eight times as powerful (assuming no advances that haven't already been proven in testing), and you would be able to build the thing for a couple of hundred million dollars - much less than many "bug science" projects like particle accelerators or space telescopes.

And that's to simulate the operation of the human brain, so it's a worst-case scenario. That computer will be many orders of magnitude more powerful than the human brain for any normal task.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Hell, we still have problems making an operating system that doesn't crash.

We've had operating systems that don't crash for forty years. Just because you choose not to run them doesn't mean they don't exist.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Yep. So-called "digital" systems are really analog systems doing their best to act digital. I know Hammy doesn't like me pointing this out, but computers aren't deterministic. Although designers do their best to minimise the frequence of hardware errors, they do occur, and are in many cases entirely random.

Now, let's go back to the question of computing power. Say we need, for the sake of argument, 1MFLOP (one million floating point calculations per second) to simulate one neuron. The Cell processor (which will show up next year in the Playstation 3) can perform, hang on, 3.2x10⁹x9x4x2=230.4x10⁹ floating point operations per second. 230,000 MFLOPS, so it can simulate 230,000 neurons. So, 4.3 million Playstation 3s networked together could simulate - simulate, mind you - a human brain in real time.

And by the end of 2006 we will have that many Playstation 3s networked together... Though they will mostly be used for playing Final Fantasy XII.

Wait five years and we will have processors four to eight times as powerful (assuming no advances that haven't already been proven in testing), and you would be able to build the thing for a couple of hundred million dollars - much less than many "bug science" projects like particle accelerators or space telescopes.

And that's to simulate the operation of the human brain, so it's a worst-case scenario. That computer will be many orders of magnitude more powerful than the human brain for any normal task.

Very interesting stuff, Pixy.

But your extrapolation hinges on, at least, the idea of simulating a neuron by a 1 Mflop operation. I suppose it would be more than possible to simulate the neurons in an ant's brains with computers today, given an ant's size. Has such been done?

[hammegk]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

I know Hammy doesn't like me pointing this out, but computers aren't deterministic.

I don't? Have I ever indicated that anything is error free?

Quote:

Now, let's go back to the question of computing power. Say we need, for the sake of argument, 1MFLOP (one million floating point calculations per second) to simulate one neuron. The Cell processor (which will show up next year in the Playstation 3) can perform, hang on, 3.2x10⁹x9x4x2=230.4x10⁹ floating point operations per second. 230,000 MFLOPS, so it can simulate 230,000 neurons. So, 4.3 million Playstation 3s networked together could simulate - simulate, mind you - a human brain in real time.

If you could just show that a program could be written that utilized all that compute power, in real time, for something useful. And wow, how much heat will that sucker generate? And how big did you say it was? Last time I looked at something like that I came up with a cube 7 miles on each side.

Quote:

And that's to simulate the operation of the human brain, so it's a worst-case scenario. That computer will be many orders of magnitude more powerful than the human brain for any normal task.

Unfortunately neither you nor anyone else has a clue how to program to "simulate a human brain", forget about "normal tasks" performed by a human brain.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

But your extrapolation hinges on, at least, the idea of simulating a neuron by a 1 Mflop operation. I suppose it would be more than possible to simulate the neurons in an ant's brains with computers today, given an ant's size. Has such been done?

The current neural simulation capabilities are metered at about that of a cockroach. Not too far removed from an ant, I suppose.

But it's not just about speed of operation, it is also about data (storing neural states, connections, and simulating all of the variables). That's why I mentioned recent discoveries that put the neuron's complexity at levels closer to millions of bits (not the previous oversimplifications of several or hundreds of bits). Supposing just a million bits: (5*10^9) * (10^6) = 5*10^15 bits of data for a human brain (about 625 terabytes of storage - this could be permanent, but more than likely will need to be dynamic (i.e.: RAM)). Do you know of any system that can accomodate this much RAM? With the advent of 64-bit processors, we can assuredly address such vast memory spaces, but we'll need memory chips the size of current large hdds (200-400GB) to avoid filling a small office building with chips!

And I strongly agree with hammegk (yikes!) that simulation of neural responses over networks or internet would be hopelessly inadequate.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by hammegk

I don't? Have I ever indicated that anything is error free?

That was your opinion last time the subject came up.

Quote:

If you could just show that a program could be written that utilized all that compute power, in real time, for something useful.

How many examples do you need?

