James Howard Kunstler would approve.

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by Deano.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Microsoft-Futurists-Montage-of-Visions-of-Clean-Technology

Mesmerizing. It's like a futuristic Fantasia.

>> ^Psychologic:
One of Kurzweil's inventions was a computer program that taught itself how to distinguish between pictures of dogs and cats. No one programmed it with any description of either. This is built into a camera that he has demonstrated in public. You can take a picture of the page of a book and it will read it to you as well.

Both fine examples of pattern recognition, and featuring no automated reasoning whatsoever. The current state of AI was well predicted in the 70's and 80's, because most ideas used today were actually conceived back then (or even before). They just weren't implemented because the hardware wasn't fast enough.

My point is that current AI doesn't scale. One can't get the neural network used for image recognition and propose that human level AI is just a matter of using more nodes, because it isn't. And I have yet to see a proposal for useful (i.e., robust and expressive) knowledge representation that don't have exponential requirements (or worse).

There has always been a huge amount of handwaving in the AI scene. The bleeding edge of today's AI is basically an improvement of what began in the 70's (for example, regarding detailed specialist systems for medical diagnostics, or theorem provers for assisting professional mathematicians). The human-level part remains very unclear, and academic researchers are very conscious of how little is known. However, this doesn't stop "futurists" from making wild predictions about the singularity and what not.

>> ^flavioribeiro:
Exactly. The human-level AI problem is about knowledge representation and automated reasoning, and not about raw processing power. And as much as "futurists" like to describe a future filled with intelligent machines, no one has a clue about how to efficiently encode and process knowledge.

One of Kurzweil's inventions was a computer program that taught itself how to distinguish between pictures of dogs and cats. No one programmed it with any description of either. This is built into a camera that he has demonstrated in public. You can take a picture of the page of a book and it will read it to you as well.

Much of the advancement in the processing of knowledge will come from reverse-engineering the human brain. We've already mapped a good deal of it, and the resolution with which we can explore it has been doubling yearly. It won't initially lead human-like AI, but it doesn't have to. Most "marketable" AI and robotics will be highly effective within a limited scope. Replacing most jobs won't require broad-reaching knowledge, just a high proficiency in specific areas.

We aren't going to simply create sentient AI out of nothing with current tools, but with every technological advance comes the ability to create new advances. Many of the things we take for granted now were thought to be impossible 15 years ago, yet people like Kurzweil predicted them with a surprising amount of accuracy. I think he's a little optimistic about when certain technologies will disappear (like desktop computers), but he is very good at predicting the capabilities we will have for new technologies.

>> ^chilaxe:
Creating human-level AI isn't an issue of processing power.
We've had for some time supercomputers that already possess greater processing power than the human brain, and that doesn't mean that they do anything more than crunch lots of numbers.
Human-level AI will be about organizing that processing power in a way that's similar to the human brain's functionality.

Exactly. The human-level AI problem is about knowledge representation and automated reasoning, and not about raw processing power. And as much as "futurists" like to describe a future filled with intelligent machines, no one has a clue about how to efficiently encode and process knowledge.

I like the idea of this futuristic internet, but beating off with those gloves has got to be painful...

>> ^bcglorf:

Thank you for your reply.

You made it clear that I may have made an error in my previous comment. I think I should clarify that what I meant by "personal transport" was light vehicles for personal uses, as is the minivan or motorcycle used to get to work, the store, not transportation in general, which I view as a different, though not unrelated, problem. Moving freight, airplanes and battleships requires different solutions (in my opinion) then the problem of getting your kids to the hockey game.

I think we agree that the transition from oil is an important issue. You seem to believe that better batteries (and electric engines) will solve every facet of every issue facing the end of oil, and that this will result in little or no social or political change or turmoil. While I deeply wish that the next century comes to be shaped after your expectations, I do not believe it will be so. I do not believe that batteries alone will solve the coming crisis. Even if energy storage technology was to rapidly become what we would need it to be, where would the energy come from if the source for more then half of our current use was to vanish? Replacing that energy by renewable means will require a huge amount of investment and several decades to implement.

What I see coming, is a myriad of interwoven problems of which the central spine is energy use. All of them are have energy use at the at the root of their problem. This is because oil has done more then just let people drive their cars around cheaply. Cities are no longer shaped after people's needs, but to suit the demands of the automobile. There has been a great deal of optimism in investing in electric cars to allow people to continue to access modern cities as they have been constructed.

