110 replies to this topic

[John_Ventureville]

Physicist/futurist Theodore Modis has harshly criticized "The Singularity Is Near" saying Kurzweil's calculations are seriously flawed and that his his book is more within the realm of science fiction as compared to science fact.

http://ourworld.comp...is/Kurzweil.htm

Kevin Shapiro in "This Is Your Brain On Nanobots" sees the weakpoint in Kurzweil's argument as being his optimism about the neurological sciences being able to deliver us brain scanning and uploading within the next several decades. And he also views software as not being able to harness the vast computing power of the coming years to deliver on Kurzweil's dreams.

http://www.commentar...V120I5P66-1.htm

Is everyone here a true believer when it comes to the Singularity? I can remember when people said it would happen around 2025 but the date seems to keep on getting pushed back. lol [:o]

Will the "Techno-Rapture" still save us or must we look to cryonics? I realize being driven over by a bus or getting terminal cancer could make the Singularity a moot point anyway for an individual, and give great impetus to being signed up for cryonics.

Best wishes,

John Grigg

[Richard Leis]

Thank you for these links. I consider myself a true believer, and I don't like that at all. So I will keep reading and learning and see what happens

[Mind]

Here is the thing, Kurzweil's predictions keep coming true. Does Mr. Modis make any public predictions about the future? The world is full of envious critics.

[JonesGuy]

I don't believe that the rate will be as fast as possible in all the areas necessary. I am continually amazed at our progress, but the rate-of-change seems to be more and more focuses on entertainment end of things, and not in the medical aspects.

That being said, I do believe that the concept of a Singularity is viable, but maybe not in the timeframe that he predicts. However, I believe that serious life extension will be possible, so we're okay if the Singularity is late.

I'm personally waiting to see if we can figure out a way to make people more intelligent

[Live Forever]

Yes Kurzweil seems to have a long track record of getting predictions correct all the way back from the 80s through today. I don't necessarily agree 100% with everything that Kurzweil said, but since he has (evidently) had a very good track record of predictions coming true, then until that turns around, I am more inclined to believe Kurzweil than people who argue with his assumptions.

Edited by liveforever22, 17 March 2006 - 05:57 PM.

[JonesGuy]

What is his huge list of documented predictions?

[John Schloendorn]

...and more importantly the list of un-documented wrong predictions?

[Live Forever]

I have no idea about his predictions specifically, but a quick google search picked up

http://www.geek.com/...30305018948.htm
"He correctly predicted the rise of the Internet, as well as that a computer would beat a grandmaster in chess by 1998. He also predicted that LCD displays would soon surpass CRT displays, a trend which is now happening"

http://www.kurzweila...os/bio0005.html
"In 1990, Ray's first book, The Age of Intelligent Machines, was published by the MIT Press, and received the award for the Most Outstanding Computer Science Book of 1990 by the Association of American Publishers. The predictions in this book, which Ray wrote in 1988, included the emergence of the World Wide Web, the taking of the world chess championship by a computer by 1998, and the dominance of intelligent weapons in warfare. These and many other of Ray's predictions have proven to be very accurate."

http://www.com.washi...=58&ReviewID=55
"Kurzweil's track record at predicting such development is a strong one (see pp. 170-178)"

http://www.wired.com...7,69041,00.html
"Kurzweil has a decent track record making predictions. Twenty years ago, Kurzweil predicted the exponential progression of Arpanet, the predecessor to the internet. "We have seen this kind of exponential progression (before)," he said. "

..so it (at least to me) appears that there are several people that think he makes good predictions. I don't have his book, so I don't know if someone could go point by point through his past predictions (that he mentions in the book) and find fault with them. This is not to say that he predicted a bunch of stuff and then only focused on the ones that came true, but if that is the case I am sure there is evidence of wrong predictions out there, and his critics would jump all over them if this was the case.

[bgwowk]

Is everyone here a true believer when it comes to the Singularity?

No.

Part of the problem is that "the Singularity" is not well-defined. One definition I've seen is that the advent self-improving machine intelligence will mark the beginning of a future that is in many respects inscrutable. I agree with that. Another definition, the more common one, is that this inscrutable future will happen really fast, perhaps in only a couple of decades. I do not believe that. My bookshelf sags with the weight of books predicting wonderful things in the early 21st century, many of which now look more likely in the early 22nd.