And those are all latency-tolerant examples, what is known as "embarassingly parallelisable" problems.

Quote:

And wow, how much heat will that sucker generate?

A hundred megawatts or so. Which is rather a lot, I admit.

Quote:

And how big did you say it was? Last time I looked at something like that I came up with a cube 7 miles on each side.

...

When did you do the calculation, 1922?

I'd estimate 50,000 square metres of floor space. That's 12 acres, assuming a single-story building.

Plus a few acres for the cooling pond for the air conditioning. Either that or build it in Anchorage and pipe the heat straight into the city.

Quote:

Unfortunately neither you nor anyone else has a clue how to program to "simulate a human brain", forget about "normal tasks" performed by a human brain.

Actually, we do have a very good idea how to simulate a human brain. We're less clear about how the brain does what it does, but that doesn't matter, because we are talking about simulating the brain at the level of cell function, the level we do know.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161

The current neural simulation capabilities are metered at about that of a cockroach. Not too far removed from an ant, I suppose.

Certainly the same order of magnitude, so no big deal.

Quote:

But it's not just about speed of operation, it is also about data (storing neural states, connections, and simulating all of the variables). That's why I mentioned recent discoveries that put the neuron's complexity at levels closer to millions of bits (not the previous oversimplifications of several or hundreds of bits).

I'd be interested in a link, if you have one.

Quote:

Supposing just a million bits: (5*10^9) * (10^6) = 5*10^15 bits of data for a human brain (about 625 terabytes of storage - this could be permanent, but more than likely will need to be dynamic (i.e.: RAM)). Do you know of any system that can accomodate this much RAM?

Um, yes. Any current server processor can handle that. No biggie.

Quote:

With the advent of 64-bit processors, we can assuredly address such vast memory spaces, but we'll need memory chips the size of current large hdds (200-400GB) to avoid filling a small office building with chips!

The largest memory modules currently shipping are 4GB. We'd need 150,000 of them. Though for the rest of the calculations I was basing my numbers on the 45nm process, so divide that by 4.

Quote:

And I strongly agree with hammegk (yikes!) that simulation of neural responses over networks or internet would be hopelessly inadequate.

Internet, yeah. I wasn't seriously proposing hooking up 4 million PS3s to do the job.

I don't see why you consider networks in general to be problematic. Inter-neuron communication is not exactly fast.

[PixyMisa]

Now, the next step is where I personally have my doubts about the Singularity.

By my calculation, in 2010 we will be able to build a computer as intelligent as a human, using only established technology (45nm chips aren't in mass production yet, but they have been made) and existing knowledge (it's a cell-function simulation of the brain; we don't need to understand anything about, say, consciousness; all we need to know is what the cells do and how they are hooked together).

Aside: Obviously it will be enormously difficult to build and program this machine, but we can start work now, because nothing much is going to change.

The next step is this: In 2010, we can build a computer as smart as a human for $200 million. So by 2012 or so, when the 35nm process is in full production, we will be able to do it for $100 million... Or we can build a computer twice as smart for the same amount of money.

One of the key ideas of the Singularity is that once you have a computer twice as smart as a human, things begin to take off by themselves. The computer itself takes a hand in the research program. If it can come up with a modified neuron-simulation algorithm which is 50% more efficient than what we normal humans managed, then suddenly it is three times smarter than us. And then the new 3x computer can come up with better ways to build the chips or whatever...

Personally, I strongly suspect that we will run into the law of diminishing returns here. I think that a computer "twice as smart" as a normal human will be less than twice as capable at solving problems, and also that the problems associated with developing ever smarter computers will become less and less tractable. I could be wrong, of course.

[PixyMisa]

One other thing:

In case you're wondering why we aren't building such a machine today, well, if we start now it might cost a billion dollars and take 15 years, while if we wait until 2010 it would only cost $200 million and take 10 years. That's because we're already approaching the singularity.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Certainly the same order of magnitude, so no big deal.

That's why I stated it - this is the current consensus.

Quote:

I'd be interested in a link, if you have one.

Look at Wikipedia:Neuron:Challenge to the neuron doctirine for a hint whilst I attempt to find the original sources.

Quote:

Um, yes. Any current server processor can handle that. No biggie.

The largest memory modules currently shipping are 4GB. We'd need 150,000 of them. Though for the rest of the calculations I was basing my numbers on the 45nm process, so divide that by 4.

