in Search
0 members online
Immortality

Simon

Will machines make us obsolete? My position outlined

As mentioned previously, I'll be on a panel this Saturday to discuss the issue of whether machines will make humans obsolete. I've learned that my copanelists will be Jun Luo, professor of cognitive science and computer science, and John Vervaeke, professor of philosophy. I wanted to outline my position and get feedback from the Betterhumans community about my approach, as well as any information about Luo and Vervaeke that might be useful. Here's my bullet-point approach:
  • Compared to today’s machines, two things give humans an advantage: our intelligence and our physical dexterity
  • Advances in robotics and artificial intelligence threaten our dominance in these areas
    • In robotics:
      • The UN World Robotics survey for 2004 showed continuing rapid growth in robot purchases worldwide
      • Worldwide investment in industrial robots was up 19% in 2003
      • In first half of 2004, orders for robots were up another 18% to the highest level ever recorded
      • Worldwide growth between 2004-2007 is forecast at an average annual rate of about 7%
      • There are 600,000 household robots currently in use, with several million predicted to go into use within the next few years
    • In artificial intelligence:
      • Advances are occurring rapidly in both computer hardware and artificial intelligence
      • On the hardware front, computer processing power has grown exponentially since the early 1900s
      • There is no known reason why such trends shouldn’t continue for at least the next 50 years, which has significant implications
      • Within about 25 years, $1000 will get you a computer with the computing power of the human brain
      • Just over 25 years after that, $1000 will get you a computer with the power of the entire current human race
      • Importantly, smart machines have a feedback effect on the creation of future smart machines, as they contribute to the creation of the next generation of smart machines
    • Robots are having a significant impact on industry, but their impact has been blunted somewhat by transitioning people from lower-skilled jobs as robots take them to higher skilled jobs
    • Continuing developments in robot dexterity and sophistication combined with continuing developments in AI and computer hardware will have a more radical effect
    • Machines are even cheaper than offshore labor, and we’ve already seen what an impact offshore labor has had on the manufacturing sector in North America; now imagine the impact of “off-peopling”
    • We don’t, however, want to turn our backs on the benefits of robotics and AI; they promise great wealth for all, an end to menial jobs, and new opportunities for everyone
    • What we need to address the issue is a two-pronged attack
      • Ensure wealth from robot and AI labor can be distributed to all
        • Consider a guaranteed basic income
      • Ensure that humans can keep up with robots and AI in terms of physical abilities and intelligence, through ability augmentation and ability amplification

Published Thursday, May 18, 2006 11:36 AM by Simon
Tags:

Comment Notification

Join or sign in to track comments

Comments

 

elimisteve wrote on May 18, 2006 12:51 PM

Firstly, feel free to completely ignore any and all of my thoughts/suggestions.

"Compared to today’s machines, two things give humans an advantage: our intelligence and our physical dexterity"

Creativity comes to mind as well, which is arguably a subset of intelligence anyway.


"Within about 25 years, $1000 will get you a computer with the computing power of the human brain"

How is this being measured?  To my understanding, it's the fact that our brains are _parallel_ computers that, in part, makes them able to do all that they do, not their "computing power," which would be measured in Hz or BogoMips or something, which computers certainly outperform humans at, right?


Other than those two minor thoughts -- looks good to me :-)
 

Steve N. wrote on May 18, 2006 12:52 PM

This is off topic but I've been unable to find the answer anywhere. Just after the Singularity Summit @ Stanford U. closed last week a couple of sources posted that the event would be podcast or videocast "in a few days".

Can anyone verify if that is true and where one might find a link to it?

Thanks in advance.
 

Cybert wrote on May 18, 2006 4:31 PM

How about...just a plain simple "no". With "us" meaning sentient beings.
 

Hoelder1in wrote on May 18, 2006 11:08 PM

Well, I found Hans Moravec's "Great Flood" analogy (last paragraph of of "When will computer hardware match the human brain ?") quite impressive and relevant, and also his ideas about how societies might evolve when attempting to adapt to a "robot economy" (in "The Age of Robots"). Both texts are available on the publications section of his website.
 

