and I don't mean that as Flamebait or Trolling - I think Kurzweil's recent career has been one of a flaming Troll. I've read his books and they're little more than materialist New Age guru crap. Before you go modding me down, hear this out.
1. great statements require great proof.
2. predictions should follow patterns of substructure
He offers no proof - he simply says : look what's happened so far, by (x) date (which will likely be after I'm dead) the world will be SO different and it will be like (THIS).
His claims of AI are floundering on simple facts like Intel scrapping 4gHz chips [slashdot.org] and any number of other signs that Moore's Law, on which Kurzweil's argument rests, is being scrapped as we speak.
another example: stick a blank floppy in your fancy pants XP machine and start the computer up. Computers are SO far from being "intelligent" in even the most rudimentary way, it's absurd. The basic flaw in Kurzweil's notions are that he believes that intelligence is a disembodied effect, when (if the likes of Ramachandran are correct) intelligence is an embodied effect and specifically dependent on wetware. So, the pattern doesn't hold, and he has no real proof. He's selling snake oil to technodweebs.
Then there's the entire issue of social class, and Kurzweil has no interest in serving the greater masses of humanity. He is interested in pushing a technological vanguard that will be open only to the rich, who, once properly enabled/enhanced with have no need or desire to accomodate a working class. Why bring on board the middle classes, when you can replace them all with machines? And if you think this doesn't mean you, you're an idiot.
But beyond all that his fantasy is just that: a fantasy.Technology is a means, not an end in itself, and the likes of Kurzweil seek to put the managers of technology in a position of power above and beyond democratic principles, and for that he and his ilk must be opposed and revealed for what they are: techno-fascists.
Now, for full disclosure: I do think we need a robust space program, I do think we need faster and better computers, I do think we can and should use technology to solve the world's ills where technology is a legitimate solution. I *even agree* that we can make humans more disease resistant and longer lived, and I also believe that that is a good thing. However:
I do not see technology as Kurzweil does: in some kind of Messianic Eschatology. It's not like that, and I feel that he and his ilk are perpetrating a fraud on the public, but mostly on the people they advocate the most: technologists. I think the Really Hard Nut To Crack is not going to be technological, but sociological and political.
Jaron Lanier wrote an interesting opposition paper [edge.org] that also opposes Kurzweil, but in more polite language than myself. I guess Lanier doesn't consider Kurzweil to be the charlatan I see him as.
His claims of AI are floundering on simple facts like Intel scrapping 4gHz chips and any number of other signs that Moore's Law, on which Kurzweil's argument rests, is being scrapped as we speak.
Moore's law [wikipedia.org] does not deal with clock speed. It deals with complexity. Intel did say they were working on making the processors more efficient (per cycle). That is typically achieved by adding more hardware; increased complexity.
I think the Really Hard Nut To Crack is not going to be technological, but sociological and political.
Yeap, so to speak. You cannot expect humans to be any different because of the technology. We have proven far too many times that technological advances make us no less assholes and idiots.
What we need to do is start with the problem, not the technology. If a current (or near future) technology can do the job, fine! But technology should never be the goal.
technological advances make us no less assholes and idiots.
Technology CAN take the asshole out of people-- we just don't understand the brain well enough yet to change ourselves [hedweb.com] faster than natural selection. That's the problem: a mismatch between our tech and our old greedy brains that evolved in environments of scarcity. The hope is that we can close the gap before us unenlightend primates destroy ourselves.
I just want to address a couple of points you make.
As far as Intel scrapping the 4ghz, I don't think it's wise to see that, as is, as evidence of Moore's Law no longer being attainable. We could clearly make processors running at higher speeds that that, but it wouldn't be cost effective for the current consumer market. That is pretty much the problem underlying all of this.
What Kurzweil is claiming will happen in 20 years, I think is easily possible. It would take work, and a shitload of cash, but it's
Yes, it is true that great statements require great proof. If I claim that earth is flat than I'd have to produce heaps of proof before anyone would listen. However, Kurzweil is futurologist and you can't prove anything about future because it hasn't happened yet. All you can do is look at the past and extrapolate while taking potential setbacks into account.