Yes, let's put these together. As I said, any current server or 64-bit processor can theoretically handle 625TB of memory (1024 TB max for some Intel 64-bit cpus). But there is no such system that can hold that much. As you note, and I am aware, the largest memory modules are currently 4GB (and they are atrociously expensive - as I've looked, having server systems of my own). No computer in the world is currently capable of actually using 625TB of memory, admit it (not in an addressing sense, but in the physical available memory sense). Even rack-mounted server systems can do maybe 168GB at best. And the worlds largest seems to not be available yet and still falls short: 13TB SGI supercomputer. Even my biggest computer only has 1/2TB of disk storage. I'd need 1250 times that to reach 625TB in hdd.

Quote:

I don't see why you consider networks in general to be problematic. Inter-neuron communication is not exactly fast.

They are highly undependable and if concurrency is an issue, well, just look at any online multi-user game to see how difficult it is to keep even tens of thousands of users concurrent (with very specific data compressing techniques and the fact that most of the time not all data must be transmitted to every player) without lag (that word is known to any online gamer).

ETA: I was working with a figure of 5*10^9 neurons. The actual number is 100*10^9. So multiply any of my numbers by 20 (12500 TB! or 12.5 PB). And if we are to include the glia (50:1 ratio to neurons) as unitary parts, that number increases yet again to 5*10^12 (!!!). Need I even plug home the size of that number.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161

Look at Wikipedia:Neuron:Challenge to the neuron doctirine for a hint whilst I attempt to find the original sources.

Thanks.

Quote:

Yes, let's put these together. As I said, any current server or 64-bit processor can theoretically handle 625TB of memory (1024 TB max for some Intel 64-bit cpus). But there is no such system that can hold that much.

Well, no. It would be a custom-built system, but the components would be standard. That's true for all really large computer systems anyway.

Quote:

No computer in the world is currently capable of actually using 625TB of memory, admit it (not in an addressing sense, but in the physical available memory sense).

It's simply a question of plugging enough modules together. There just isn't a problem here.

Quote:

They are highly undependable and if concurrency is an issue, well, just look at any online multi-user game to see how difficult it is to keep even tens of thousands of users concurrent (with very specific data compressing techniques and the fact that most of the time not all data must be transmitted to every player) without lag (that word is known to any online gamer).

That's the internet. That has no bearing on networks in general. None. Myrinet, for example, has a maximum latency of two microseconds.

Quote:

ETA: I was working with a figure of 5*10^9 neurons. The actual number is 100*10^9. So multiply any of my numbers by 20 (12500 TB! or 12.5 PB). And if we are to include the glia (50:1 ratio to neurons) as unitary parts, that number increases yet again to 5*10^12 (!!!).

I was using 10¹² as the number of neurons, when it's really just 10¹¹. But assuming the glia do something but are less complex than neurons, it works out anyway.

Quote:

Need I even plug home the size of that number.

It's not very big.

I have about 3 terabytes of disk in my three computers at home. Only 6 gigabytes of memory, but then I didn't spend $200 million.

If we need a megabit of memory for each neuron (let's ignore disk, because it simply isn't fast enough to be useful) that's 125,000 bytes times 10¹¹, or in round figures 10¹⁶ bytes.

Right now, that would cost less than a billion dollars at retail prices. Obviously I hadn't allocated that much memory into the initial pricing, so we need to double it - $2 billion now, $400 million in 2010, $200 million in 2012-2013.

Oh, and it works out to 2GB of memory for each processor (2005 technology) or 8GB for 2010 tech where I assume the processors are four times as powerful.

I'm not saying you'll get one on your desk any time soon, but there's a difference between "it can't be done" and "it would be of comparable cost to other major science projects".

I haven't added in the glia, but we can do that too.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

...snip...

Hell, we still have problems making an operating system that doesn't crash.

But that isn't a fundamental problem, after all there is a lot of evidence that our "operating system" crashes a lot yet we seem to muddle along fine.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Darat

But that isn't a fundamental problem, after all there is a lot of evidence that our "operating system" crashes a lot yet we seem to muddle along fine.

No, it's not a fundamental problem. My main point is that our software is primitive and stupid, and that applies even when we make it robust, efficient and bug-free. Microprocessors may be speeding up exponentially, but our software complexity isn't. The current Firefox browser, for example, is way better than the original Netscape, but it isn't really much smarter.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No, it's not a fundamental problem. My main point is that our software is primitive and stupid, and that applies even when we make it robust, efficient and bug-free. Microprocessors may be speeding up exponentially, but our software complexity isn't. The current Firefox browser, for example, is way better than the original Netscape, but it isn't really much smarter.

