--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > John wrote: > > To All: > > > > The future of humans is shown below: > > > > ************** > > > > Technology That Outthinks Us: A Partner or a Master? > > > > By JOHN TIERNEY > > Published: August 25, 2008 > > SAN DIEGO > > > > > > Sandy Huffaker for The New York Times > > FUTURIST Vernor Vinge, a computer scientist and science fiction > > writer, at the Geisel Library in San Diego. > > > > > > > > In Vernor Vinge's version of Southern California in 2025, there is a > > school named Fairmont High with the motto, "Trying hard not to become > > obsolete." It may not sound inspiring, but to the many fans of Dr. > > Vinge, this is a most ambitious and perhaps unattainable goal for > > any member of our species. > > > > Dr. Vinge is a mathematician and computer scientist in San Diego > > whose science fiction has won five Hugo Awards and earned good > > reviews even from engineers analyzing its technical plausibility. He > > can write space operas with the best of them, but he also suspects > > that intergalactic sagas could become as obsolete as their human > > heroes. > > > > The problem is a concept described in Dr. Vinge's seminal essay in > > 1993, "The Coming Technological Singularity," which predicted that > > computers would be so powerful by 2030 that a new form of > > superintellligence would emerge. Dr. Vinge compared that point in > > history to the singularity at the edge of a black hole: a boundary > > beyond which the old rules no longer applied, because post-human > > intelligence and technology would be as unknowable to us as our > > civilization is to a goldfish. > > > > The Singularity is often called "the rapture of the nerds," but Dr. > > Vinge doesn't anticipate immortal bliss. The computer scientist in > > him may revel in the technological marvels, but the novelist > > envisions catastrophes and worries about the fate of not-so- marvelous > > humans like Robert Gu, the protagonist of Dr. Vinge's latest > > novel, "Rainbows End." > > > > Robert is an English professor and famous poet who succumbs to > > Alzheimer's, languishing in a nursing home until 2025, when the > > Singularity seems near and technology is working wonders. He recovers > > most of his mental faculties; his 75-year-old body is rejuvenated; > > even his wrinkles vanish. > > > > But he's so lost in this new world that he has to go back to high > > school to learn basic survival skills. Wikipedia, Facebook, Second > > Life, World of Warcraft, iPhones, instant messaging all these are > > quaint ancestral technologies now that everyone is connected to > > everyone and everything. > > > > Thanks to special contact lenses, computers in your clothes and > > locational sensors scattered everywhere you go, you see a constant > > stream of text and virtual sights overlaying the real world. As you > > chat with a distant friend's quite lifelike image strolling at your > > side, you can adjust the scenery to your mutual taste adding, say, > > medieval turrets to buildings at the same time you're each > > privately communicating with vast networks of humans and computers. > > > > To Robert, a misanthrope who'd barely mastered e-mail in his earlier > > life, this networked world is a multitasking hell. He retreats to one > > of his old haunts, the Geisel Library, once the intellectual hub of > > the University of California, San Diego, but now so rarely visited > > that its paper books are about to be shredded to make room for a > > highbrow version of a virtual-reality theme park. > > > > At the library he finds a few other "medical retreads" still reading > > books and using ancient machines like laptops. Calling themselves the > > Elder Cabal, they conspire to save the paper library while they're > > trying to figure out what, if anything, their skills are good for > > anymore. > > > > Dr. Vinge, who is 63, can feel the elders' pain, if only because his > > books are in that building. He took me up to the Elder Cabal's > > meeting room in the library and talked about his own concerns about > > 2025 like whether anyone will still be reading books, and whether > > networked knowledge will do to intellectuals what the Industrial > > Revolution did to the Luddite textile artisans. > > > > "These people in `Rainbows End' have the attention span of a > > butterfly," he said. "They'll alight on a topic, use it in a > > particular way and then they're on to something else. Right now > > people worry that we don't have lifetime employment anymore. How > > extreme could that get? I could imagine a world where everything is > > piecework and the piece duration is less than a minute." > > > > It's an unsettling vision, but Dr. Vinge classifies it as one of the > > least unpleasant scenarios for the future: intelligence > > amplification, or I.A., in which humans get steadily smarter by > > pooling their knowledge with one another and with computers, possibly > > even wiring the machines directly into their brains. > > > > The alternative to I.A., he figures, could be the triumph of A.I. as > > artificial intelligence far surpasses