Kurzweil says that people tend to overestimate the impact of technology in short run and underestimate it in long run. Perhaps he is guilty of this hi
First, I just want to point out that Intel's announcement is even less relevant than you admit. It's a PR blunder on their part to let people think that silicon is dead. In truth, Intel will just accelerate their work on more complex processors running at the same frequency. Multi-core processors and then truly parallel processors. Yes, this is difficult, but so was upping the frequency. There is no reason to believe that Intel Pentium 6000 will not be released in early 2005. Yes, it will run at 3GHz, but i
So Ray's point is that as computational power increases, machines will start acting in more and more "intelligent" ways. Of course, computational power alone doesn't produce intelligence but it will if combined with studying brain structure and mimicking it (or parts of it for starters) in machines. And I don't necessarily mean silicone machines.
I think depending on Moore's law as proof that a certain type of artificial intelligence is inevetable, or immenent, is making a pretty stupid mistake between qua
Kurzweil says that people tend to overestimate the impact of technology in short run and underestimate it in long run.
Well, it's usually Arthur C. Clark who gets the credit for that quote: "We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run."
There is no doubt in my mind that this technological hiccup will be resolved either by improving existing silicon technology in some new and innovative way or, if we hit a "silicon dead end", by something
The basic flaw in Kurzweil's notions are that he believes that intelligence is a disembodied effect, when (if the likes of Ramachandran are correct) intelligence is an embodied effect and specifically dependent on wetware.
Ah, so that's it -- you're one of those frightened bio-chauvinists who's comforted by the idea that the current human condition is necessary (and desirable) for sentience; that our wetware brains can't be transfered to more efficient self-modifiable substrates because of consciousness d [trancenet.org]
Ah, so that's it -- you're one of those frightened bio-chauvinists who's comforted by the idea that the current human condition is necessary (and desirable) for sentience; that our wetware brains can't be transfered to more efficient self-modifiable substrates because of consciousness depending on spooky quantum effects.
Nonsense. Sentience is an illusion produced by the brain. Read Ramachandran, and don't make such specious strawman arguments.
I would counter [lanl.gov] a few of your underlying assumptions with the following references [nagaokaut.ac.jp] - note that electron tunneling [uiuc.edu] pathways affect protein folding dynamics and that quantum interference [uiuc.edu] plays a critical role in photosynthesis. See also Zeilinger's biomolecule [physicsweb.org] matter-wave interference experiments [quantum.at].
You're correct in many ways, and I think that you understate your case. I'm about to agree with you at somewhat excessive length...
As far as AI goes, the notion that 'strong AI' (that is, not some narrowly defined task like optical character recognition - but a machine that supposedly reasons like or better than a human in a generalized, complex domain) is somewhere right around the corner has been around for about 30 years. Progress in this field is pathetic.
I wouldn't call Kurzweil an idiot myself by any means, but I will say that I think some of the fundamental underlying premises of his view of reality are different from a lot of people's. One example is that I've heard him referred to numerous times as an atheist, and then read in this interview about him wanting to achieve physical immortality. To me, as an atheist he would view death as the termination of any form of existence, and so from that point of view it is entirely logical that he would want to pr
Mr. Cole's Axiom:
The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant;
the population is growing.
I think Kurzweil is a freaking idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
1. great statements require great proof.
2. predictions should follow patterns of substructure
He offers no proof - he simply says : look what's happened so far, by (x) date (which will likely be after I'm dead) the world will be SO different and it will be like (THIS).
His claims of AI are floundering on simple facts like Intel scrapping 4gHz chips [slashdot.org] and any number of other signs that Moore's Law, on which Kurzweil's argument rests, is being scrapped as we speak.
another example: stick a blank floppy in your fancy pants XP machine and start the computer up. Computers are SO far from being "intelligent" in even the most rudimentary way, it's absurd. The basic flaw in Kurzweil's notions are that he believes that intelligence is a disembodied effect, when (if the likes of Ramachandran are correct) intelligence is an embodied effect and specifically dependent on wetware. So, the pattern doesn't hold, and he has no real proof. He's selling snake oil to technodweebs.
Then there's the entire issue of social class, and Kurzweil has no interest in serving the greater masses of humanity. He is interested in pushing a technological vanguard that will be open only to the rich, who, once properly enabled/enhanced with have no need or desire to accomodate a working class. Why bring on board the middle classes, when you can replace them all with machines? And if you think this doesn't mean you, you're an idiot.
But beyond all that his fantasy is just that: a fantasy.Technology is a means, not an end in itself, and the likes of Kurzweil seek to put the managers of technology in a position of power above and beyond democratic principles, and for that he and his ilk must be opposed and revealed for what they are: techno-fascists.