Human neurons aren't much smarter than bumblebee neurons, either.

[Soapy Sam]

My suspicion is that intelligence is an emergent property of complex switching systems. I suspect some networks probably already display intelligence. I also think intelligence is wholly useless and totally unidentifiable unless it can act in the real world.
I don't think we are capable of recognising machine intelligence and I don't know if we ever will be. Equally, I don't know if intelligent networks will ever be aware of us.

Let's face it- we can't agree on whether a dolphin is intelligent. How will we recognise it in a machine?

As for modelling the human brain, I'm sceptical. First, to model something we must understand it- can we say that by 2012 we will understand the function of every neurotransmitter, every protein molecule, every nutrient, every sub system and so on? To the level where we can reproduce it in electronic (or photonic) analogue? And if we can do that, can we make it run slow enough to do what brains do in real time? And if we do- why would we suppose that the output of such a system would resemble mental activity?
And if it did, would it be murder to switch it off?

For me, the singularity if it occurs at all is more likely to be due to convergence of neural processing with electronics / photonics. Give a human brain a 100% accurate long term memory. Use artificial subsystems to control musculature. Take the support load off the brain . Free the systems which are currently tied up keeping us balanced, upright, in pain, whatever and channel those into data processing , conscious or sub.
Inbuilt radio to provide telepathy. Make humans the network nodes.
That way we have a proven technology- organic and tested by evolution, enhanced and linked by IT. Alien . Spooky. Hackable.

Thank ed I won't be around . Though maybe they'll be able to store a human mind by then , so you can wake me up in 2105 and tell me again how wrong I was. Heaven or hell?

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

My suspicion is that intelligence is an emergent property of complex switching systems. I suspect some networks probably already display intelligence. I also think intelligence is wholly useless and totally unidentifiable unless it can act in the real world.

That's reasonable.

Quote:

I don't think we are capable of recognising machine intelligence and I don't know if we ever will be. Equally, I don't know if intelligent networks will ever be aware of us.

I'm not so sure that is.

Quote:

Let's face it- we can't agree on whether a dolphin is intelligent. How will we recognise it in a machine?

The question isn't so much whether dolphins are intelligent, as how intelligent they are. They pass they mirror test, I believe. (That is, they recognise their reflection.)

Quote:

As for modelling the human brain, I'm sceptical. First, to model something we must understand it- can we say that by 2012 we will understand the function of every neurotransmitter, every protein molecule, every nutrient, every sub system and so on? To the level where we can reproduce it in electronic (or photonic) analogue?

A valid question, but if not 2012, then 2015, or 2020. It's a question of time, not of possibility.

Quote:

And if we can do that, can we make it run slow enough

?

Quote:

to do what brains do in real time?

Yes. That was what my back-of-the-envelope calculations showed. It would be expensive, but it can definitely be done.

Quote:

And if we do- why would we suppose that the output of such a system would resemble mental activity?

Why would it be anything else?

Quote:

And if it did, would it be murder to switch it off?

I think so, yes.

Quote:

For me, the singularity if it occurs at all is more likely to be due to convergence of neural processing with electronics / photonics. Give a human brain a 100% accurate long term memory. Use artificial subsystems to control musculature. Take the support load off the brain . Free the systems which are currently tied up keeping us balanced, upright, in pain, whatever and channel those into data processing , conscious or sub.
Inbuilt radio to provide telepathy. Make humans the network nodes.
That way we have a proven technology- organic and tested by evolution, enhanced and linked by IT. Alien . Spooky. Hackable.

And probably inadequate. The Singularity requires an exponential increase in the rate of technological progress, and that would only provide an incremental increase. Unless the technological advances can continually be channeled back to increasing the rate of technological advance, the Singularity doesn't happen. So it's not good enough to make people effectively smarter; you have to use the increased intelligence to find ways to increase their intelligence still further. Otherwise you get The Bump rather than The Spike.

Of course, I'm far from convinced that the Singularity will happen anyway.

[Darat]

To extend Soapy's thoughts a bit more. It could be that what we consider is our intelligence is very dependent on what it "runs on", it may be that we can't actually simulate it/model it to a sufficient degree to reproduce it. (This stumbling block doesn't mean of course there is any special "magic essence" involved in what we are, just that the map is not the territory.)

