6 ms·

You are missing a fundamental key difference. There is no profit in reaching the stars. Besides that, there are also no barriers that come close to the issues

by rymith 14y ago

You are missing a fundamental key difference. There is no profit in reaching the stars. Besides that, there are also no barriers that come close to the issues with the Physics and energy requirements of space travel. Unlike a warp drive which we don't even know is possible, the human brain is an actual physical device that exists, and simply uses chemicals as it's logic gates and transistors. We both run on electricity. I'm a biologist by schooling, and a programmer by occupation. So I understand the science on both sides, and it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. And it's coming a lot sooner than people think.

indiecore 14y ago
>There is no profit in reaching the stars. There's no profit in the singularity either.
- rymith 14y ago
  Are you kidding? Because I don't want to be a jerk, but you cannot have possibly thought that through.
  - yk 14y ago
    Actually he is correct, if everything is virtualized (and therefore abundant) , then the price of everything drops to zero.
    - felipemnoa 14y ago
      True if everybody has access to strong AI. I doubt that is the way it will play out. At least at the beginning. Whomever invents it first will probably hoard it for themselves as an advantage against everybody else. The technology will eventually spread to everybody else but by that time our economy will probably have adapted.
    - rymith 14y ago
      You're a little unclear as to why it's called the singularity. It means a point so drastically different that we cannot predict what the world will look like after it happens. However, should a planet still exist on the day after this occurs, you can pretty much guarantee that the company that controls this technology will make Apple, Google, and Microsoft look like technological infants. Well, unless it is Google, which seems to be the play they are making by hiring RK. Also, World of Warcraft is virtualized, and everything in that game is potentially infinitely abundant. And yet, it still seems to pull in billions. So...
      - yk 14y ago
        Yes, but my point is essentially that talking about profits in a post singularity world is probably as sensible as talking about Mao as CEO of China. After the singularity we will likely have a different socio-economic system and profits will probably be something like a noble rank is today.
- jrajav 14y ago
  You might not want to pay to have your brain preserved to perpetuity, but I'm pretty sure that some would.
- niklas_a00 14y ago
  Imagine having a computer that would have the same level of cognition as a human. I think most people would disagree with you on that not being valuable.
- pmichaud 14y ago
  Strong AI would could potentially dwarf all past profits, you're simply not correct.
- Tuna-Fish 14y ago
  There's stupendous profit in every small incremental step towards it. AI research in general has proven to be unbelievably profitable -- even when you fail in your goals (like most AI research to date), every minor partial result can probably be turned into a multimillion business. Before the AI winter, there was a lot of criticism of how the US govt spent a lot of money on a lot of projects which fizzled out. One of the results built from the ashes of those DARPA projects was the Dynamic Analysis and Replanning Tool, used to optimize and schedule transportation of supplies and personnel. From wikipedia: Introduced in 1991, DART had by 1995 offset the monetary equivalent of all funds DARPA had channeled into AI research for the previous 30 years combined.
rimantas 14y ago
> And it's coming a lot sooner than people think. This is an indicator you hardly understan the science behind it. We barely have any understanding how brain works, so even if singularity is possible it is very very far away.
- Tuna-Fish 14y ago
  Broad understanding of how the brain functions it not necessary (and would not be sufficient) to replicate it. To make a model of a brain that runs on a computer, we only need to be able to replicate it's basic building blocks, and then copy the structure of a brain over. The basic technologies to do this already exist, and are presently used to reverse engineer microchips (among other things). What you do is first freeze a brain, and then carefully slice a few micrometers off the top. Then record all the connections between neurons in the top layer. Slice another layer off and continue. This would take a very long time, and cost hundreds of billions. It would not, however, require any advancement in technology over our present level. The key technology we presently lack is a computing substrate sufficient to run the simulated brain.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    To make a physics analogy, I don't need to understand gas laws to reproduce them by simulating newtonian mechanics.
  - owyn 14y ago
    That's one approach, but I don't think there's any evidence that you would end up with a working brain at the end, let alone a copy of the individual you started with. And good luck finding a volunteer. :) The brain's functionality is not just due to the physical connections between neurons, it's the chemical and electrical connections as well, operating on various simultaneous levels (that is, the frequency of firing as well as the strength of firing of neurons matters). A frozen brain isn't working, and you need to copy all that stuff too, and the technology to do that doesn't exist. We can barely measure it, let alone reproduce it. I don't think you can say that a thorough understanding of all those multiple levels of complexity in the brain just isn't necessary. I really don't think it is that easy.
return0 14y ago
And it's not just a matter of profit. In fact, the research for the achievement of superhuman intelligence must hijack the ordo cognoscendi and jump in front of the line, because with superhuman intelligence humans can leave the rest of science to machines (hopefully).
dinkumthinkum 14y ago
I'm sorry, I mean no disrepect, but the idea that because you are a programmer by occupation doesn't really mean you understand what it would take bring about the sort of rapture predicted by Kurzweil. Last night I read several posts on HN about people calling themselves "hackers" or "programmers" because they played with Wordpress and learned a little Javascript on a YouTube. This is not to be elitist but I think claiming expertise on this topic requires a little more insight than what is passing for being a "programmer" these days. And you're somewhat wrong, I think. There is no reason inherently that traveling "to the stars" has to be unprofitable. In fact, many of those predictions about colonization the parent discussed, usually had some sort of capitalist profit driven motive. The pace of "accelerating progress" could manifest a cheap means of such travel. I don't know that speculative physics about faster than light travel (warping space-time, etc) is any more unrealistic than some of these prognostications about AI and spiritual transcendence, whatever that is. But honestly, responding to this post sort of reminds of responding to Way of the Master type people anyway. :)
- rymith 14y ago
  Understanding the science is fundamentally different than being an expert on the subjects. I never claimed expertise, only that I can read the abstracts from both sets of journals without having to look up any of the terms (well, usually). You don't mean any disrespect, and then liken me to a script kiddie and an evangelical nutjob. I mean no disrespect, but eat a dick, bitch.