Scottza wrote on May 19, 2006 10:07 AM

In the last part about how 'address the issue', you make good points but maybe miss a bigger issue.  When machines replace all of us at our jobs, it will change what it means to be human.  When you meet someone at a party, one of the first things asked is 'So, what do you do for a living?'...we define ourselves by how we contribute to society.  When society no longer needs our contributions to run, what will happen?  

The common thought is that arts and entertainment will become our primary focus, will this be enough?

This may be beyond the scope of the panel discussion, IMHO the short answer to will machines make us obsolete from the vast majority of our current activities, is yes.
 

V wrote on May 19, 2006 11:50 AM

Simon wrote:
Within about 25 years, $1000 will get you a computer with the computing power of the human brain.  Just over 25 years after that, $1000 will get you a computer with the power of the entire current human race
>

I would think this prediction is MUCH MUCH too conservative regarding the progress of computing power.  Oh, wait!  I just realized the last line says *the power of the entire human race.* lol  So when I'm in my eighties I'm going to be playing some very impressive games on my computer!

In college I had a roommate who was bothered that my limited generalship skills in computer real-time strategy games involved never-ending human wave tactics which bludgeoned my enemies into the ground but caused massive casualties on my own side.  In a game like this from 2056 I will have to make sure the option of each unit/person in the game being self-aware and feeling pain has been turned off!  And then there was all the starvation I caused when playing Civilization, or the time when I killed off many of my serfs in Rise of Nations so I could build more troops...    

How much will a computer spend to buy a human in mid 21st century currency?  Will we be worth much? lol!  I'm just not sure if we will still be the masters of all we survey by that time.

Simon, I hope your lecture goes well.  Please keep us updated.

John  

 

liveforever22 wrote on May 19, 2006 12:49 PM

V said:
"In a game like this from 2056 I will have to make sure the option of each unit/person in the game being self-aware and feeling pain has been turned off!"


What makes you think we aren't in a game right now?
 

Afn wrote on May 19, 2006 6:00 PM

Art will become ubiquidous as technology enables mass replication of "creative" works of art.

>Compared to today’s machines, two things give humans an advantage: our intelligence and our physical dexterity

our generalized intelligence and our generalized physical dexterity.

When robots were installed for the first time to perform point welding in the manufacture of new cars, one bright person remarked, "But robots do not buy cars."

I still think that automation will advance at the expense of jobs. Capital always works to eliminate labor(costs).




 

Mr. Farlops wrote on May 20, 2006 4:20 AM

liveforever asked, "What makes you think we aren't in a game right now?"

I don't deny the possibility that we could be in some kind of simulation but, the trouble I have with this is that, currently, it's untestable and emotionally unsatisfying.

To what purpose is this simulation being run?

1) Historical recreation of sketchy events?
2) Experimental social science?
3) An attempt to recreate passably accurate copies of long dead people who didn't use or have access to cryonics?
4) Mere entertainment?
5) Some motive incomprensible to humans?
 

liveforever22 wrote on May 20, 2006 3:09 PM

Yes, it is untestable. However, as far as simulations go (simulations here meaning accurate simulations of the universe, or just small parts of the universe), then there are 3 options:
1) We are unable to develop these simulations
2) We are able to develop these simulations, but choose not to run them
3) We are most likely living in a simulation

The reasoning: If we run simulations (and if we do, then there is no reason to believe that we won't run billions-probably more-of them over the course of the rest of our history) and those simulations run simulations that run simulations that run simulations, etc. etc., then the odds that we are the first ones to ever run said simulations is very very very small (so small that it is practically non-existent in terms of odds).
 

Simon (Trackback) wrote on May 20, 2006 11:48 PM

Today was the "will machines make us obsolete" discussion I spoke of a few days ago. It went very well,...
Join or sign in to post a comment
Submit

About Simon

I aim to understand, apply and develop science, technology and communications to achieve positive change. To this end, I am the owner and operator of Betterhumans, which I founded in 2002. I also work in interactive healthcare marketing, helping pharmaceutical and other healthcare organizations effectively use interactive technologies. Currently, I'm also working part-time on a masters degree at the University of Toronto in the history and philosophy of science and technology.
Advertise | Help | Contact | About | Terms | Privacy | Copyright © 2007 Betterhumans | Powered by Community Server | Partners:
World Transhumanist Association Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies Immortality Institute Methuselah Mouse Prize Foresight Institute Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence Lifeboat Foundation