"When people say that they want to go to the electric car, I love it! But remember, they say 'car' not 'truck.' A battery won't move an 18 wheeler. The only thing that will move an 18 wheeler is foreign oil, diesel and gasoline, and our domestic natural gas." -T. Boone Pickens (on The Daily Show)

However continuing to access these cities will get more difficult when costs of energy begin to come down from the bubble of cheapness that I and most of the people I know have grown up in.

"Consequently these (cities) will be places that nobody wants to be in. These will be places that are not worth caring about. We have about 38,000 places that are not worth caring about in the united states today, when we have enough of them we will have a nation that is not worth defending. -James Howard Kunstler on "The greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world."

Even if cities are reshaped for the new economy of energy, there is debate on what that will be. Some people believe that there will be a magic-pill cure, like super batteries that will allow life to continue as normal. This will not be the case.

"The central delusion that we're seeing right now is the idea that we can magically come up with a rescue remedy to continue running the interstate highway system and all the other accessories and furnishings of the happy motoring system. I happen to think that we're going to be very disappointed about that. In fact there are a lot of intelligent thigns we can do, but one of the least intelligent things we can expect is that we can continue happy motoring. You can demonstrate that you can run cars on hydrogen, cow shit and fried potato oil, but can run 230 million cars and trucks on it? Forget about it.

And then you get into political questions, like if driving becomes something only for the elite. Right now 4% of americans can't drive for one reason or another. What happens when that number becomes 13% or 27% of the people do you think that's going to be politically okay? It would create huge resentments and grievances against the people who can still do it." - James Howard Kunstler

But when I said that personal transportation is not the biggest issue, I meant it. People will be less concerned with their car or the "happy motoring system" if they are hungry.

"Food prices are rising and they're about to soar. There have been a lot of rising grain prices that have not been passed on to the consumer, they're about to be. High food prices always create political peril, as we've known since the French revolution at least.

The era of cheap food is over in this country, just as the era of cheap oil is over as well. (...) The old fix, ramping up production is not going to work this time, because cheap food depends on cheap energy, something we can no longer count on. Without reforming the American food system, it will be impossible to make progress on the issues of energy independence, climate change and the health care crisis because the way we feed ourselves is that the heart of all those three problems.

Let me explain. The food system, uses more fossil fuel and contributes more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere then any other industry. Between 17 and 34 percent. Meat production alone is 18 percent." -Michael Pollan, on The End of Cheap Food.

So when faced with the choice between fuel for their cars and fuel for their bodies, some will choose to fuel the car, leaving others to go hungry. And when people are hungry, they turn to first to the government for solutions. Governments know that they will need to bring resources to appease a population and avoid that political peril they have known about since the French Revolution. Remember that wars are always about resources.

"How curious, that the First World War is never taught in our schools as an invasion of Iraq. (...A reaction to) the Berlin-Bagdad railway, which commenced construction in the years leading up to the first world war," with the goal of bringing oil from Iraq to Germany. (-Robert Newman, A History of Oil)

"Oil is what drives the military machine of every country. It provides the fuel for aircraft, the ships the tanks for the trucks. The control of oil is indespensible. When you run out if your army stops." -Chalmers Johnson, Why we fight.

Oil is more then just a transportation issue. Riding the bus won't help much. The bus runs on gasoline, just like your car.

"Here are some examples of our death v-effects. We disintegrate, we dissapate, and we have a variety of animations that make the player's killing experience more enjoyable."

It's like he trying to sell you a futuristic big game hunt.

As for the game, it looks like a cross between Goldeneye N64 and Turok. Very cool that they can put out a shooter that looks that good on the Wii's limited hardware.

Also check out this interview featuring Kunstler:
http://www.videosift.com/video/James-Howard-Kunstler-interviewed-by-Futurist-com

wow! i didnt realize how much he LOVES babies! also i really like the part about how he PROBABLY supports human rights... even though he is some kind of futuristic death cyborg.

He's brilliant, and it's a shame that his vision will probably never be embraced by civilization at large.