Following on from this (and what Soapy posted) does it make sense to use the same word "intelligence" for the "intelligence" a "artificial" entity might possess? Many science fiction authors (who use the idea of the singularity - whilst avoiding it head on) have attempted to show that these types of entities will be quite "unknowable" to us in the sense that we've always said "gods" are!

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Darat

To extend Soapy's thoughts a bit more. It could be that what we consider is our intelligence is very dependent on what it "runs on", it may be that we can't actually simulate it/model it to a sufficient degree to reproduce it.

I don't see why this would be so; it isn't true for anything else.

Quote:

(This stumbling block doesn't mean of course there is any special "magic essence" involved in what we are, just that the map is not the territory.)

Yes, it does mean there is a special "magic essence" involved. If you say that a complete physical model of a system does not produce a model of the emergent properties of that system, then you are claiming that it works by magic.

Quote:

Following on from this (and what Soapy posted) does it make sense to use the same word "intelligence" for the "intelligence" a "artificial" entity might possess?

Yes. It is intelligence.

Quote:

Many science fiction authors (who use the idea of the singularity - whilst avoiding it head on) have attempted to show that these types of entities will be quite "unknowable" to us in the sense that we've always said "gods" are!

Well, there's two different things there. If you completely and accurately model the workings of the human brain, the output of the model will be the same as the output of the brain being modelled.

On the other hand, if you just whack a whole lot of computing power together and teach it to make inferences from observations, there's no telling how it's going to end up.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

I don't see why this would be so; it isn't true for anything else.

Isn't it? Aren't most of even our current best models only an approximation and don't always give the same results as the "real" system do?

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Yes, it does mean there is a special "magic essence" involved. If you say that a complete physical model of a system does not produce a model of the emergent properties of that system, then you are claiming that it works by magic.

That statement I can agree with e.g. "a complete physical model" but that is not we are talking about; we are talking about in effect making a model from "information" that is created in a very different way from how our brains are e.g. atoms and molecules. In other words the model is not made from the same stuff (no matter how closely it models that stuff) as the "real thing". Hard not to get all metaphysical about this but all I am saying is a model is NOT the same as the real thing and whatever the differences are between the model and the real thing may be something that would prevent them sharing the same emergent properties. That doesn't involve any magical essence just the fact that different things arranged in different ways have different properties.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Yes. It is intelligence.

What definition for intelligence are you using?

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Well, there's two different things there. If you completely and accurately model the workings of the human brain, the output of the model will be the same as the output of the brain being modelled.

Back to my point - a map is not the territory no matter how good the map is. (Of course it may be that we can model a system like the human barin in a different medium and find its outputs are indistinguishable from the "real" thing. It's just that I think it's something we should be careful about assuming at this early stage of our knowledge.)

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

On the other hand, if you just whack a whole lot of computing power together and teach it to make inferences from observations, there's no telling how it's going to end up.

The sc-fi short story that goes:

Humans had done it, after milleninia of work they had created what would be the most powerful computer posible, a computer that could answer any question conceivable.

Despite this power all that was in front of the small team ready for the today's ceremony was a small console with a speaker, a light and two buttons "on" and "off". With a trembling hand the woman pressed the small discrete "on" button. A blue light illuminated her face and a pleasant voice asked "What can I answer?", she looked at her colleagues, they nodded, she turned back to the console and with a slightly unsteady voice asked "Is there a God?"

Suddenly a flash of lightening crashed into the console melting the "off" button and the now not quite so pleasant voice said "There is NOW!".

[sphenisc]

Actual plans to have go at this are discussed in this thread...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=42424

[hammegk]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

If you completely and accurately model the workings of the human brain, the output of the model will be the same as the output of the brain being modelled.

Unknown, but at least possibly true, assuming all the axioms you base your version of reality on are correct.

Quote:

On the other hand, if you just whack a whole lot of computing power together and teach it to make inferences from observations, there's no telling how it's going to end up.

That would depend on the intelligence and skill of the original programmer. And I suspect you will need "outside-the-system" code revision, and human intelligence will be deciding where it ends up.

