Comments on: The perils of “thinkism” http://futurismic.com/2008/10/07/the-perils-of-thinkism/ Presenting the fact and fiction of tomorrow since 2001 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:03:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Greg http://futurismic.com/2008/10/07/the-perils-of-thinkism/comment-page-1/#comment-16537 Greg Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:03:08 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=4285#comment-16537 Also, "thinkism" sounds kinda dumb. Also, “thinkism” sounds kinda dumb.

]]> By: Greg http://futurismic.com/2008/10/07/the-perils-of-thinkism/comment-page-1/#comment-16536 Greg Sat, 11 Oct 2008 21:59:30 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=4285#comment-16536 I agree that it is impossible to figure out everything based solely on what we already know, but I do think it's a little short-sighted to claim that even given infinite computing power we wouldn't be able derive answers to many questions we haven't yet answered. The human mind is limited in its ability to find and interpret patterns in information, a task which computers are ideal for. Given enough power and resources I am willing to bet that a computer system would be able to derive the answers to precisely those questions Kelly is offering as examples of the impossible. The main thing that concerns me regarding the notion of the Singularity is that it will take a massive amount of money to make significant progress toward that goal, and whatever result comes from it will likely be in the hands of those providing that money. Absolute power... I agree that it is impossible to figure out everything based solely on what we already know, but I do think it’s a little short-sighted to claim that even given infinite computing power we wouldn’t be able derive answers to many questions we haven’t yet answered. The human mind is limited in its ability to find and interpret patterns in information, a task which computers are ideal for. Given enough power and resources I am willing to bet that a computer system would be able to derive the answers to precisely those questions Kelly is offering as examples of the impossible.

The main thing that concerns me regarding the notion of the Singularity is that it will take a massive amount of money to make significant progress toward that goal, and whatever result comes from it will likely be in the hands of those providing that money. Absolute power…

]]> By: Kriss Daniels http://futurismic.com/2008/10/07/the-perils-of-thinkism/comment-page-1/#comment-16513 Kriss Daniels Wed, 08 Oct 2008 15:48:51 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=4285#comment-16513 My hope for the singularity is more cyborg in nature, the problem with people is the moment you put a large bunch of them together and treat them as a group, they become easily mailable and predictable. This can lead to bad things, many bad things, worse even than you tube comments. If personal AI can be used to nudge people when this is happening, encouraging attention to be focused on exactly the right place rather than diverted offstage. To make everyone smarter and more aware rather than be a large brain sitting in the center of the planet solving problems. Then maybe this group problem can be avoided or lessened, we are not designed to intuitively understand the dynamics of such unnaturally large groups instead we treat them as we would smaller social structures. Having technology to enable us to operate better in these situations, situations it has also put us in, makes sense and is seemingly where we are heading. It's not about super intelligence, that really wont help much, it's more about making the other end of the spectrum just that little bit smarter. Well, that's the best hope I can manage anyway :) I shall end with my explanation of why I "waste" my life making toys and games. It's in the form of a simple question and is singularity related, whatever that turns out to be. Given that the two most likely areas for AI to arise from are entertainment and military. Would you prefer our future mechanical overlords to be primarily designed to : A Kill you or B Amuse you. My hope for the singularity is more cyborg in nature, the problem with people is the moment you put a large bunch of them together and treat them as a group, they become easily mailable and predictable. This can lead to bad things, many bad things, worse even than you tube comments.

If personal AI can be used to nudge people when this is happening, encouraging attention to be focused on exactly the right place rather than diverted offstage. To make everyone smarter and more aware rather than be a large brain sitting in the center of the planet solving problems.

Then maybe this group problem can be avoided or lessened, we are not designed to intuitively understand the dynamics of such unnaturally large groups instead we treat them as we would smaller social structures. Having technology to enable us to operate better in these situations, situations it has also put us in, makes sense and is seemingly where we are heading.

It’s not about super intelligence, that really wont help much, it’s more about making the other end of the spectrum just that little bit smarter.

Well, that’s the best hope I can manage anyway :)

I shall end with my explanation of why I “waste” my life making toys and games. It’s in the form of a simple question and is singularity related, whatever that turns out to be.

Given that the two most likely areas for AI to arise from are entertainment and military. Would you prefer our future mechanical overlords to be primarily designed to :

A Kill you

or

B Amuse you.

]]> By: Robert Koslover http://futurismic.com/2008/10/07/the-perils-of-thinkism/comment-page-1/#comment-16507 Robert Koslover Wed, 08 Oct 2008 03:42:28 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=4285#comment-16507 Yes, the realization that understanding the universe requires the performance of experiments and making accurate observations, and that one cannot rely on philosophical reflection alone, is essential to the advancement of science. Science is strongest where its basis is clear, reproducible, consistent, and unambiguous experimental data. It is weakest when it is based on appeals to authority, popularity contests, superstition, religion, and either pollyannaish or apocalyptic beliefs. Although I'm sure some of those readign this will promptly leap down my throat for the 2nd of the two examples that follow, I assert here (just to annoy you, ok?) that neither creationism (or equivalently, "intelligent design") nor Al Gore's global warming alarmism actually meet the standards of "science." Truth is not determined by popular vote. In physics, we especially like our theories to be elegant. We like to think that makes them more likely to be right. (Dirac was especially famous for linking elegance to correctness.) But we also know that, in the end, the final arbiter of truth is the set of all experimental data. Yes, the realization that understanding the universe requires the performance of experiments and making accurate observations, and that one cannot rely on philosophical reflection alone, is essential to the advancement of science. Science is strongest where its basis is clear, reproducible, consistent, and unambiguous experimental data. It is weakest when it is based on appeals to authority, popularity contests, superstition, religion, and either pollyannaish or apocalyptic beliefs. Although I’m sure some of those readign this will promptly leap down my throat for the 2nd of the two examples that follow, I assert here (just to annoy you, ok?) that neither creationism (or equivalently, “intelligent design”) nor Al Gore’s global warming alarmism actually meet the standards of “science.” Truth is not determined by popular vote. In physics, we especially like our theories to be elegant. We like to think that makes them more likely to be right. (Dirac was especially famous for linking elegance to correctness.) But we also know that, in the end, the final arbiter of truth is the set of all experimental data.

]]> By: Laurel Lyon http://futurismic.com/2008/10/07/the-perils-of-thinkism/comment-page-1/#comment-16505 Laurel Lyon Tue, 07 Oct 2008 23:44:17 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=4285#comment-16505 Oh, light dawns (for me, that is). Faith in the Singularity and in the power of computers to eventially solve everything by processing enough knowledge is just like the medieval idea of Authority, in which there was no need to examine the real world because everything we needed to know was in existing literature. Oh, light dawns (for me, that is). Faith in the Singularity and in the power of computers to eventially solve everything by processing enough knowledge is just like the medieval idea of Authority, in which there was no need to examine the real world because everything we needed to know was in existing literature.

]]>