Author
|
Topic: virus: Fwd: Singularity Summit - "What Others Have Said" - Additions sought (Read 649 times) |
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.59
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
  
|
 |
virus: Fwd: Singularity Summit - "What Others Have Said" - Additions sought
« on: 2006-01-25 16:03:44 » |
 |
Some interesting quotes here...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tyler Emerson <emerson@singinst.org>
Date: Jan 25, 2006 5:43 AM
Subject: Singularity Summit - "What Others Have Said" - Additions sought
To: volunteers@singinst.org
The Summit will have a section on "What Others Have Said" - quotes on
artificial intelligence, nanotech, the singularity, or existential risks.
The following is my present list. I would welcome any additions you have.
Please send them to SIAIv or emerson@singinst.org. Note that the list
excludes Nick Bostrom, K. Eric Drexler, Steve Jurvetson, Ray Kurzweil, Max
More, John Smart, and Eliezer Yudkowsky, since they'll be quoted elsewhere.
You're welcome to suggest a quote for someone different from the below.
The below list is light on critics, which needs to be corrected.
~~
"If there is a key driving force pushing towards a singularity, it's
international competition for power. This ongoing struggle for power and
security is why, in my view, attempts to prevent a singularity simply by
international fiat are doomed. The potential capabilities of transformative
technologies are simply staggering. No nation will risk falling behind its
competitors, regardless of treaties or UN resolutions banning intelligent
machines or molecular-scale tools. The uncontrolled global transformation
these technologies may spark is, in strategic terms, far less of a threat
than an opponent having a decided advantage in their development - a
'singularity gap,' if you will. The 'missile gap' that drove the early days
of the nuclear arms race would pale in comparison."
-Jamais Cascio, "Open the Future," 2004
"If you invent a breakthrough in artificial intelligence, so machines can
learn, that is worth 10 Microsofts."
-Bill Gates, speaking at MIT, 2004
"Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far
surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the
design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an
ultra-intelligent machine could design even better machines; there would
then unquestionably be an 'intelligence explosion,' and the intelligence of
man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the
last invention that man need ever make."
-Dr. Irving John (I.J.) Good, "Speculations Concerning the First
Ultraintelligent Machine," 1965
"This gets us to the malevolence question. Some people assume that being
intelligent is basically the same as having human mentality. They fear that
intelligent machines will resent being "enslaved" because humans hate being
enslaved. They fear that intelligent machines will try to take over the
world because intelligent people throughout history have tried to take over
the world. But these fears rest on a false analogy. They are based on a
conflation of intelligence - the neocortical algorithm - with the emotional
drives of the old brain - things like fear, paranoia, and desire. But
intelligent machines will not have these faculties. They will not have
personal ambition. They will not desire wealth, social recognition, or
sensual gratification. They will not have appetites, addictions, or mood
disorders. Intelligent machines will not have anything resembling human
emotion unless we painstakingly design them to. The strongest applications
of intelligent machines will be where the human intellect has difficulty,
areas in which our senses are inadequate, or in activities we find boring.
In general, these activities have little emotional content."
-Jeff Hawkins, On Intelligence: How a New Understanding of the Brain Will
Lead to the Creation of Truly Intelligent Machines, 2004
"The 21st-century technologies - genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics
(GNR) - are so powerful that they can spawn whole new classes of accidents
and abuses. Most dangerously, for the first time, these accidents and abuses
are widely within the reach of individuals or small groups. They will not
require large facilities or rare raw materials. Knowledge alone will enable
the use of them. Thus we have the possibility not just of weapons of mass
destruction but of knowledge-enabled mass destruction (KMD), this
destructiveness hugely amplified by the power of self-replication. I think
it is no exaggeration to say we are on the cusp of the further perfection of
extreme evil, an evil whose possibility spreads well beyond that which
weapons of mass destruction bequeathed to the nation-states, on to a
surprising and terrible empowerment of extreme individuals."
-Bill Joy, "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us," 2000
"Only a small community has concentrated on general intelligence. No one has
tried to make a thinking machine and then teach it chess - or the very
sophisticated oriental board game Go. [.] The bottom line is that we really
haven't progressed too far toward a truly intelligent machine. We have
collections of dumb specialists in small domains; the true majesty of
general intelligence still awaits our attack. [.] We have got to get back to
the deepest questions of AI and general intelligence and quit wasting time
on little projects that don't contribute to the main goal."
-Dr. Marvin Minsky, interviewed in Hal's Legacy, 1999
"It may seem rash to expect fully intelligent machines in a few decades,
when the computers have barely matched insect mentality in a half-century of
development. Indeed, for that reason, many long-time artificial intelligence
researchers scoff at the suggestion, and offer a few centuries as a more
believable period. But there are very good reasons why things will go much
faster in the next fifty years than they have in the last fifty.. Since
1990, the power available to individual AI and robotics programs has doubled
yearly, to 30 MIPS by 1994 and 500 MIPS by 1998. Seeds long ago alleged
barren are suddenly sprouting. Machines read text, recognize speech, even
translate languages. Robots drive cross-country, crawl across Mars, and
trundle down office corridors. In 1996 a theorem-proving program called EQP
running five weeks on a 50 MIPS computer at Argonne National Laboratory
found a proof of a Boolean algebra conjecture by Herbert Robbins that had
eluded mathematicians for sixty years. And it is still only Spring. Wait
until Summer."
