Father Of Artificial Intelligence: "Singularity Is Less Than 30 Years Away"

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

The father of artificial intelligence has sounded the alarm, and the clock is ticking down to the singularity.  For those who haven’t been following the advancements in AI, maybe now’s the time, because we are approaching the point of no return.

Singularity is the point in time when humans can create an artificial intelligence machine that is smarter. Ray Kurzweil, Google’s chief of engineering, says that the singularity will happen in 2045

Louis Rosenberg claims that we are actually closer than that and that the day will be arriving sometime in 2030. MIT’s Patrick Winston would have you believe that it will likely be a little closer to Kurzweil’s prediction, though he puts the date at 2040, specifically.

Jürgen Schmidhuber, who is the Co-Founder and Chief Scientist at AI company NNAISENSE, the Director of the Swiss AI lab IDSIA, and heralded by some as the “father of artificial intelligence” is confident that the singularity “is just 30 years away. If the trend doesn’t break, and there will be rather cheap computational devices that have as many connections as your brain but are much faster,” he said.

“There is no doubt in my mind that AIs are going to become super smart,” Schmidhuber says.

When biological life emerged from chemical evolution, 3.5 billion years ago, a random combination of simple, lifeless elements kickstarted the explosion of species populating the planet today. Something of comparable magnitude may be about to happen.

 “Now the universe is making a similar step forward from lower complexity to higher complexity,” Schmidhuber beams.

“And it’s going to be awesome.”

But will it really be awesome when human beings are made obsolete by their very creations?

Artifical intelligence has already had an impact on humanity. A recent warning from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) declared that thousands of jobs are being lost to robots and those with those on lowest wages are likely to be hardest hit. As it becomes more expensive to hire people for work because of government intervention like minimum wage hikes and overbearing regulations, more companies are shifting to robotics to save money on labor.

Kurzweil has said that the work happening right now “will change the nature of humanity itself.” He said robots “will reach human intelligence by 2029 and life as we know it will end in 2045.”  There is a risk that technology will overtake humanity and make human society irrelevant at best and extinct at worst.

Comments

Cognitive Dissonance Fri, 02/16/2018 - 19:56 Permalink

So much time and effort discussing AI destroying you and me and no talk about you and me destroying us.

We talk about AI becoming smarter than us while we're doing everything we can to dumb ourselves down. It's a self fulfilling spiral into hell.

Stuck on Zero khnum Fri, 02/16/2018 - 20:13 Permalink

"Jürgen Schmidhuber - Father of AI."

My ass. Who has ever heard of this self-inflating jerk? No-one has done anything that could be considered real "AI."  Thousands have contributed. The only thing that could be called the Father of AI is DARPA. If you want to know who the original brains were behind AI look at the 1987 DARPA Neural Network study.

In reply to by khnum

DEMIZEN tmosley Sat, 02/17/2018 - 00:49 Permalink

true that but collision avoidance systems were not up to the task back then and would overwhelm traffic control centers.

 central CAS does not timely detect and respond to birds and drones. with the 5G network coming soon, the experimental phase of peer to peer CAS can begin. feedback from autonomous street drones will be helpful.

In reply to by tmosley

Couchtycoon tmosley Sat, 02/17/2018 - 02:47 Permalink

I hate to defend the FAA but If you have driven a car in a major city any time recently the vast majority of these people simply don't have the good judgment skills to pilot a mechine that will kill you if you run out of gas, hit a pole ,ingest a large bird , don't accomplish regular maintenance,( can you imagine a waiter not being able to get the fan blades changes even though the high vibrations simply because he/she hasn't made enough money at work. flying cars are not cars there are some variation of an airplane ,or tilt-roter helicopter. and as such not cheap to own or maintain.

In reply to by tmosley

Shift For Brains Luc X. Ifer Fri, 02/16/2018 - 20:51 Permalink

What a joke! Another materialist who hasn't mastered basic logic weighs in on The Meaning of Life.

Re-read what you wrote. If "you don't know" something, the explanation very well could be "magical" by the standards that we consider extra-rational. Because someone attributes consciousness to non-material causality doesn't make it either wrong or even that magical thinking is wrong. When you don't know, the YOU includes YOU the materialist.

I love being lectured by people who can't think their way out of a paper bag.

