PDA

View Full Version : Technological Singularity, Life Extension, Artificial Intelligence, hm?


brynjarh
December 13th, 2005, 11:07 PM
Wondering if anyone here has any strong or not-so-strong opinions on these topics?

Technological Singularity

Wikipedia: Technological Singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity)
The Law of Acceleration Returns (http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1)
Singularity FAQ for Dummies (http://jwbats.blogspot.com/2005/07/singularity-faq-for-dummies.html)
Singularity Institute (http://www.singinst.org/)


Life Extension/~Immortality

Wikipedia: Life Extension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_extension)
The Fable of the Dragon Tyrant (http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html)
Immortality Institute (http://www.imminst.org/)
Cryonics: Alcor Life Extension Foundation (http://www.alcor.org/)

kairu0
December 14th, 2005, 02:14 AM
Technological Singularity: George W. Bush will kill all human life before we get there (jokingly, but seriously)

Life Extension: I don't necessarily think it would be a good thing. The USA reached a pinnacle of life expectency rates last week, but are our lives improving because of it? Life extension sounds like a panicked rush at survival by those who are afraid to die.

brynjarh
December 14th, 2005, 09:00 AM
Technological Singularity: George W. Bush will kill all human life before we get there (jokingly, but seriously)
We really need to stop this childish fighting and start building, especially in the future since technology will be a killer.. It's the likeliest reason for our doom.

Life Extension: I don't necessarily think it would be a good thing. The USA reached a pinnacle of life expectency rates last week, but are our lives improving because of it? Life extension sounds like a panicked rush at survival by those who are afraid to die.
Can you imagine in your head a person close to you dieing? It feels really bad, for all the people who know the person. Now imagine how many people are dieing out there? Constantly, people are falling down everywhere at a faster rate then ever before, and each and every death has a very personal meaning which contains unimaginable sorrow from those who have not experienced it.

Should we really decide that people should just die even though if we had full control over making it not happen? My instinct tells me that's going to sound very old fashion in the future, telling people that they should die.

Now let's look at some statistics shall we.
1.8 humans per second
106 humans per minute
6,360 humans per hour
152,640 humans per day
55,713,600 humans per year
The suffering expirienced is greater then anyone can fit in their head.

Kvark
December 14th, 2005, 10:28 AM
Technological Singularity:
I think we will improve ourselves to avoid becomming obsolute. By the time we invent cameras that are supperior to our eyes in all ways we will know how to plug those cameras into our eye sockets. By the time we invent computers that have more brainpower then our brains we'll know how to connect a computer to the brain as an expansion pack.

The question is if only the rich or everyone will have access to this technology. If only the rich then those who don't have access to the improvements will eventually become obsolute and either extinct or seen on zoo just like monkeys, as an older and lower lifeform on the evolutionary ladder and thus not entiteled to human rights.

Life Extension/~Immortality:
Sooner or later we'll figure out how to slow down aging but life extension isn't immortality. If you don't die of age then sooner or later you'd get killed in an accident.

macgyver2
December 14th, 2005, 11:16 AM
Technological Singularity:
I think we will improve ourselves to avoid becomming obsolute. By the time we invent cameras that are supperior to our eyes in all ways we will know how to plug those cameras into our eye sockets. By the time we invent computers that have more brainpower then our brains we'll know how to connect a computer to the brain as an expansion pack.

The question is if only the rich or everyone will have access to this technology. If only the rich then those who don't have access to the improvements will eventually become obsolute and either extinct or seen on zoo just like monkeys, as an older and lower lifeform on the evolutionary ladder and thus not entiteled to human rights.
If the rich want to go borgify themselves then far be it from me to stop them. I can already hear Weird Al's "Hack the Rich". As for me, I never intend to physically embed anything into myself, ever, no matter how accessible the technology is or how many people label me as obsolete.