---BrianW

[JonesGuy]

We may not have flying cars, but had those books predicted deep brain stimulation and 60GB iPods?

We're certainly going somewhere pretty quickly!

[bgwowk]

We may not have flying cars, but had those books predicted deep brain stimulation and 60GB iPods?

Of course. Kurzweil wasn't the only one who predicted the WWW and pervasive Internet either. Don't forget, Moore's Law is 40 years old now. Moore's Law and the devices it makes possible aren't the issue. The disconnect between Moore's Law, biology, neuroscience, and especially medicine, is. In my adult lifetime, computer power has increased by a staggering factor of one million. Yet people are not a million times smarter or a million times richer, and I'm sure as heck not living a million times longer.

We're certainly going somewhere pretty quickly!

Toward amazing immersive virtual reality entertainment while we still get sick and die for decades to come, I'm afraid to say.

---BrianW

[JonesGuy]

Okay, a question for the group.

What fields of science and technology are necessary for the Singularity to occur?

I'm pretty sure that processor speed and memory storage are already doing okay, but what else?

[Mind]

All the trends fictionally outlined in the Age of Spiritual Machines (my first introduction to Kurzweil) are happenning on a daily basis right before my eyes. Full emersion audio/video virtual reality seems about on schedule. Implanting electronic devices in human bodies seems right on schedule. Nanotechnology advances are putting recent critics (the "it's impossible crowd") to shame. No doubt, as Brian has said, many predictions have been made in the past that haven't come true.....yet, there is hardly any denying that technological progress has accellerated. Also, life expectancy has increased, not as much as we would like, but it is progress, and it is real.

[DJS]

Ah, another "What's your stance on Kurzweil" thread.

I see Kurzweil as one of the more provocative futurist figures who manages to stimulate inquiry on future speculating. This, I think, is a good thing.

Yet in reality, anyone who is honest with his or herself would have to admit that it is not possible to attain a high level of confidence regarding the specifics of future technological developments. Possible outcomes for future trends can range anywhere from the Singularity never happening (as a result of yet to be discovered empirical realities that will halt progress, for example) to the rapid ascension of SAI in the next moment.

It is not a matter of what you believe, but how strongly you believe it.

As a radical activist -- as a revolutionary -- the task of the futurist should be "educated betting" on future trends that allows one to maximize future utility (define utility according to your personal higher level goals).

Mind

The world is full of envious critics.

Now Mind, I've notice that you use the [airquote] sour grapes [/airquote] allegation quite often. You should know that you are effectively committing a fallacy:

Description of Personal Attack
A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.

In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.

I am afraid, Mind, that I may come off as one of those sour grapes critics to you but, at least from my perspective, nothing could be farther from the truth. I do not envy Kurzweil as much as I disagree with his memetics*. I have spent a good deal of time trying to pin point what exactly I find so disagreeable about the "Kurzweil" view point and I believe I can sum it up in one word -- faith. Kurzweil possesses a level of confidence in his predictions so strong that they can be accurately described as faith. Readers of Kurzweil should note when reading him that he does not say, "Here is one possible scenario for the future among many." Instead what he says is, "In 2020 we will be here. And in 2030 we will be there."

What I have argued, and will continue to argue, is no one, not even Kurzweil, is entitled to make such definitive statements on future prognostications. And also that, in doing so, Kurzweil demonstrates his slipshod status as a philosopher.

*edited

Edited by DonSpanton, 18 March 2006 - 05:08 AM.

[DJS]

John S

...and more importantly the list of un-documented wrong predictions?

hehe, is Kurzweil the John Edward of futurism? [lol] I'm kidding, I'm kidding folks. Please don't send me any hate mail.

[lunarsolarpower]

All the trends fictionally outlined in the Age of Spiritual Machines (my first introduction to Kurzweil) are happenning on a daily basis right before my eyes. Full emersion audio/video virtual reality seems about on schedule. Implanting electronic devices in human bodies seems right on schedule. Nanotechnology advances are putting recent critics (the "it's impossible crowd") to shame. No doubt, as Brian has said, many predictions have been made in the past that haven't come true.....yet, there is hardly any denying that technological progress has accellerated. Also, life expectancy has increased, not as much as we would like, but it is progress, and it is real.

