Comments on: Singularity Summit: How Will We Get There? http://emergentfool.com/2008/10/31/singularity-summit-how-will-we-get-there/ ...explorations in complex adaptive systems... Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:27:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: The Emergent Fool » Blog Archive » Singularity Summit: Thoughts on AGI http://emergentfool.com/2008/10/31/singularity-summit-how-will-we-get-there/#comment-2471 The Emergent Fool » Blog Archive » Singularity Summit: Thoughts on AGI Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:25:15 +0000 http://rafefurst.wordpress.com/?p=418#comment-2471 [...] Absence of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of absence, but I believe that if anyone were making headway on this problem, the chances that someone at the summit would have alluded to it are high. Therefore, I predict that the first being with substantially higher g than current humans is much more likely to be an augmented human than an AGI [Edit: more thoughts on electronically enhancing humans here]. [...] [...] Absence of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of absence, but I believe that if anyone were making headway on this problem, the chances that someone at the summit would have alluded to it are high. Therefore, I predict that the first being with substantially higher g than current humans is much more likely to be an augmented human than an AGI [Edit: more thoughts on electronically enhancing humans here]. [...]

]]> By: rafefurst http://emergentfool.com/2008/10/31/singularity-summit-how-will-we-get-there/#comment-1593 rafefurst Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:22:03 +0000 http://rafefurst.wordpress.com/?p=418#comment-1593 I mostly agree with haig. In other words, we already have highly advanced BCIs called "the five senses", we just need to learn how to "program" these better for the desired result. I mostly agree with haig. In other words, we already have highly advanced BCIs called “the five senses”, we just need to learn how to “program” these better for the desired result.

]]> By: haig http://emergentfool.com/2008/10/31/singularity-summit-how-will-we-get-there/#comment-1594 haig Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:16:24 +0000 http://rafefurst.wordpress.com/?p=418#comment-1594 BCI offers no significant increase in intelligence until you get to a deep understanding of the dynamical processes in the neural/synaptic network at a systems level. And even then, the invasiveness as well as the possible unknown side-effects of radical augmentation will be a much larger hurdle to overcome when compared to just building a human-level computing device which would then be possible. I think IA will become significant soon, but not because of BCI, but because of major leaps in HCI that doesn't necessarily interface directly with wetware. BCI is important in a medical, therapeutic capacity, don't get me wrong, but it won't allow significant gains in g compared with someone with a future computing system and an internet connection. What can a BCI offer in the next 10-15 years other than moving the cursor/keypad without hands? Implanted brain devices will more likely regulate mood (depression, anxiety, pain,anger?) and correct damages & disease, not augment intelligence. I see wearable, ubiquitous, multi-modal, haptic, augmented reality/metaverse style computing systems with advanced narrow AI UIs on the front end coupled to a semantic/statistical(google) back-end supporting a pervasive social graph platform to be the most probable path to human intelligence augmentation before a human-level artificial intelligence gets built and sparks a singularity runoff process. BCI offers no significant increase in intelligence until you get to a deep understanding of the dynamical processes in the neural/synaptic network at a systems level. And even then, the invasiveness as well as the possible unknown side-effects of radical augmentation will be a much larger hurdle to overcome when compared to just building a human-level computing device which would then be possible.

I think IA will become significant soon, but not because of BCI, but because of major leaps in HCI that doesn’t necessarily interface directly with wetware. BCI is important in a medical, therapeutic capacity, don’t get me wrong, but it won’t allow significant gains in g compared with someone with a future computing system and an internet connection. What can a BCI offer in the next 10-15 years other than moving the cursor/keypad without hands? Implanted brain devices will more likely regulate mood (depression, anxiety, pain,anger?) and correct damages & disease, not augment intelligence.

I see wearable, ubiquitous, multi-modal, haptic, augmented reality/metaverse style computing systems with advanced narrow AI UIs on the front end coupled to a semantic/statistical(google) back-end supporting a pervasive social graph platform to be the most probable path to human intelligence augmentation before a human-level artificial intelligence gets built and sparks a singularity runoff process.

]]> By: Quick Rundown on the Singularity Summit « Complex Adaptive Systems http://emergentfool.com/2008/10/31/singularity-summit-how-will-we-get-there/#comment-1596 Quick Rundown on the Singularity Summit « Complex Adaptive Systems Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:08:22 +0000 http://rafefurst.wordpress.com/?p=418#comment-1596 [...] to have some insightful synthesis of the material in a few days [Edit: first thought here, more here].  In the meantime, here is a short review of the [...] [...] to have some insightful synthesis of the material in a few days [Edit: first thought here, more here].  In the meantime, here is a short review of the [...]

]]> By: Singularity Summit: Thoughts on AGI « Complex Adaptive Systems http://emergentfool.com/2008/10/31/singularity-summit-how-will-we-get-there/#comment-1595 Singularity Summit: Thoughts on AGI « Complex Adaptive Systems Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:07:56 +0000 http://rafefurst.wordpress.com/?p=418#comment-1595 [...] Absence of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of absence, but I believe that if anyone were making headway on this problem, the chances that someone at the summit would have alluded to it are high. Therefore, I predict that the first being with substantially higher g than current humans is much more likely to be an augmented human than an AGI [Edit: more thoughts on electronically enhancing humans here]. [...] [...] Absence of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of absence, but I believe that if anyone were making headway on this problem, the chances that someone at the summit would have alluded to it are high. Therefore, I predict that the first being with substantially higher g than current humans is much more likely to be an augmented human than an AGI [Edit: more thoughts on electronically enhancing humans here]. [...]

]]>