I tend towards Sterling’s position on this one

When I was at Uni­ver­sity I stud­ied AI for a cou­ple of years along with com­puter sci­ence. Twenty years later our progress is… well… limited.

Yes it’s faster. The brute force ele­ment is work­ing. But it’s not actu­ally much smarter. We still haven’t been able to crack lan­guage trans­la­tion. Which is sort of a min­i­mal require­ment for any seri­ous AI.

He’s also right that really no one really has a busi­ness model for a sin­gu­lar­ity. And they have no busi­ness model for self-thinking machines.

The fact that the rebut­tal in the arti­cle talks about thinks like SIRI and Wat­son kind of proves the point. Those are not autonomous intel­li­gences of any sort. They’re large search­able databases.

Embed­ded Link

Bruce Ster­ling Thinks Arti­fi­cial Intel­li­gence Has Jumped the Shark
Bruce Ster­ling wrote influ­en­tial works like Schis­ma­trix and Islands in the Net, plus he prac­ti­cally invented cyber­punk (with all due respect, of course, to William Gib­son and Rudy Rucker).

Google+: Reshared 1 times
Google+: View post on Google+

Loading Disqus Comments ...
Loading Facebook Comments ...

14 thoughts on “I tend towards Sterling’s position on this one

  1. January 17, 2013 at 19:20

    The real power of AI lies not in a think­ing machine but in a vast net­work of intel­li­gent machines being used by mil­lions or bil­lions of peo­ple. We are the AI and it is us.

  2. January 17, 2013 at 19:22

    We will have AI as soon as they fig­ure how to use it for inter­net porn.

  3. January 17, 2013 at 19:33

    No. We will have AI as soon as the cats work out how to use it.

  4. January 17, 2013 at 19:48

    Eoghann…So what I’m gath­er­ing from the arti­cle and from your com­ments is that humans will see more and faster automa­tion of tech sys­tems embed­ded in soci­ety but no truly “self aware” machin­ery. So am I fol­low­ing you correctly?

  5. January 17, 2013 at 19:55

    That is my per­sonal feel­ing on it yes +Tim Speece.

    I don’t think we’ll see self-aware sys­tems com­ing. Nor do I think we’ll be upload­ing our brains in the future.

    Raw com­put­ing power has increased expo­nen­tially, but other ele­ments have not.

  6. January 17, 2013 at 20:02

    +Eoghann Irv­ing Are you famil­iar with the con­cept of a Super Organ­ism?  There are these large ter­mite mounds in (I think) Aus­tralia, many feet tall.  Thing is, in recent years sci­en­tists have stopped think­ing of them as mounds and started think­ing of them as Super Organ­isms, a type of organ­ism with no genetic code of its own per se but which is cre­ated and main­tained by a bal­ance of organ­isms that can­not vary sig­nif­i­cantly, i.e. must be home­o­sta­tic in rela­tion to other Super Organ­isms of its kind.  The mound is not itself alive, but like a liv­ing thing it is “repro­duced” by its “cells” (ter­mite, microbes, and other organ­isms that live within, cre­ate, and sus­tain the thing).  In that regard I am con­vinced that Google is already a “Super Con­scious­ness”… it has no con­scious­ness of its own, but through a bil­lion users and their inputs, inter­ac­tions, and efforts (active or pas­sive) to build, sus­tain, and grow the sys­tem is like that Aus­tralian ter­mite mound.  It doesn’t need sen­tience, because we who build it, main­tain it, improve it, or just use it are sen­tient, and are inter­act­ing with the machines and each other on a mas­sive scale.

  7. January 17, 2013 at 20:06

    +Eli Fen­nell Sim­i­lar to a colony of coral but with a higher level of col­lec­tive intelligence.

  8. January 17, 2013 at 20:07

    +Tim Speece Yes! Exactly!

  9. January 17, 2013 at 20:10

    +Eoghann Irv­ing Do you envi­sion a gen­er­ally pos­i­tive future for human­ity with faster and stronger IT sys­tems help­ing us make bet­ter deci­sions?  Assum­ing we don’t destroy our­selves through mass starvation…climate change…germ warfare…etc.

  10. January 17, 2013 at 20:15

    I think it’s pretty awe­some that you stud­ied AI

  11. January 17, 2013 at 20:29

    It’s an inter­est­ing the­ory +Eli Fen­nell and reminds me some­what of the Gaia Hypoth­e­sis. There appear to be ele­ments of uncon­scious or maybe par­tially con­scious self-regulation built into many com­plex organ­isms.
     
    Per­haps it’s not as excit­ing or rev­o­lu­tion­ary as the tra­di­tional  _singularity_ but it’s prob­a­bly more likely.

  12. January 17, 2013 at 20:31

    I think the gen­eral tra­jec­tory will be pos­i­tive +Tim Speece. That has been the gen­eral pat­tern for cen­turies and if noth­ing else mankind has shown itself to be pretty resilient. We are very adap­tive cock­roaches. It would take a lot to wipe us out.

    I think we have the oppor­tu­nity for some major genetic and med­ical break­throughs. The sci­ence isn’t the prob­lem, it’s the social change that will have to come with it.

  13. January 17, 2013 at 20:31

    AI is a fas­ci­nat­ing sub­ject +Jack Hard­man. Even though I don’t think we’ll ever see a self-aware com­puter there are so many things it can do.

  14. January 17, 2013 at 20:34

    +Eoghann Irv­ing So will AI progress far enough to be of any tan­gi­ble use to people?

Leave a Reply