While there will be many images shared, I'd like some discussion, too.

Do you think technological singularity will be here in 30-40 years?

-if not, this century?


Do you support transhumanism?
Will you partake in it or let yourself die by the end of this century?

Nanotechnology, do you see it as a good idea to have nanorobotics developed?

>>21893117
the fuckwad who wrote that book was assuming moore's law would allow computational performance to increase at the same rate. this is not so, and has not been since the death of the P4.

don't look for the singularity for a few hundred more years at least.

Never Happening
Why?
Sure... Smart people are getting smarter
but...
Stupid People are getting stupider.
Rich People are getting richer
poor people are getting poorer
fat people are getting fatter

it will not happen at all. stop getting your hopes up.

>>/x/

>>21893117
... and just after that, the Year of the Linux Desktop.

The default singularity is disastrous for humans. Human values are the complicated result of our unique evolutionary history. An AI will not share that history and so will not share our values unless we specifically design it to. That's a very difficult problem.

"The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else." --Eliezer Yudkowsky

If you're interested in this kind of thing, start reading here:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/91c/so_you_want_to_save_the_world/

>>21893382
why do you imply that a single book must be about a concept? i've learned of this concept without a book by searching for development on ai

>>21893422
well one you sound scared of an ai
and two im not going to read a blogsite to read about something ive already been researching for a long time

>>21893117
Lets focus on destroying the system of globalists / illuminati / new world order... whatever the fuck you want to call them they are holding back everything and fucking up the world.
I hope we can rise up and fucking destroy their power structure freedom denying bullshit.

THEN we can become one with the machines

>>21893427
the book is about the concept, champ. iirc it's like a survey/knob polishing of the idea of the singularity.

whether or not i singled out a single book-writing retard has little to do with the fact that the "science" used to support the idea that this is coming in my lifetime is not even true.

i'd love to be a robot. i'd be able to be on 4chan all day while simultaneously playing scyrim, programming and "jerking it" with my mind. fucking bring it on.

>>21893445
Seeing as an incorrectly designed recursively self-improving AI will almost certainly destroy everything we care about, yes, this is a scary thing. And incorrectly designing it is much easier than getting it right.

>>21893465
i agree that if people continue submitting to governments that any further technology developments will only be used to increase the rich poor divide and enslave people more, the way right now computers and pdas are used to track people and know what they talk about

i disagree that somehow all my effort and concentration needs to go into doing that while i get older and older, there is no benefit to me if life extension won't be developed enough as i get old to keep me living

>>21893466
you dont need to use insults and swearwords to get your points across
if you are using 1 book to tell you that all the math and projections is off by centuries then maybe you need to look at more sources?

>>21893495
what about this separated and yet related concept?

>Do you support transhumanism?

>>21893382
Exactly. The rate of technological progress has really slowed since 2000.

I'm afraid I'll just sit tight and wait. And accordingly when something actually occurs. There are just so many predictions about near future.
I don't think AI vs human would be the problem though. As long as those guys at the the labs sandbox they toys properly.

>>21893877
The stronger the sandbox the more useless the AI. Economic pressures will force people to loosen the sandbox to avoid competitive disadvantage. And even if we had a single totalitarian world government, with North Korean level control over all AI researchers, sandboxing something much more intelligent than you is harder than you think.

Entertaining and relevant allegorical story for you:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/qk/that_alien_message/

>>21893814
Well you think about it, we're advancing horizontally moreso than vertically with AMOLED, 2.0 Ghz quad-core phones

>>21893979
it's more like this:

as transistor size shrinks with moore's law, we can afford to have bigger chips. however, there is a serious limit to the number of transistors can be turned on at the same time. the ability to sink heat away from the chip is not advancing with moore's law. hence multi core systems.

also one of the most serious limits to computational speed is the memory/performance gap. in data heavy algorithms, the cpu spends more time waiting for data than it does computing. which is why gpus are such a cool architectural design.

>>21893877
I prefer to take a more active approach by learning the sciences and acquiring the credentials to utilize other scientists and investment bankers.

>>21894023
>>21893979
>>21893943
There wasn't really a statement that commercial technology proves that technology is not advancing and people agreeing with it was there?

I must be misreading what's being written.

imagine a wristwatch that runs off of blood sugar.

it would keep near perfect time as you wouldn't need to change the battery or wind it.

It probably could also tell you about your blood sugar levels, ect.

>>21894078
i dunno.
here >>21894023
i was just being a little specific about what's going on with moore's law these days. it seems a lot of people aren't aware of the current problems and i was just spreading some basic know how.

Yet, space awaits us. Our current form is unlikely to be ready for exploration regardless of any cryotech that develops...

>>21894092
why would you want a wrist watch when you can have an eye patch?

>>21893398
>Sure... Smart people are getting smarter
>but...
>Stupid People are getting stupider.
>Rich People are getting richer
>poor people are getting poorer

Not only are the latter 3 completely wrong, but this is completely fucking retarded and unrelated. Fuck off idiot.

>>21894100
That's true, you are right.
More research into various material sciences must be done.

If we can stop resource wasteful consumerism which is inclusive with planned obsolescence then we can help increase the life of those that are poorest. This does not imply charity but the ability to have lower prices and thus help educate people so they can build their own infrastructure and not be enslaved to more developed nations.

The number of scientists that are working to advance various biological, chemical, and computational fields is actually quite low if you consider all of humanity, at the least you can expect this number to grow.

>>21894159

>>21894159
you think that if the world has lots of poverty and uneducated people that wars aren't more likely?
CERN being sabotaged would cause all sorts of problems with studies related to this:
>>21894023