Now, for full disclosure: I do think we need a robust space program, I do think we need faster and better computers, I do think we can and should use technology to solve the world's ills where technology is a legitimate solution. I *even agree* that we can make humans more disease resistant and longer lived, and I also believe that that is a good thing. However:
I do not see technology as Kurzweil does: in some kind of Messianic Eschatology. It's not like that, and I feel that he and his ilk are perpetrating a fraud on the public, but mostly on the people they advocate the most: technologists. I think the Really Hard Nut To Crack is not going to be technological, but sociological and political.
Jaron Lanier wrote an interesting opposition paper [edge.org] that also opposes Kurzweil, but in more polite language than myself. I guess Lanier doesn't consider Kurzweil to be the charlatan I see him as.
RS
Re:I think Kurzweil is a freaking idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
Moore's law [wikipedia.org] does not deal with clock speed. It deals with complexity. Intel did say they were working on making the processors more efficient (per cycle). That is typically achieved by adding more hardware; increased complexity.
Re:I think Kurzweil is a freaking idiot (Score:1)
Yeap, so to speak. You cannot expect humans to be any different because of the technology. We have proven far too many times that technological advances make us no less assholes and idiots.
What we need to do is start with the problem, not the technology. If a current (or near future) technology can do the job, fine! But technology should never be the goal.
Re:I think Kurzweil is a freaking idiot (Score:2)
Technology CAN take the asshole out of people-- we just don't understand the brain well enough yet to change ourselves [hedweb.com] faster than natural selection. That's the problem: a mismatch between our tech and our old greedy brains that evolved in environments of scarcity. The hope is that we can close the gap before us unenlightend primates destroy ourselves.
--
I am in between (Score:3)
What Kurzweil is claiming will happen in 20 years, I think is easily possible. It would take work, and a shitload of cash, but it's
Re:I think Kurzweil is a freaking idiot (Score:2, Interesting)
Kurzweil says that people tend to overestimate the impact of technology in short run and underestimate it in long run. Perhaps he is guilty of this hi
Re:I think Kurzweil is a freaking idiot (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I think Kurzweil is a freaking idiot (Score:2)
I think depending on Moore's law as proof that a certain type of artificial intelligence is inevetable, or immenent, is making a pretty stupid mistake between qua
Re:I think Kurzweil is a freaking idiot (Score:1)
Well, it's usually Arthur C. Clark who gets the credit for that quote: "We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run."
There is no doubt in my mind that this technological hiccup will be resolved either by improving existing silicon technology in some new and innovative way or, if we hit a "silicon dead end", by something
Re:I think Kurzweil is a freaking idiot (Score:2)
Ah, so that's it -- you're one of those frightened bio-chauvinists who's comforted by the idea that the current human condition is necessary (and desirable) for sentience; that our wetware brains can't be transfered to more efficient self-modifiable substrates because of consciousness d [trancenet.org]
Re:I think Kurzweil is a freaking idiot (Score:2)
Ah, so that's it -- you're one of those frightened bio-chauvinists who's comforted by the idea that the current human condition is necessary (and desirable) for sentience; that our wetware brains can't be transfered to more efficient self-modifiable substrates because of consciousness depending on spooky quantum effects.
Nonsense. Sentience is an illusion produced by the brain. Read Ramachandran, and don't make such specious strawman arguments.
RS
Wetware, Quantum effects, and 'Spookiness' (Score:1)
I would counter [lanl.gov] a few of your underlying assumptions with the following references [nagaokaut.ac.jp] - note that electron tunneling [uiuc.edu] pathways affect protein folding dynamics and that quantum interference [uiuc.edu] plays a critical role in photosynthesis. See also Zeilinger's biomolecule [physicsweb.org] matter-wave interference experiments [quantum.at].
Of course, future [ucsb.edu] computing [ornl.gov] architectures [tudelft.nl] can incorporate [lanl.gov] these 'spooky' features [lanl.gov].
Re:I think Kurzweil is a freaking idiot (Score:2)
As far as AI goes, the notion that 'strong AI' (that is, not some narrowly defined task like optical character recognition - but a machine that supposedly reasons like or better than a human in a generalized, complex domain) is somewhere right around the corner has been around for about 30 years. Progress in this field is pathetic.
Further, a lot of people may have jumped on to
I think "idiot" is a bit strong (Score:2)