[Soapy Sam]

Even if Pixy's version is correct- we can build an electronic analogue of a brain and that produces an analogue of a mind- (and like Darat, I see no reason to suppose this is necessarily the case)- Is it worth it? Humans are very good at some things.( Creativity, having fun). Computers are very good at different things.(remembering and accessing data, number crunching).
Why use computers to reproduce consciousness, when we can use them to enormously augment the consciousness we already have? Let the grunts do the grunt work and permit the pigs to fly.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Darat

Isn't it? Aren't most of even our current best models only an approximation and don't always give the same results as the "real" system do?

Best models of what? Some models - weather and climate models are a good example - are quite limited and serve only as an indication. Other models - QM models of simple systems - are accurate to the limits of floating-point precision.

Quote:

That statement I can agree with e.g. "a complete physical model" but that is not we are talking about; we are talking about in effect making a model from "information" that is created in a very different way from how our brains are e.g. atoms and molecules. In other words the model is not made from the same stuff (no matter how closely it models that stuff) as the "real thing". Hard not to get all metaphysical about this but all I am saying is a model is NOT the same as the real thing and whatever the differences are between the model and the real thing may be something that would prevent them sharing the same emergent properties. That doesn't involve any magical essence just the fact that different things arranged in different ways have different properties.

Yes it does. If your model is accurate, and it doesn't produce the same results, then the system works by magic.

If you want to argue that the model isn't suffciently accurate, then argue that point, but the statement

Quote:

In other words the model is not made from the same stuff (no matter how closely it models that stuff) as the "real thing".

Is ascribing magical properties to the real system.

Quote:

What definition for intelligence are you using?

A functional one. Does it behave intelligently? If yes, it's intelligent.

Quote:

Back to my point - a map is not the territory no matter how good the map is.

Magic.

Quote:

(Of course it may be that we can model a system like the human barin in a different medium and find its outputs are indistinguishable from the "real" thing. It's just that I think it's something we should be careful about assuming at this early stage of our knowledge.)

Why?

Quote:

The sc-fi short story that goes:

Humans had done it, after milleninia of work they had created what would be the most powerful computer posible, a computer that could answer any question conceivable.

Despite this power all that was in front of the small team ready for the today's ceremony was a small console with a speaker, a light and two buttons "on" and "off". With a trembling hand the woman pressed the small discrete "on" button. A blue light illuminated her face and a pleasant voice asked "What can I answer?", she looked at her colleagues, they nodded, she turned back to the console and with a slightly unsteady voice asked "Is there a God?"

Suddenly a flash of lightening crashed into the console melting the "off" button and the now not quite so pleasant voice said "There is NOW!".

"Answer" by Fredric Brown.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by hammegk

Unknown, but at least possibly true, assuming all the axioms you base your version of reality on are correct.

It's necessarily true, given my axioms. It may turn out that we can't model the brain sufficiently accurately, though we currently have no reason to believe that. (Penrose doesn't know what he's talking about.)

Quote:

That would depend on the intelligence and skill of the original programmer. And I suspect you will need "outside-the-system" code revision, and human intelligence will be deciding where it ends up.

Yep. At least, in the starting stages.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Even if Pixy's version is correct- we can build an electronic analogue of a brain and that produces an analogue of a mind- (and like Darat, I see no reason to suppose this is necessarily the case)

I see no reason for it not to be the case.

Quote:

Is it worth it? Humans are very good at some things.( Creativity, having fun). Computers are very good at different things.(remembering and accessing data, number crunching).
Why use computers to reproduce consciousness, when we can use them to enormously augment the consciousness we already have? Let the grunts do the grunt work and permit the pigs to fly.

Because we can make a computer-based intelligence arbitrarily powerful.

Okay, that may not be a good idea. But we never let that stop us in the past!

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by sphenisc

Actual plans to have go at this are discussed in this thread...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=42424

Interesting link.

However, that machine is only one as powerful as the human brain, and we're talking about one powerful enough to simulate the human brain. 10 petaflops vs. 1 exaflop. Mine is 100 times faster.

But this link is very interesting. Scientists are using Blue Gene (one of the fastest computers in the world) to model part of the neo-cortex right down to the molecular level. That's the sort of research program that will lead to the full-scale brain-in-a-box that we've been discussing.

[Melendwyr]

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

But your extrapolation hinges on, at least, the idea of simulating a neuron by a 1 Mflop operation. I suppose it would be more than possible to simulate the neurons in an ant's brains with computers today, given an ant's size. Has such been done?

It's estimated that an ant's brain has roughly the computational power of an Apple IIe - so while I don't know if it's been done yet, it's certainly within the realm of possibility.