2,589 views
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
32 Comments
mlxWow. Great post!
WolfDemonsays...Wow....
what's this song?? I must have it!
theo47I'm glad I'll be on my way out when Skynet becomes self-aware and starts building Terminators.
JesusFreakWolfDemon - That was actually a sampling of a couple of songs from the soundtrack for Last of the Mohicans. It looks like they still sell the album on Amazon...
ChosenOnesays...Neo said it best with "whoa"
I just kicked my computer, I'll tell'm who's out thinkin who! Also might have to bump the US population up some so... time to get to baby makin. Step one find a lady.
And incase anyone doesnt know, Google's tryin to develop ai now so for those who know a Sarah or John Connor get to a protectin them!
djsunkidWoot for Singularity Sift!! I'm making a new playlist!
djsunkidps: this is for *geeks, I would say. Especially at the end!
siftbotGold Star invocations (geek) cannot be executed by djsunkid because djsunkid is not a Gold Star member - sorry.
silvercord*geek
siftbotVideo added to geek channel (geek called by gold star member silvercord)
bamdrewwhat we really need are better batteries. batteries are holding us up all over the place. miniaturization of powerful batteries will allow for unbelievable advances (brain-machine interface being my favorite).
meowsays...Would have liked it better if they used more measurable statistics. Computing power of the human brain / human race and the price of computers fifteen years in the future is flying car kind of stuff.
ambivalensPretty damn silly to compare the computational power of computers to humans as they process information in completely different ways.
sihoopsyeah. the human brain is an amazing creation. given the fact that humans only use 10% of there brain power a comuter will never come close to the same amount of computing power. and anyways, humans can't create something smarter than the human race. that's just sounds like ludicrous lol.
djsunkidOne reason is that computers are too simple in comparison to human brains- so far. It is possible, in principle, to simulate the massive parallelism of the human brain using digital technology. The problem is that it takes an absolutely enormously powerful computer for this kind of simulation to be even remotly useful.
A simple pocket calculator can find square roots WAY easier than you, and that is incredibly useful. Is there any wonder computers that function essentially like calculators have become ubiquitous?
My point is that just because all the computers that you've ever seen function like that, doesn't mean that all computers will always nessesarily be like that.
Computers are very VERY good at number crunching. Straight forward, step-by-step rule following. Human brains, on the other hand, have computers beat six ways to sunday at pattern recognition. This is because our brains are HUGELY parallel. Lots and lots and lots of neurons, each connected to dozens or even hundreds of others.
It IS possible to calculate (within a few orders of magnitude) just what sort of computing power might theoretically be nessesary to simulate the human brain. Because of the exponential growth of computing power, even if we are off by 5 orders of magnitude, the timetable for a human equivalent computer would only be off by a few years.
Personally I think that this video is very pessimistic, for a number of reasons. Some of which are relavent to this comment:The 10% figure that is often quoted represents a severe misunderstanding of neural biology. While there are documented cases of people losing HUGE portions of their brains and yet being able to rehabilite most of their functionality, the truth is that we use all of our brains- just not all at the same time.
As for humanity creating our successors, this is almost certainly what is going to happen. There have already been quite a few instances of processes yielding progressively more "intelligent" processes.
Lets start with Physics. In the beginning, (13 billion years) there was the big bang- in a few microfractions of a second, the laws of physics were born, and then it tooks billions upon billions of years for stars to birth and die and elements to be made, etc etc etc- until finally at some point chemestry became possible.
Life on earth formed about 4 billion years ago, but it took 3.5 billion years to get to animals like fish and lizards.
From that point on, it becomes millions of years. 70 million years ago mammals turned up. 65 million- dinosaurs died out. 5 million years ago, humans showed up, but we were just another animal for the vast majority of our heritage. Mere thousands of years ago, we learned to talk, and then it was like a flash and all of civilisation happened. Only hundreds of years ago did we harness electricity, and computers were only dozens of years.
What does this all mean? Well, the point I was trying to make is that Chemistry is dumber than evolution, but it created it. Evolution is dumber than Humans but it created us. I say that we are smarter than evolution because while it does create progressivly better species, and come up with solutions to problems, it is VERY VERY SLOW and inefficient at it. I bet you can name a dozen things that you would improve about the human body just off the top of your head.
So not only do dumb processes beget smarter processes, but the speed at which this is happening has increased exponentially. We are right on the cusp of the transition to a machine based existence.
As I mentioned, I think that their estimates for machine human equivalence is pessimistic. They say human equivalence in 2013, that may be correct, but no way will it take 10 years from that until a $1000 human equivalent. Why? Because the rate of change is changing. The curve is hyperbolic, not just exponential.
What's more, I don't think that a human equivalent computer is even nessesary! I think that it is possible that computers already posses enough computing power to begin a process of self-improvment that will ultimately end in their surpassing us in leaps and bounds. The problem, I believe, is currently software. We just don't know how to do it yet. If somebody figures it out, it may only be a matter of months or even weeks for "skynet" to wake up, if you will. We can only hope that the somebody who programmed the computer to bootstrap itself also figured out how to make our new computer overlord sysopmind friendly.