What I want to know is when are we going to see K. Eric Drexler's multi-purpose nano-assembler devices? If anything the ability to control matter on an atom by atom basis seems far more important to expanding our future options than the continued growth of mere computational power within the next 20-40 years.

[advancedatheist]

Kurzweil on page 102 of TSIN writes that all this new IT has caused "massive disintermediation in the channels of distribution through the Web and other new communication technologies, as well as escalating efficiencies in operations and administration."

I'd like for Kurzweil to explain to me how technological progress can accelerate into a "singularity" considering all the Americans with expensive scientific and technological educations who've gotten "disintermediated" from their smart people's careers into dumb people's service jobs like bar tending, taxi driving and stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart. The declining numbers of American youngsters who want to major in science, mathematics, computer science and engineering in college reflect a rational response to shitty economic incentives.

I also feel slightly embarrassed that Kurzweil on page 498 credits me with coining the word "singularitarian," even using it in the title of one of his chapters. I suppose in a Galambosian system he'd have to pay me royalties for using my primary property.

Edited by advancedatheist, 18 March 2006 - 01:36 AM.

[advancedatheist]

My bookshelf sags with the weight of books predicting wonderful things in the early 21st century, many of which now look more likely in the early 22nd.

Or quite likely never, because of Peak Oil. That left-wing neo-Malthusian environmentalist group, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, has joined the ranks of the Peak Oil Cassandras:

Oil shortage threatens military

The report (requires Adobe):

Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S. Army Installations

[DJS]

What I want to know is when are we going to see K. Eric Drexler's multi-purpose nano-assembler devices? If anything the ability to control matter on an atom by atom basis seems far more important to expanding our future options than the continued growth of mere computational power within the next 20-40 years.

How would nano-assemblers be able to coordinate their actions and exert a sophisticated level of control over the physical world without a tremendous amount of computational power supporting them?

Advanced nano-assemblers (advanced to the point of being able to create *utility fog*) would be AI systems.

[dangerousideas]

I think that one of the most interesting things about Kurzweil is that he is (more or less) fearless in following his thesis as far as it will go. In my experience this makes him a very unusual person - even unusual for a scientist - and I know many "edgy" thinkers! How many of us really (really) believe what the mathematics tells us - no matter what it says? Human nature wants to "hedge" when the implications start to look too strange - we would rather believe that we are mistaken than believe that we are correct, even when we can't find the flaw in our thinking or analysis. Our "gut" tells us it must be wrong - so we will rationalize relentlessly until we have convinced ourselves that it is. It takes real courage not to rationalize away the insights that don't match our instincts. So is it a higher level of gullibility, or a higher level of intellectual honesty? I wonder...

The core of Ray's theory of technology evolution - expressed in the law of accelerating returns - is very well supported by the available evidence and I find it pursuasive enough to suppose that it, or something very much like it, is probably true. Accept that (even a little), and most of the rest simply follows.

Dangerous...

[John Schloendorn]

I have spent a good deal of time trying to pin point what exactly I find so disagreeable about the "Kurzweil" view point and I believe I can sum it up in one word -- faith

I could not agree more. Faith is disagreeable because is self-defeating. Kurzweil's works seem designed to make perfectly good transhumanists sit in their homes and hope they don't get hit by meteors, who might otherwise go out and save some lives. His memes are parasites, carefully evolved to feed on our most valuable resorce -- the superior transhumanist motivation to work hard.

[dangerousideas]

Wait a minute...

Do you really mean to say that the most disagreeable aspect of Kurzweil's ideas is that they are too compelling?

Interesting....

Dangerous...

[John Schloendorn]

Dangerousideas, I cannot imagine an intelligent person could truly find the faith-based part of Kurzweil's memes so compelling as to be swayed into inaction by them. I was saying they "seem designed to..." i.e. I consider them bad fiction. But that's OK, there's worse on the planet than bad fiction.
[edit: spelling]

Edited by John Schloendorn, 18 March 2006 - 09:48 PM.

[lunarsolarpower]

What I want to know is when are we going to see K. Eric Drexler's multi-purpose nano-assembler devices? If anything the ability to control matter on an atom by atom basis seems far more important to expanding our future options than the continued growth of mere computational power within the next 20-40 years.

How would nano-assemblers be able to coordinate their actions and exert a sophisticated level of control over the physical world without a tremendous amount of computational power supporting them?