the human variety. If that > > happens, Dr. Vinge says, the superintelligent machines will not > > content themselves with working for their human masters, nor will > > they remain securely confined in laboratories. As he wrote in his > > 1993 essay: "Imagine yourself confined to your house with only > > limited data access to the outside, to your masters. If those masters > > thought at a rate say one million times slower than you, there is > > little doubt that over a period of years (your time) you could come > > up with `helpful advice' that would incidentally set you free." > > > > To avoid that scenario, Dr. Vinge has been urging his fellow humans > > to get smarter by collaborating with computers. (See > > nytimes.com/tierneylab for some of his proposals.) At the conclusion > > of "Rainbows End," even the technophobic protagonist is in sync with > > his machines, and there are signs that the Singularity has arrived in > > the form of a superintelligent human-computer network. > > > > Or maybe not. Perhaps this new godlike intelligence mysteriously > > directing events is pure machine. Dr. Vinge told me he left it > > purposely ambiguous. > > > > "I think there's a good possibility that humanity will itself > > participate in the Singularity," he said. "But on the other hand, we > > could just be left behind." > > > > And what would happen to us if the machines rule? Well, Dr. Vinge > > said, it's possible that artificial post-humans would use us the way > > we've used oxen and donkeys. But he preferred to hope they would be > > more like environmentalists who wanted to protect weaker species, > > even if it was only out of self-interest. Dr. Vinge imagined the post- > > humans sitting around and using their exalted powers of reasoning: > > > > "Maybe we need the humans around, because they're natural critters > > who could survive in situations where some catastrophe would cause > > technology to disappear. That way they'd be around to bring back the > > important things namely, us." > Machines should always just be tools to humanity. It may be impossible > to replicate human thought with a machine. Maybe because we may actually > not think with our brains but they are more of an interface to a greater > cosmic mind. However the interface is like cable TV and most of us are > only paying for the "basic package."
You're thinking along the same line as I am. Please, see my response to Offworld with this thread. > > So many of these projections are made by technology drunken people who > think technology should have no limits. Some of us in the industry look > upon these projections with skepticism as if the prognosticators have > totally lost their mind. They want to do these things "because they can" > and don't look at whether it is really a benefit to society or not. If you have not already done so, you should read one of Isaac Asimov's science fiction novels about the possibilities of robotic technology. He actually thought of very intelligent robots even before the present computer technology. He was the one that thought of the robotic laws which included a rule that robots must not harm humans at all costs. >From my own readings, I don't believe artificial intelligence research has come close to understanding how the human brain operates- -at least not yet. But it is interesting note that IBM's Big Blue was able to beat Gary Kasparov in chess. According to its creators, the computer was able to beat the human world champion by sheer, brute calculation force, but not necessarily creative imagination. > Right now except for a few things we could roll back to 1970's level > technology and people would be happy. We would keep the things that > benefit society but discard the stuff that is rather peripheral. A major > global economic collapse could result in this (and a global nuclear war > take us back to 900 AD technology). > > But there is so much stuff of little value that technologists want to > develop it just seems it all seems like "technological masturbation." > They need to step back and ask "is this really useful?'" It is also > scary that we have technologists who want to become part machine. Not > me, baby. Forget that crap, the closer I keep myself to nature the > better off I am. What do you think? The very nature of the human mind creates the urge to find new possibilities in everything that has been invented or discovered. IMO, there is nothing wrong with this. Unfortunately, the urge often includes the more common reasons, which are for entertainment and profit. >From an idealist point of view, the quest for new technology should be tempered with reason and understanding as to how computers in the future can benefit humans in terms of practical living, such as making accurate predictions of hurricanes, earthquakes, sunamis and other natural catastrophies in order to save human lives. Given the current financial upheaval, I would like to think that future computer technology and artificial intelligence might be able to prognosticate the state of the world economies given the myriad factors involved for calculating such endeavor. JR
