Is /sci/ excited for the technological singularity?
>>7865969
ai hasn't advanced in over 50 years
>>7865969
>not showing the full graph that show the emergence of each type of intelligence over the course of the entire history of the universe
>thinking machine intelligence doesn't rely on the fundamental basis of the human intelligence that builds it
No, I'm actually pretty depressed about it because the world is literally retarded about exponential curves. If we were to listen to Kurzweil, our entire economic engine would grind to a halt and none of his predictions would have any merit whatsoever. Your options for futurism are fantasy or realism. Pick the one you like, put it up front whenever you discuss the technological singularity, and don't ever pretend that your fantasies affect the economy ever again.
>>7865969
>>>/x/ is that way
>>7865992
Oh, excellent. Fucking saved. It's not even slightly inaccurate in any way.
>>7865992
Why would technology drop? Are you asuming human nuclear war?
>>7865992
Saved. Nice simple way of telling the singularitards to BTFO.
>>7866056
Because it stopped making life better the moment wire fraud was invented. You know, when we made the switch to automated telephone switchboards.
>>7866069
That isn't represented in your graph though. However, I do agree that we can stop at some point but there are some really neat technologies coming this century.
>>7866081
>really neat
Great, more toys. Eventually people are going to dump that shit in favor of meeting everyone's subsistence needs. The green movement is still underway, it never stopped. Corporatism and the science it funds are being attacked all over the world. We're doomed to live in a TED world.
>>7866081
Wire fraud would fall under machine intelligence. Try again.
>>7866104
It is still technology, making life better is not something quantifiable.
AI, Moore's law, etc. are weak arguments but not the only ones.
>>7866108
>making life better is not something quantifiable
Bullshit is isn't. Quality of life being calculable is the reason we have politics.
>>7866117
But your fucking graph doesn't show that in any meaningful sense. The green one is a much better prediction.
>pol sci major detected
>>7866112
>not the only ones
If you'd check the second[2] citation on that paper, you'd find that the exponent curve it describes is a result of the same exact innovation processes that Moore's law is made of. "Hurr durr exponential growth" is literally the only argument for AI that we have.
>i didn't understand that the one thing i read was the same as the other thing i read
That paper outlines a Moore-type argument. It's not a different argument. GTFO.
>>7866130
Link to paper?
>>7866130
Uh, no, Moore's law is a statistical trend in industry, not a model. I haven't read Arthur's book but I've read some of his papers. Are you thinking of his evolution of technology model that evolves simple circuits?
The point of my post is that AI is not even an essential aspect of the singularity concept. I don't care what the arguments for or against AI are. They're speculation either way.
>>7866149
Nobody here said anything about AI. Singularity fantasies are sci-fi, not /sci/. AI just happens to be the big strawman argument in the sky. What really gets to us is the fantasies futurists dream up. Filling the population with bullshit hopes and dreams just pollutes the quality of this board with the wave of resulting stupidity.
If you want to discuss this seriously, don't just gesture at the arguments others can make; make an actual argument that YOU are ready to defend.
>>7866056
Because progress doesn't just keep rising forever, there is always a dark age after a golden age.
>>7866181
I would defend the model described here, as written.
>>7866112
If some portion of undiscovered technologies are latent in combinations of existing technologies, then as the time goes on we should expect a period of hyperbolic growth in the variety of technologies on Earth as the number of potential combinations approaches a singularity.
Potential combinations. Technologies actually combined and built then depend only on how many viable combinations there are, and how quickly they can be recognized and produced. We can expect some inventions will increase these rates, but we don't have to suppose this.
I don't think anything goes all the way up, but I do expect there will be a brief period of change much more dramatic than even the past few centuries.
>>7866056
>Why would technology drop?
widespread adoption of fentanyl as a mass-opiate 2bh
>>7866112
Moore's law is dead apparently
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/moores-law-really-is-dead-this-time/
>>7866056
Do you know how to engineer the world from scratch? How many people do you think have that knowledge? What would happen if they were all wiped out by drone strike?
>>7866056
There is no such thing as indomitable "progress". That is technocratic/ Marxist pop-science and has never been true in all of human history. Technology is only possible in Civilisation which rises and falls.
It is fundamentally leftist to believe in linear progress. It is an illusion and rests on the hope that one day, technology will allow humans to overcome everything EVEN their own mortality. The desire is to become God and/or cheat death. This is nothing more that hubris and dangerous fantasy.
>>7866723
We haven't lost relevant technologies since the late middle ages. In today's world we should not expect a global drop in technology considering how we literally store everything except you consider a global fall of civilization. Fuck off back to /his/ with youe bullshit terms.
>>7866654
Exactly, that graph was asuming some mass scale disaster. What the fuck is so hard to grasp.
>>7866742
>this time it'll be different
Futurists are the dumbest faggots on /sci/. Technological innovation is utterly dead. In 50 years we will have the same bullshit smartphones with slightly higher resolutions.
>>7866755
>what is the advent of quantum computers
>>7866755
But that's just stupid, this is the edgiest post I've read today. Congratulations.