I made a visit to the Venus Project and met him a few months ago, and he's a wonderful man. When you're in his presence you'd never guess that he was 92. He's so full of energy and enthusiasm.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Man, I was going to send you a link to the Venus Project in my last reply! I have seen no better vision for a harmonious civilisation that this, removing the monetary system wipes out so many problems. The need to make a profit is driving the entire planet to destruction. When I started reading Jacques Fresco's stuff, it was like somebody just switched the lights on.

It opened my eyes to the stuff we're being fed via the news about resources running out, food running out blah blah blah - there are enough resources, enough skill and enough talent to make this vision work right now, it is the rich and powerful who stand in the way.

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
There's a gentleman here in Florida that I've grown to thoroughly admire. He's a futurist by the name Jacques Fresco and he's designed a future free of much of the bullshit that we deal with today, a global community with a cybernated resource based society. In his world money doesn't exist, the government is run by computer constructs administered by the best and brightest(not the power hungry), and industry has been automated to allow people the freedom to work on the betterment of mankind. You might enjoy checking him out. www.thevenusproject.com

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
You assume correctly Bob - born, bred, still living and working in Ireland

I was having this exact discussion with a friend tonight, he is of the opinion that as soon as you kill one single person you are just as bad as the oppressor. There's no arguing against that of course - you *are* just as bad. But it's a reaction against oppression that with hindsight is seen to be inevitable, all the way back through historical conflict.

Government by its very nature can never have a utopian worldview. All forms of hierarchical control will not achieve this, whether they be democracy, socialism or communism. They are all different flavours of the monkey-brain male dominator culture.

That leaves us with anarchy, which to me means every individual pursuing their own desires with no outside control, restraint or boundary. This is in fact how we lived for many hundreds of thousands of years, this is our paradise lost, our ancient utopia that can be unearthed and discovered through many ancient and sacred texts...



In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
I'll agree with you that oppression leads to revolution, and Kennedy's quote fits the situation in Ireland quite well. The British refused to deal with Irish independence diplomatically and fairly, so they brought the ensuing violence upon themselves. Oppression isn't a necessity of life though. Nations can get along just fine without needing to oppress/occupy other nations.

I'm assuming you're country would be Ireland? It's terrible what the British government did there. It was needless, and really just a complete waste of life.

I keep hoping the leaders of this world will grow up and get a more utopian world view. If nations did more to better the world as a whole than just protecting their own interests the world would be a much better place.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
That's exactly how I used to think, until I started studying the history of my own country.

Oppression leads to revolution, always has done and always will. The monster is he who does nothing...

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
I would say that if you kill innocent people, regardless of your motives, you are a monster.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. - John F. Kennedy

He's right in that if peace doesn't work, violence is your next course of action. But he's wrong on the necessity of revolution.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Fighting against oppression with violence is not becoming Nietzsche's monster at all. Fighting oppression will always be as violent as it needs to be.

When peaceful revolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable. I forget who said that...

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
And yeah, people need to get themselves over Nietzsche and start thinking for themselves again.

I'm not a big fan of Nietzsche, I just like that quote and it fits the point I was trying to make.

Man, I was going to send you a link to the Venus Project in my last reply! I have seen no better vision for a harmonious civilisation that this, removing the monetary system wipes out so many problems. The need to make a profit is driving the entire planet to destruction. When I started reading Jacques Fresco's stuff, it was like somebody just switched the lights on.

It opened my eyes to the stuff we're being fed via the news about resources running out, food running out blah blah blah - there are enough resources, enough skill and enough talent to make this vision work right now, it is the rich and powerful who stand in the way.

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
There's a gentleman here in Florida that I've grown to thoroughly admire. He's a futurist by the name Jacques Fresco and he's designed a future free of much of the bullshit that we deal with today, a global community with a cybernated resource based society. In his world money doesn't exist, the government is run by computer constructs administered by the best and brightest(not the power hungry), and industry has been automated to allow people the freedom to work on the betterment of mankind. You might enjoy checking him out. www.thevenusproject.com

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
You assume correctly Bob - born, bred, still living and working in Ireland

I was having this exact discussion with a friend tonight, he is of the opinion that as soon as you kill one single person you are just as bad as the oppressor. There's no arguing against that of course - you *are* just as bad. But it's a reaction against oppression that with hindsight is seen to be inevitable, all the way back through historical conflict.

