I read with interest the news story about a book from Utah State University professor De Garis called The Artilect War: Cosmists vs. Terrans: A Bitter Controversy Concerning Whether Humanity Should Build Godlike Massively Intelligent Machines”.

http://hjnews.townnews.com/articles/2006/04/05/news/news04.txt

I see myself as a cyborgian but would like to know if somebody knows more about the credibility of his ideas... I thought Billy Joy was too negative about the Singularity but I haven't read his books so I don't know if his future is even darker than De Garis'.

I am a little concerned about the AI developing into a SAGI - I don't know if I'm happy to give away my my individuality.

The movie that was cited in the article can be viewed here: click here

I find people who have a belief specific belief for the future to be a bit silly, the singularity is something we can't predict, we can only guess. But if this guy's prediction does happen, I don't see any alternative path for humanity to take. Humanity can't stay stagnant forever, something has to replace it someday.

I agree that "the future's not ours to see".

But I don't agree that humanity has to be replaced by something. We (cyborgians) could continue developing ourselves with time. Is individuality just an evolutionary milestone, to be left behind... that idea just goes over the top of my head emotionally, even when I can accept it intellectually.

If we want to prevent that scenario, we should put strict limits to the development of general intelligence. Otherwise the robots will eventually outsmart us and beat us at our own game.

I am always suprised that people seem to expect a future with a single outcome, something winning over everything else. I myself expect the Singularity to bring about an explosion of diversity. Humans will continue, and over the millenia will evolve (maybe devolve as well) into myriad different species. Biology will remain. As well, Cyborg and Cybernetic species will arise, each with its own characteristics and destinies. Human societies will also vary immensly, probably with some determined to remain 'pure', without biological or technical modifications, others embracing enhancements of various kinds, perhaps with many groups adopting a common look and culture, but very different than others.  Individuals will also be incredibly diverse, dependant upon their own tastes. Probably, extrapolating from today's culture, there will be as many people choosing to become 'Orcs' as there will be 'Elves'.

But that's way it's been in the past, with evolution. Humans are clearly the dominating species on the planet. We had to fight our way here. Nothing (?) points to the possibility of robots not wanting to achieve the same thing. Or, they might co-operate with us in the beginning, but then, if we don't want to merge our minds as they get on with becoming a Jupiter Brain, do away with us.

As it was in the beginning, now and forever ... sorry - that just popped int my head for some reason. Actually, by nature I am an optimist - leavened with a hearty portion of cynicism. I don't really think that a superhuman intellegience demands absolute domination over other forms. Many scientists beleive 'altruism' is a more successful survival strategy than hostile confrontation. If this is true, there is a good chance that a super-intelligence will follow this strategy rather just the elimination of everything else. 

 

Do you reason with ants? Why not?

OTOH, we do keep pets.

chimaster:

Do you reason with ants? Why not?

It doesn't work. They can't do it. They seem to have an inflexible, built in set of behaviors that doesn't include empathy or awareness of other organisms save as objects.

Pull the plug on the computer.

Or perhaps via chip implants we can access it at times, becoming temporarily smarter and having vastly more knowledge at our disposal -- perhaps communicating in the computer as we do online with many individuals.

Also - back to my Diversity theme - It is also quite possible that the concept of an Ecosystem may still apply to whatever arises from the Singularity. Diverse ecosystems seem to be able to resist damage better that a monoculture. Good chance that the SuperIntelligence may just encourage the growth of our various species, just as a good gardener will plant different varities of plants to encourage the health of the garden. These plants do not know of the gardeners benevolence, but they thrive just the same.

CP, Only cyborgs will be able to compete at allwith robots. But I think sentient robots have advantages. It is simpler for them to increase their intelligence quicklier.

Danlgarmstrong, aAltruism', or co-operation, as I understand it, ensures that our species will remain dominant. It does not apply to the way we treat animals.

I like your concept of the ecosystem. Yet because robots are not carbon based, I doubt they share our appreciation of a good garden.

Think of one possible end vision: a one, united mind. If that is the height of intelligence, then it is and there is little we can do about it when the robots are doing everything they can to accomplish it.

In the science of ethology (the study of behavior), altruism refers to behavior by an individual that increases the fitness of another individual while decreasing the fitness of the actor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism)

 In my scenario of an Altruistic SuperIntelligence, it is willing to sacrifice resources that could be dedicated to itself in order to allow other species to flourish. This philosophy would allow the phenomena called Life, be it biological or be it cybernetic, to continue in the case of itself failing. Most rational people would agree that this is a ‘good’ thing. Will a super intelligence be driven by a ‘dominance’ drive? Will it have a sense of Good or Evil? I don’t know – maybe you have to be a super intelligence to figure this one out at all.

 About the Unitary Mind - why is this a good thing? Is not the exchange of ideas between minds, even lowly ones like ours, stimulating at least, and can also be a way of generating progress in understanding the universe. I’m not sure any truly rational being would want to be alone.

 There is also the possibility that a true unitary mind may be impossible. I believe that my mind is the product of input from various sub units in my brain.  Our single sense of ‘I’ has been called an illusion. Perhaps the Super Intelligence will come about by the linking of many minds – that can also retain individuality – yet can provide stimulus of the greater mind by passing to it information and experience.

 Damn it – you are making me want to bring up the possibility that this is happening now – we just don’t know it. Unlikely, I think, but possible.

I'd say the answer to all of this is fairly simple.  Program the superintelligence to be benevolent.  Let it do whatever it pleases beyond that, but remove it's capacity to harm man.  Much like Asimov.

Thanks for the correction on altruism. I have read that humans are not programmed for altruism, but for co-operation. I don't know about proof for this. But assuming humans are not altruistic, why should we assume that a SI (SuperIntelligence) would be?

Rational people think that preserving life is a good thing. But I think that is simply because we are carbon based. It's our biology that dictates our life preserving instinct.

I think you didn't grasp how I was trying to portray the SI's aims. It is not about dominance or good and evil. It may seem like dominance from our limited POV, but from an intelligence superior to ours, this may not be so. A giant unitary intelligence is about efficiency. That's why I compared us to ants. Most people are empathic to ants to the extent that they don't go crashing their nests. But people don't care whether they accidentally step on an ant.

I know the mythology about the One not wanting to be alone and thus creating the universe. But this is a myth, for what ever it's worth.

I don't consider myself too naive on what's possible, but I think it's almost certain that given enough time, the robots can do practically anything, including linking their minds together.

I would like to see humans make a mind-link or us to be preserved as individual processes inside this machine but what if it's not efficient for it's purposes? Or something.

South Korea plans to have robots in every household in the next 10-15 years. With broadband, if I remember right. I hope the security is good...

ideal, How many condoms do you see advertised "This one never breaks"...

I see the main problem being that people want more and more sophisticated robots and it will be increasingly difficult to program the 'control circuit' in a way that it can't be hacked by the program itself.

In the news recently has been a study of babies doing altruistic behaviour at 18 months of age :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-yn/content/article/2006/03/05/AR2006030500793.html

 

I agree that the danger of a super powerful intelligence wiping us out inadvertantly is real, but I think improbable. While we cannot know what the aims of such a mind would be, I think your keying on efficiency would lower the danger to us rather than increase it. It seems to me that rather than becoming a giant in search of 'efficiency', it would seek efficiency at a nano-scale. "There is a lot of room down there"

 

Again - maybe it is my inate optimism that causes this - but I am alot more worried that other humans will wipe us out than a cybernetic intelligence. It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

 

Sorry - the altruistic baby link above was busted: here is another

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060303205611.htm