Advanced nano-assemblers (advanced to the point of being able to create *utility fog*) would be AI systems.

Perhaps that is a good part of the idea I had in mind but did not explicitly state. I guess what I was trying to say is that if we learn how to control the atoms, then everything else (including super fast computers and biological nano-repair and rejuvenation) is merely an engineering problem.

[lunarsolarpower]

Or quite likely never, because of Peak Oil. That left-wing neo-Malthusian environmentalist group, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, has joined the ranks of the Peak Oil Cassandras:

Oil shortage threatens military

The report (requires Adobe):

Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S. Army Installations

Hence my interest in Lunar Solar Power. In a nutshell it is estimated that it would take $40 billion dollars to build a 10-100 GW demonstration base and $400-500 billion to build sufficient LSP capacity to supply the energy needs of earth.

At this point, I think the interest is there, the word just needs to get out. Look at it this way: the US could either spend the next $500 billion of its federal debt fighting to maintain its control over declining oil resources, or they could spend it to create a new, inexhaustible resource and let the oil problem take care of itself.

[advancedatheist]

Kurzweil's works seem designed to make perfectly good transhumanists sit in their homes and hope they don't get hit by meteors, who might otherwise go out and save some lives. His memes are parasites, carefully evolved to feed on our most valuable resorce -- the superior transhumanist motivation to work hard.

I wonder how Kurzweil manages to get any work done himself these days. Between his narcissistic media adventures and his hypochondria-driven quackery regimen, he must not have much time left over to do any real inventing any more.

[Richard Leis]

Advancedatheist, I can learn nothing from statements that include judgements and personal attacks like "narcissistic media adventures and his hypochondria-driven quakery regime." These are not valid critiques of his ideas. John Schloendorn's critique that Kurzweil's memes include "faith-based" parts IS valid, and allows me to revist Kurzweil's ideas with, potentially, new understanding.

It is difficult in a discussion to separate a person from their ideas, but the attempt generally leads to more useful information and respectful debate.

[DJS]

Our "gut" tells us it must be wrong - so we will rationalize relentlessly until we have convinced ourselves that it is.  It takes real courage not to rationalize away the insights that don't match our instincts.  So is it a higher level of gullibility, or a higher level of intellectual honesty?  I wonder...

Heh. I'd have to say, Dangerous, that I couldn't disagree more. My belief, which I would contend is supported by a large body of evidence, is that human beings have an innate tendency to "buy their own bs". Very rarely do human minds have the proper heuristics in place that would allow them to make an honest appraisal of the intellectual positions they espouse.

[advancedatheist]

Advancedatheist, I can learn nothing from statements that include judgements and personal attacks like "narcissistic media adventures and his hypochondria-driven quakery regime."  These are not valid critiques of his ideas. 

Kurzweil by his own admission takes 250 (!) supplement pills a day and receives scientifically unsubstantiated chelation "therapy" once a week, in addition to all the other time-consuming "healthcare" he consumes. Yet he looks his age despite his delusion that he stopped aging around 1990 or so. And when I do news searches on him online, his name pops up several times a month, usually in connection with interviews and public appearances. He even managed to insert himself into the controversy over publishing the genome of the Spanish Flu virus, despite not having a background in infectious diseases or biotechnology, much less terrorism. His dubious claims about medicine and biology and his celebrity-seeking do have some bearing on the validity of his argument, if only because he will throw discredit on the quest for radical life extension when his health finally crashes, well before he reaches 100.

I would respect Kurzweil more if he had gotten his recent books vetted by relevant mainstream scientists before publishing them. For example, the reviewer in Commentary (requires Adobe), a professional neuroscientist in training, complains that Kurzweil misunderstands the current state of knowledge about the brain, and he way overstates what neuroscientists can accomplish, even with foreseeable technologies based on Moore's Law. (Brian Wowk articulated something like that point in a previous post.) Kurzweil would do his reputation a service by shutting up for awhile and going back to his lab to work on something based on his own expertise.

Edited by advancedatheist, 19 March 2006 - 12:47 AM.

[DJS]

he will throw discredit on the quest for radical life extension when his health finally crashes, well before he reaches 100.

I agree that this is a possibility. As a figure head, the credibility of the futurist movement is directly tied to his credibility. We have every right to scrutinize him.