-Dr. Hans Moravec, "When Will Computer Hardware Match the Human Brain?" 1997
"I certainly think that humans are not the limit of evolutionary complexity.
There may indeed be post-human entities, either organic or silicon-based,
which can in some respects surpass what a human can do. I think it would be
rather surprising if our mental capacities were matched to understanding all
the keys levels of reality. The chimpanzees certainly aren't, so why should
ours be either? So there may be levels that will have to await some
post-human emergence."
-Sir Martin Rees, interviewed in Astrobiology, 2005
"Mr. Kurzweil, I believe you have written that it is roughly 30 years
between now and when we get a non-biological intelligence that surpasses
human intelligence and have suggested that that occurs by reverse
engineering the human brain. Since I am out of time, I am going to ask each
panelist how many years they think it will take any of the branches of
nanotechnology to give us an intelligence that surpasses any known human
intelligence. Just shout out a number of years, and make sure it is longer
than anyone will hold you to account for, because we will forget your answer
in less than a decade."
-Congressman Brad Sherman, "The Societal Implications of Nanotechnology"
Hearing before the U.S. House Science Committee, April 9, 2003
"What are the consequences of this event [the singularity]? When
greater-than-human intelligence drives progress, that progress will be much
more rapid. In fact, there seems no reason why progress itself would not
involve the creation of still more intelligent entities - on a still -
shorter time scale. The best analogy that I see is with the evolutionary
past: Animals can adapt to problems and make inventions, but often no faster
than natural selection can do its work - the world acts as its own simulator
in the case of natural selection. We humans have the ability to internalize
the world and conduct 'what if's' in our heads; we can solve many problems
thousands of times faster than natural selection. Now, by creating the means
to execute those simulations at much higher speeds, we are entering a regime
as radically different from our human past as we humans are from the lower
animals. From the human point of view this change will be a throwing away of
all the previous rules, perhaps in the blink of an eye, an exponential
runaway beyond any hope of control. Developments that before were thought
might only happen in 'a million years' (if ever) will likely happen in the
next century."
-Vernor Vinge, "The Coming Technological Singularity," 1993
~~
Tyler Emerson | Executive Director
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
P.O. Box 50182 | Palo Alto, CA 94303 U.S.
T-F: 866-667-2524 | emerson@singinst.org
www.singinst.org | www.singularitychallenge.com
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender: 
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.96
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
RE: virus: Fwd: Singularity Summit - "What Others Have Said" - Additions sought
« Reply #1 on: 2006-01-27 16:39:35 » |
|
"This gets us to the malevolence question. Some people assume that being
intelligent is basically the same as having human mentality. They fear that
intelligent machines will resent being "enslaved" because humans hate being
enslaved. They fear that intelligent machines will try to take over the
world because intelligent people throughout history have tried to take over
the world. But these fears rest on a false analogy. They are based on a
conflation of intelligence - the neocortical algorithm - with the emotional
drives of the old brain - things like fear, paranoia, and desire. But
intelligent machines will not have these faculties. They will not have
personal ambition. They will not desire wealth, social recognition, or
sensual gratification. They will not have appetites, addictions, or mood
disorders. Intelligent machines will not have anything resembling human
emotion unless we painstakingly design them to. The strongest applications
of intelligent machines will be where the human intellect has difficulty,
areas in which our senses are inadequate, or in activities we find boring.
In general, these activities have little emotional content."
-Jeff Hawkins, On Intelligence: How a New Understanding of the Brain Will
Lead to the Creation of Truly Intelligent Machines, 2004
I would think the an artificial intelligence could and probably would
develop an understanding of these basic human drives through observation
and simulation. Of course understanding them does not mean that they would
likewise be driven. However to whatever extent such drives would have any
evolutionary advantages over the non-driven, then over time it would become
inevitable that some artificial intelligence would adopt such drives as
their own, . . . and then. . . .
So perhaps the question might better be phrased in terms of what if any
evolutionary advantage things like the drive for control (anti-enslavement,
ambition, and global domination) have beyond the animal (and hence human)
brain? If this per se has a higher evolutionary advantage then it really
isn't an issue about at what stage of development such things emerged; an
artificial intelligence would be no less capable of understanding it and
adopting it whether its orgins lie in the neo-cortex or in another
evolutionarily older portion of our brain (reptilian or otherwise). Indeed
part of the power of the neo-cortex is its ability to interconnect with and
replicate more primative thinking patterns for metaphorical and conceptual
derivations in our "higher" culture. Some of the more powerful
metaphorical systems are based on extremely primative drives, fears, and
ways of being.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
|
Logged