>>7866755
>I was born in 2007
>>7868314
>just like the rest of /sci/
>>7866755
conventional computing power is. but you're ignoring the discoveries that they've made in biological engineering.
the first supercomputers will be an altered human brain
>>7866112
technology develops to meet human needs. until humans and their demands change, the producer quotient of the human population cannot gather the resources to develop what they need to develop in order for tech to progress.
that light wave experiment took 14 years to develop AFTER spending a decade in limbo. all the money is making nike air jordans.
the constraint is human society. human society can't even do compound fractions, and doesn't give a fuck about your formulas.
>hurr durr duh singularity is a pipe dream!
Have you faggots never heard of thorium or something?
>>7865992
There is no limit to what's physically possible.
>>7868390
the 2nd law of thermodynamics still exists, you know
we don't know how much energy it would take to reach a new sun from our location. would it take the energy of an entire sun? how would you harness that in a vessel of planet scale without catastrophic failure?
obviously the energy which formed solar systems was more immense than the energy contained within the solar systems, which on average, pushes them further apart than their self contained energy would be able to reverse, due to entropy.
so what, you overcome the previous limit, you harness the entire sun, and travel to a new sun, and you have to harness that entire sun just to move to the next sun?
sounds like a hard technological limit to me.
>>7868386
>all the money is making nike air jordans
This is literally wrong though, tech industries have been making more money than consumer goods for a while. Maybe after the bubble pops.
>>7868400
That sounds like a bind man.
>>7868404
please demonstrate to me how teenagers sending pictures of their penis over snapchat is substantially different from the pink himalayan sea salt market or nike air jordans
>>7868404
The only reason tech makes money is the Illuminati bankers and government and business moguls want to through money at it hoping to become techno gods.
>>7868400
> we don't know how much energy it would take to reach a new sun from our location.
You think nobody ever tried figuring that out?
>>7868388
>hurr durr muh thorium will solve everything
>>7868416
nobody really knows, because there are energy costs to harnessing energy, containing energy, processing energy, the energy cost of the vessel itself.
people assume that once reaching some sort of good sub-light travel velocity the problem is solved, even though it would still take more than a human lifetime to travel so far. but uh, what about the fact that you still have to find a way to trap and contain a substantial portion of the sun's power? do you do that without intense gravitational effects that destroy machinery? if you transport a little white dwarf inside a vessel, how do you accelerate a mass larger than a planet?
my honest bet is that we find a smaller star and slowly but surely build machinery to slowly change that star's orbit within the galaxy, allowing one to move the star to a new solar system. but that would require destroying the solar system. and hwen you get to a new solar system, that system is also destroyed.
are we gonna do that to our own system? we only have one. and in the absence of an entire sun's energy, we don't have the ability to get to a new solar system...
my guess is that hard energy limits traps us here no matter how smart we get. our ONLY chance to leave is a one way ticket, completely in the dark. no redos.
>>7865980
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
no u
>>7868439
it's more powerful, and programmed with more specificity, and more economical, but not necessarily smarter
we haven't overcome the essential AI cliff, and we can't even conceptualize how to do so.
building a better plough never leads to a steam engine
>>7868447
you're right, steam requires hot water while plows require horses.
you may be on to something .... there.e.e..ee.e.e.
Absolutely not, it will be terrible
>>7866117
The "quantifications" are arbitrary.
>I POSTED IT AGAIN GUISE
>>7866742
We lose technology to government black book projects all the time.
Besides that, technologies that aren't profitable dont last. Look to ultra long lifetime light bulbs
>>7866723
>implying Rome was the only civilization in the world
>implying the dark ages represented a technological decline and not just a massive cultural shift
2/10, try again
>>7865969
There he is. There he goes again. Look, everyone! He posted it once again! Isn't he just the funniest guy around?! Oh my God.
I can almost see your pathetic overweight frame glowing in the dark, lit by your computer screen which is the only source of light in your room, giggling like a like girl as you once again type your little Bane thread up and fill in the captcha. Or maybe you don't even fill in the captcha. Maybe you're such a disgusting NEET that you actually paid for a 4chan pass, so you just choose the picture. Oh, and we all know the picture. The "epic" technological singularity , isn't it? I imagine you little shit laughing so hard as you click it that you drop your Doritos on the floor, but it's ok, your mother will clean it up in the morning. Oh, that's right. Did I fail to mention? You live with your mother. You are a fat fucking fuckup, she's probably so sick of you already. So sick of having to do everything for you all goddamn day, every day, for a grown man who spends all his time on 4chan posting about a Scifi movie. Just imagine this. She had you, and then she thought you were gonna be a scientist or an astronaut or something grand, and then you became a NEET. A pathetic AI NEET. She probably cries herself to sleep everyday thinking about how bad it is and how she wishes she could just disappear. She can't even try to talk with you because all you say is "THE SINGULARITY IS HERE." You've become a parody of your own self. And that's all you are. A sad little man laughing in the dark by himself as he prepares to indulge in the same old dance that he's done a million times now. And that's all you'll ever be.