</endrant>
(my god, i think that is the longest comment i've made in YEARS)
sbchapmHey, good call on the geek channel--haw haw. But I'm interested in the other stats, the ones before the mention of computing power. I'm fascinated at how much blinder-pride we have in the US. Really ignoring (or trying to ignore) basic data that show that the country is falling behind in education, job creation, etc. I think the really great slide is the punch to the gut about London. In 1900.
gorgonheapOk, just one discrepency. I taught english for two years in China. And the educational standards are NOT comparable. In China honor is such a part of their culture that they have lower standards for more honor students. Of course I'll believe this statistic in a couple more years once the "no child left behind" act is widely enforced in the U.S. And keeps the whole class back because of one child with a learning disablility. Education could use more funding, sure. But money itself is not the solution. We need to git rid of all the damn politics involved with diluted and outdated teaching methods. Oh and might I add that parents make an enormous diffrence when it comes to a child's education.
rembar"What does this all mean? Well, the point I was trying to make is that Chemistry is dumber than evolution, but it created it. Evolution is dumber than Humans but it created us. I say that we are smarter than evolution because while it does create progressivly better species, and come up with solutions to problems, it is VERY VERY SLOW and inefficient at it. I bet you can name a dozen things that you would improve about the human body just off the top of your head."
You pointed out something unintentionally, in that a comparison of two uncomparable things is just that. Chemistry and evolution are not comparable, nor are humans and evolution. Chemistry and evolution are part and parcel, and human planning is always towards a stated goal, while evolution is a natural process without a specific end, more like a neverending journey than a path. Anyways, I daresay you know all that, I'm just saying that we can't compare two completely unlike things.
Thus, the machine-human processing capability thing is off. I'm not sure I agree that it's completely a software issue - the possibility of neuron-mimicking computer nodes, as have been demonstrated in the past could lead to unexpected results. Fuzzy links, spontaneous connections, mutations...all these physical things would have to mimicked in software or created through hardware to get a comparable "human" result. Of course, we could not bother and just try working towards a truer AI, as in not trying to fit computers into a human model.
Farhad2000Computers will never be humans and humans will never be computers.
The fact is for whatever amazing abilities computers possess they do not possess the ability to strive for something better, this is unless we code as an AI evolutionary routine.
Man's ability to process information in completely non-linear ways is fascinating, and something I don't think the next 50 years of research will come close to really figuring out.
That's what allowed Newton to come up with the theory of gravity by just observing an apple fall to the ground, the same when Einstein started asking hypothetical questions such as what will happen if two object travel at the speed of light, Stephen Hawking when due to his disability developed an entirely new way of looking at mathematics that lead to his famous work on Blackholes. Cascading thought processes.
The fact is as Rembar says a totally self evolving AI leads to a mass growth at the expense of actual ability to contextualize the information to a certain end. This is where man's id and ego I think come into effect directing the computational power to an end via a complicated psychological system of assigning relevance be it mathematical constants, personal will to succeed or insightful thinking.
I think that will be nigh on impossible to replicate on an AI, at least not in the next 50 years and then another 50 to refine it.
cardboardhutsays...Stop the world, I want to get off.
leeweekok. we got all this damn technology, all these fucking people(literally) and all these smart people. and all we got is this one god damn planet. all we have are a few, petty, non military spaceships, and a few sattilites. can we make the teleporter yet? i want to go to Alpha Centauri damnit.
time to colonize space.
what the fuck are we doing sitting on this boring ass planet??
EnzoblueWe're too busy spending trillions on killing each other Leeweek.
djsunkidSpace exploration will be much easier once we master nanotechnology, and can upload ourselves into computers the size of dust motes. When we're that size, it will be much more economical to send ourselves into space.
pragmaticksays...I liked the numbers but not all of the interpretations.
leeweekwell looks like we need one badass motherfucking dictator to get us into space then. i vote me. wait... how ironic...
ill just crush this silly planet with my space cruiser
silvercord*promote
siftbotRe-promoting this video to the front page as a VideoSift Classic. Originally published on Monday 19th February 2007 (promotion called by gold star member silvercord)
antHow in the world did I miss this one? Awesome.
sbchapmThanks for the promote, silvercord.
Crazy-drummersays..."time to colonize space.
what the fuck are we doing sitting on this boring ass planet??"
People put too much faith in Space colonisation as a viable means to save the human race... But it's only wishful thinking imo, taking care our only planet seems like a far better and effective solution to me... and it just might help us survive long enough to actually colonise space.
silvercordGreat vid. You're welcome!
looris"According to former Secretary of Education Richard Riley the top 10 jobs that will be in demand in 2010 didn't exist in 2004. We are currently preparing students for jobs that don't yet exist . . . using technologies that haven't yet been invented . . ."
it's really sad how many bullshit can people belive. 82 votes for a video which just say random things.
or maybe mr. riley does have a time machine and i wasn't informed.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.