Government by its very nature can never have a utopian worldview. All forms of hierarchical control will not achieve this, whether they be democracy, socialism or communism. They are all different flavours of the monkey-brain male dominator culture.

That leaves us with anarchy, which to me means every individual pursuing their own desires with no outside control, restraint or boundary. This is in fact how we lived for many hundreds of thousands of years, this is our paradise lost, our ancient utopia that can be unearthed and discovered through many ancient and sacred texts...



In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
I'll agree with you that oppression leads to revolution, and Kennedy's quote fits the situation in Ireland quite well. The British refused to deal with Irish independence diplomatically and fairly, so they brought the ensuing violence upon themselves. Oppression isn't a necessity of life though. Nations can get along just fine without needing to oppress/occupy other nations.

I'm assuming you're country would be Ireland? It's terrible what the British government did there. It was needless, and really just a complete waste of life.

I keep hoping the leaders of this world will grow up and get a more utopian world view. If nations did more to better the world as a whole than just protecting their own interests the world would be a much better place.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
That's exactly how I used to think, until I started studying the history of my own country.

Oppression leads to revolution, always has done and always will. The monster is he who does nothing...

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
I would say that if you kill innocent people, regardless of your motives, you are a monster.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. - John F. Kennedy

He's right in that if peace doesn't work, violence is your next course of action. But he's wrong on the necessity of revolution.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Fighting against oppression with violence is not becoming Nietzsche's monster at all. Fighting oppression will always be as violent as it needs to be.

When peaceful revolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable. I forget who said that...

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
And yeah, people need to get themselves over Nietzsche and start thinking for themselves again.

I'm not a big fan of Nietzsche, I just like that quote and it fits the point I was trying to make.

There's a gentleman here in Florida that I've grown to thoroughly admire. He's a futurist by the name Jacques Fresco and he's designed a future free of much of the bullshit that we deal with today, a global community with a cybernated resource based society. In his world money doesn't exist, the government is run by computer constructs administered by the best and brightest(not the power hungry), and industry has been automated to allow people the freedom to work on the betterment of mankind. You might enjoy checking him out. www.thevenusproject.com

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
You assume correctly Bob - born, bred, still living and working in Ireland

I was having this exact discussion with a friend tonight, he is of the opinion that as soon as you kill one single person you are just as bad as the oppressor. There's no arguing against that of course - you *are* just as bad. But it's a reaction against oppression that with hindsight is seen to be inevitable, all the way back through historical conflict.

Government by its very nature can never have a utopian worldview. All forms of hierarchical control will not achieve this, whether they be democracy, socialism or communism. They are all different flavours of the monkey-brain male dominator culture.

That leaves us with anarchy, which to me means every individual pursuing their own desires with no outside control, restraint or boundary. This is in fact how we lived for many hundreds of thousands of years, this is our paradise lost, our ancient utopia that can be unearthed and discovered through many ancient and sacred texts...



In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
I'll agree with you that oppression leads to revolution, and Kennedy's quote fits the situation in Ireland quite well. The British refused to deal with Irish independence diplomatically and fairly, so they brought the ensuing violence upon themselves. Oppression isn't a necessity of life though. Nations can get along just fine without needing to oppress/occupy other nations.

I'm assuming you're country would be Ireland? It's terrible what the British government did there. It was needless, and really just a complete waste of life.

I keep hoping the leaders of this world will grow up and get a more utopian world view. If nations did more to better the world as a whole than just protecting their own interests the world would be a much better place.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
That's exactly how I used to think, until I started studying the history of my own country.

Oppression leads to revolution, always has done and always will. The monster is he who does nothing...

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
I would say that if you kill innocent people, regardless of your motives, you are a monster.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. - John F. Kennedy

He's right in that if peace doesn't work, violence is your next course of action. But he's wrong on the necessity of revolution.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Fighting against oppression with violence is not becoming Nietzsche's monster at all. Fighting oppression will always be as violent as it needs to be.

When peaceful revolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable. I forget who said that...

In reply to this comment by HollywoodBob:
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
And yeah, people need to get themselves over Nietzsche and start thinking for themselves again.

I'm not a big fan of Nietzsche, I just like that quote and it fits the point I was trying to make.