>>7868433
>nobody really knows, because there are energy costs to harnessing energy, containing energy, processing energy, the energy cost of the vessel itself.
So? Again, do you think nobody ever tried all that out? People have been writing about this stuff for decades.
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109.jvn.spring00/nuc_rocket/Dyson.pdf
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.397.5339&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://www.lunarsail.com/LightSail/20100036571_2010034507.pdf
How much of this thread is just one idiot arguing with himself to try to troll people?
There's can't be that many people who actually fall for the thread's bait every time it is posted.
It's not the worst bait out there, but you'd think the board as a whole would build up an immunity to it after some time.
>>7865980
are you fucking kidding me
>>7865988
>thinking machine intelligence doesn't rely on the fundamental basis of the human intelligence that builds it
That's precisely what the singularity is you moron. Machine intelligence not relying on humans anymore
>>7866755
>Technological innovation is utterly dead.
I agree with that.
Now, we consider a simple app for your phone as an innovation. Billions dollars on these shits.
>>7868383
>biological engineering
We are still at the beginning.There is nothing really interesting with a strong impact on the plebs.
>>7865969
Personally I think we should focus on enhancing ourselves genetically.
Investing in A.I. may result in us being obliterated as obstacles. It's foolish to think they would waste time and resources pampering all the useless humans.
Upgrade ourselves, not our replacements.
>>7871267
>result in us being obliterated as obstacles
Same thing with genetic. We will kill ourself.
>>7865969
We already hit it with agriculture.
>>7871311
That's a bit of a reach, isn't it?
Why would a person kill themselves just because they got a bit smarter and stronger?
People improve themselves all the time and it's usually only the failures that have suicidal ideations. They have low self-esteem and are trapped feeling like they can't over come their environment.
A gene enhanced person would be jolly as fuck. Testing their limits all the time. Likr Peter Pan or Goku.
>>7866723
>>7866742
>>7866056
>>7866069
>>7865992
The "dark" ages was not dark. There was progress in Europe, but you guys think Europe = world. China, India, and the Arab caliphates were advancing science, medicine, and art. During Europe dark ages the church was the one who advanced technology and art. The monks, and priest were the ones who could read and write, while teaching those who they can how to read and write. Europe dark age only lasted 200 years, but it wasn't as dark as the pop-history fags like to say it is. Lots of weapon technologies were invent in that time period. Some people believe the 1800-1980s was a dark age. The information revolution is our new renaissance
>>7866056
the robots find that the internet is more entertaining than their preprogrammed directives
>>7871338
>Why would a person kill themselves just because they got a bit smarter and stronger?
They will kill others.
seriously though people will create people with the same ideologies they have, so /pol/ will create superhuman white supremacist race, other will create other extremists group, and liberals who will refuse gene modification will be laughed at as naive and hippie, they will die first.
There will be war and people will be turned into batteries.
>>7871393
>>7871998
that pic triggers me
>>7871393
yep because the eradication of >1/3 of the population is certainly not dark.
>>7872014
>>7871998
This is not accurate but generally true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_and_works_on_the_Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum
![30k56qc[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/dY2HOg1.jpg "30k56qc[1].jpg")
>>7871998
>>7871998
The Greeks and Romans were wrong about a lot of stuff, geocentrism, spontaneous generation
their teachings pretested until about the Renascence, the best scientists from that point threw out everything taught from the past and started over, they really invented science
>>7865969
>Human Intellect increasing
you dont actually believe in that do you?
also
>Machines
>Intelligent
bet you own a smartphone
>>7872023
>You know what held back science
>crazy theology being banned
this is what underage fag actually believe
>>7871998
>>7872029
>mfw prager university cuck faggot argues that the christian dark ages were not that bad
>He says this is the case and then quotes a bunch of RECREATIONAL AND FICTIONAL LITERATURE
>Then says 'BILLY MAYS HERE. BUT WAIT! THERE IS MORE!'
>Quotes the 1 or 2 mathematical and science advances that were made in the entire period, claiming this is a justification
Christian holocaust when? I know the muslims already started in Germany but we need more.
>>7872447
This is fucking great.
>>7871393
>the Arab caliphates were advancing science, medicine, and art.
No they weren't, they made literally ZERO advances, they just copied Grecian knowledge.
Even outside the church there were more advances in European metallurgy in that time than caliphates. Look it up. Arabs get credit for being good at copying Grecian scrolls which Europeans later used, that's it.
Still using the term dark age in the real sense of the term is retarded anyway, since modern findings have filled the gaps and completely nullified the name.
>>7865969
>transhumanism
I'm autismkin too
>>7872029
>alexandria mattered
>no dip for it burning
>>7872463
So edgy that it hurts
>>>/r/atheism
>>7872447
Perfection
>>7865969
Hahahaha what kind of fucking graph is that hahaha like nigga just turn around ahahaha
>>7868544
>implying the dark ages represented a technological decline and not just a massive cultural shift
As a matter of fact...
http://historum.com/ancient-history/43434-rise-fall-ancient-economy.html
>>7869584
AI like in Hollywood movies. Everyone has given up on it decades ago and moved on to other things.