I absolutely love technology but I also feel that we should, at all times, keep the ability to instantaneously break from everything technological, if necessary. It annoys me to no end how many people--at least in my own "developed" nation--take technology for granted. I know people (my age--mid-20s) who drive two blocks to the grocery store and who don't know how to cook their food with anything other than a microwave. They have no idea how to keep themselves entertained if the cable box breaks. And if the electricity goes out for five minutes, forget about it...they go crazy and act like it's the end of the world. This reliance on technology as a crutch--forgetting it's a convenience rather than a physiological necessity--just keeps growing. Right now the word "developed" in the term "developed nation" seems only to refer to the technology level and not to the mentality that should accompany it. I think that's a bad situation to be in.

curuxz
December 14th, 2005, 11:34 AM
the advancement of the human race through any means should be our single focus. This comes in the form of life extention, technologoical advancement and expansion of human boundries. Thats my view

prizrak
December 14th, 2005, 02:25 PM
I think that before we expand our life span and technological reach we need to evolve socially. Human race is nowhere near in social terms to what it is in technological achievements and increases in life span. Having said that life extension and immortality seem like bad ideas to me, it's the quality not the quantity. And as far as quality goes those 90 year old people aren't enjoying their lives all that much and even the younger people don't especially here in the US with all the fear of terrorists, losing your job, social pressures into mating and maximizing wealth. Of course this is comming from a person who is very tired of life and everytime someone tells him the world is going to end in X amount of time responds with "I wish it would ******* get here already"

curuxz
December 14th, 2005, 04:47 PM
Personaly I would like to live forever there is so much to see and do

erikpiper
December 14th, 2005, 05:00 PM
We are never going to live past 120.

I seem to be of a minority here who thinks death is going to be GREAT. I know where I am going, and I cant wait.

Not like I would kill myself... I love life! But once I am over 80, why sit in a nursing home?

I have had 4 people I was close to die in the last three years. I am not unexposed.

macgyver2
December 14th, 2005, 05:06 PM
We are never going to live past 120.

I seem to be of a minority here who thinks death is going to be GREAT. I know where I am going, and I cant wait.

Not like I would kill myself... I love life! But once I am over 80, why sit in a nursing home?
Never is a strong word. There are already people who live past 120. Yes, extremely rare compared to the entire population, but still...

(Also, I believe the idea is not to prolong the amount of time spent as an elderly person in a nursing home, but to slow down aging so when that at age 80, Mr. or Ms. Future Person has the same physical body as today's 25 or 30 year old.)

kairu0
December 14th, 2005, 05:22 PM
Should we really decide that people should just die even though if we had full control over making it not happen? My instinct tells me that's going to sound very old fashion in the future, telling people that they should die.

I have the control to never die in an automobile accident. It's called "never leave my house." I have the control to never get robbed. It's called "give away everything, become homeless, and possess nothing."

Nevertheless, I am human. I accept that I might die in an automobile accent, I might get robbed, and I might die of old age. I drive my car to work. I stash a few valuables in my house. I know that someday I will die. That's life.

brynjarh
December 15th, 2005, 06:10 PM
I have the control to never die in an automobile accident. It's called "never leave my house." I have the control to never get robbed. It's called "give away everything, become homeless, and possess nothing."

Nevertheless, I am human. I accept that I might die in an automobile accent, I might get robbed, and I might die of old age. I drive my car to work. I stash a few valuables in my house. I know that someday I will die. That's life.
Yes and life expectancy has been increasing since the beginning and it sounds likely that we will be able to expand it further at an increasingly faster rate into something that sounds very close to immortality if not full immortality, that's something that can be explored and is being explored.

But yes, accidents do happen, we are not perfect and people die, it doesn't mean we should die or that there is a rule in reality that states that it's impossible to avoid it.

patrick295767
May 9th, 2006, 04:16 AM
There is now machines going alone in space on march (or moon), capable to drive on the ground , anticipate and calculate how to react ... This is kind of beginning for AI, which was very successful (NASA website). Never forget that US army or Space research are always said to be 20 years further (in future :-) )

If you try :
apt-get -f -y install festival
echo " Hello " | festival --tts
that can be fascinating ... when you read this: http://linuxjournal.com/article/6383
looks like as said : Conversing with a computer has long been a staple of science fiction. Such conversations are still largely in the realm of fiction

Welcome to the CMU Artificial Intelligence Repository.

The AI Repository was established by Mark Kantrowitz in 1993 to
collect free software and materials of general interest to AI
researchers, educators, students, and practitioners.

If this is the first time you have used the Repository, please read
this file and the file named readme.txt. The file readme.txt contains
important information concerning the repository and conditions on use
of the repository. By retrieving files from the repository, you
signify your agreement to these conditions.

===> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/ai-repository/ai/0.html