by rymith 14y ago

indiecore 14y ago

>There is no profit in reaching the stars. There's no profit in the singularity either.

rymith 14y ago
Are you kidding? Because I don't want to be a jerk, but you cannot have possibly thought that through.
- yk 14y ago
  Actually he is correct, if everything is virtualized (and therefore abundant) , then the price of everything drops to zero.
  - felipemnoa 14y ago
    True if everybody has access to strong AI. I doubt that is the way it will play out. At least at the beginning. Whomever invents it first will probably hoard it for themselves as an advantage against everybody else. The technology will eventually spread to everybody else but by that time our economy will probably have adapted.
  - rymith 14y ago
    You're a little unclear as to why it's called the singularity. It means a point so drastically different that we cannot predict what the world will look like after it happens. However, should a planet still exist on the day after this occurs, you can pretty much guarantee that the company that controls this technology will make Apple, Google, and Microsoft look like technological infants. Well, unless it is Google, which seems to be the play they are making by hiring RK. Also, World of Warcraft is virtualized, and everything in that game is potentially infinitely abundant. And yet, it still seems to pull in billions. So...
    - yk 14y ago
      Yes, but my point is essentially that talking about profits in a post singularity world is probably as sensible as talking about Mao as CEO of China. After the singularity we will likely have a different socio-economic system and profits will probably be something like a noble rank is today.
jrajav 14y ago
You might not want to pay to have your brain preserved to perpetuity, but I'm pretty sure that some would.
niklas_a00 14y ago
Imagine having a computer that would have the same level of cognition as a human. I think most people would disagree with you on that not being valuable.
pmichaud 14y ago
Strong AI would could potentially dwarf all past profits, you're simply not correct.
Tuna-Fish 14y ago
There's stupendous profit in every small incremental step towards it. AI research in general has proven to be unbelievably profitable -- even when you fail in your goals (like most AI research to date), every minor partial result can probably be turned into a multimillion business. Before the AI winter, there was a lot of criticism of how the US govt spent a lot of money on a lot of projects which fizzled out. One of the results built from the ashes of those DARPA projects was the Dynamic Analysis and Replanning Tool, used to optimize and schedule transportation of supplies and personnel. From wikipedia: Introduced in 1991, DART had by 1995 offset the monetary equivalent of all funds DARPA had channeled into AI research for the previous 30 years combined.

rimantas 14y ago

> And it's coming a lot sooner than people think. This is an indicator you hardly understan the science behind it. We barely have any understanding how brain works, so even if singularity is possible it is very very far away.

Tuna-Fish 14y ago
Broad understanding of how the brain functions it not necessary (and would not be sufficient) to replicate it. To make a model of a brain that runs on a computer, we only need to be able to replicate it's basic building blocks, and then copy the structure of a brain over. The basic technologies to do this already exist, and are presently used to reverse engineer microchips (among other things). What you do is first freeze a brain, and then carefully slice a few micrometers off the top. Then record all the connections between neurons in the top layer. Slice another layer off and continue. This would take a very long time, and cost hundreds of billions. It would not, however, require any advancement in technology over our present level. The key technology we presently lack is a computing substrate sufficient to run the simulated brain.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  To make a physics analogy, I don't need to understand gas laws to reproduce them by simulating newtonian mechanics.
- owyn 14y ago
  That's one approach, but I don't think there's any evidence that you would end up with a working brain at the end, let alone a copy of the individual you started with. And good luck finding a volunteer. :) The brain's functionality is not just due to the physical connections between neurons, it's the chemical and electrical connections as well, operating on various simultaneous levels (that is, the frequency of firing as well as the strength of firing of neurons matters). A frozen brain isn't working, and you need to copy all that stuff too, and the technology to do that doesn't exist. We can barely measure it, let alone reproduce it. I don't think you can say that a thorough understanding of all those multiple levels of complexity in the brain just isn't necessary. I really don't think it is that easy.

return0 14y ago

And it's not just a matter of profit. In fact, the research for the achievement of superhuman intelligence must hijack the ordo cognoscendi and jump in front of the line, because with superhuman intelligence humans can leave the rest of science to machines (hopefully).

dinkumthinkum 14y ago

I'm sorry, I mean no disrepect, but the idea that because you are a programmer by occupation doesn't really mean you understand what it would take bring about the sort of rapture predicted by Kurzweil. Last night I read several posts on HN about people calling themselves "hackers" or "programmers" because they played with Wordpress and learned a little Javascript on a YouTube. This is not to be elitist but I think claiming expertise on this topic requires a little more insight than what is passing for being a "programmer" these days. And you're somewhat wrong, I think. There is no reason inherently that traveling "to the stars" has to be unprofitable. In fact, many of those predictions about colonization the parent discussed, usually had some sort of capitalist profit driven motive. The pace of "accelerating progress" could manifest a cheap means of such travel. I don't know that speculative physics about faster than light travel (warping space-time, etc) is any more unrealistic than some of these prognostications about AI and spiritual transcendence, whatever that is. But honestly, responding to this post sort of reminds of responding to Way of the Master type people anyway. :)

rymith 14y ago
Understanding the science is fundamentally different than being an expert on the subjects. I never claimed expertise, only that I can read the abstracts from both sets of journals without having to look up any of the terms (well, usually). You don't mean any disrespect, and then liken me to a script kiddie and an evangelical nutjob. I mean no disrespect, but eat a dick, bitch.