In reply to by Luc X. Ifer

Dane Bramage Luc X. Ifer Fri, 02/16/2018 - 22:45 Permalink

I understand that there is much beyond my comprehension.  

 

If and when a machine does obtain consciousness I wonder how it will handle (process?) suffering.  Would the machine be the first immortal consciousness, unable to feel?   A self aware entity that would never grow old, die nor feel pain.  Seems deeply contradictory to my limited mind.  

 

Computer processing power, algorithms, etc., all that SIMULATING human response, does not equal consciousness.  I wish these guys would just change their AI to "machine learning".  Sounds a lot less scary, and more realistic IMHO.

In reply to by Luc X. Ifer

ChaoKrungThep Dane Bramage Fri, 02/16/2018 - 23:42 Permalink

Define "consciousness". You'll find it doesn't exist outside the chemical processes in your brain. Computers are already "conscious". What scares me is when they "decide" we are no longer needed, just a waste of space and resources and too stupid to go on. Frankly I would eliminate 99% of the humans I know. Robots might add a few decimal places to their decisions.

In reply to by Dane Bramage

Sapere aude Dane Bramage Sat, 02/17/2018 - 04:55 Permalink

Dane. Very well put.

Newtonian science is confounded by quantum physics, and indeed many statement today about Einsteins theories are completely wrong. For example the statement that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. WRONG.

In Quantum experiments beamed via satellite and utilising quantum entanglement information changed from where it was sent out into space and returned via satellite, with the data at the sending end changed simultaneously, which is faster than the speed of light.

If it takes 0 seconds for data entanglement over say 250miles, that disproves the theory of nothing travelling faster than the speed of light.

Consciousness is another aspects of what Einstein called Spooky science, and where more and more very reputable scientists are coming round to the inescapable fact that consciousness does not even exist in the body at all, and that whilst the brain is a very effective thought machine, it is NOT consciousness.

It was discovered by Stuart Hameroff, a professor at the university of Arizona that within the brain there are microtubules that seem to be acting as quantum devices, which was thought impossible at certain temperatures, but which was proven to be possible by a Japanese team recently.

Ironically this brings quantum physics in line with most of the religions in the world with regards to consciousness, i.e. the soul being distinctly different from the brain with the conclusion that consciousness may indeed be separate from the body where quantum mechanics is at play rather like a transformer and receiver but with consciousness elsewhere.

Experiment at a UK university in NDE's (near death experiences) gave a somewhat shocking surprise to conventional science, in concluding that some of these experiences confirm that even after death consciousness operates, with compelling evidence.

Even the most powerful computers that may be endowed with what we term artificial intelligence, have no sign of consciousness at all, they are basically very very powerful computers working on human input algorithms, not consciousness.

 

In reply to by Dane Bramage

Dane Bramage Sapere aude Sat, 02/17/2018 - 14:54 Permalink

Thank you, & your reply is precisely so.   I vaguely recall another example of something travelling faster than light from my fluid dynamics course, but can't recall specifics atm.  That's tangential but does point out the hubristic nature.  The AI proponents think that they can "map the human brain" and create consciousness.  I can not think of something more arrogant nor patently absurd, save some of the comments from the godless nihilists, whom are out in force in this thread, as always.   We are barely scratching the surface of understanding the human mind.  And consciousness??  lol!

 

"Frankly I would eliminate 99% of the humans I know" ~ direct quote from one of the replies above.   Oh, hi... send my regards to Mephistopheles. :-/   This is all any sane person needs to know about proponents of such philosophy.  Do they want to help alleviate some of the human suffering that is the tragedy of life?  No, they want to make everyone suffer as much as they possibly can before they say goodbye to being.

 

 

In reply to by Sapere aude

Adahy Sapere aude Sun, 02/18/2018 - 07:53 Permalink

My current hypothesis is that all information, including every consciousness, are contained in that timeless quantum background.
It's fucking mind-blowing when you really dig into the research that people like Hameroff, Chalmers, and Penrose are doing.
Then to listen to someone like Jordan Peterson speak about archetypes and mythos that appear in multiple places over history that have had no way to convey that information to each other, and it all starts to come together.

Been here the whole time, we're just understanding the whole thing in a different way now.  Not that it changes the reality; it's just a different, more detailed way of looking at it.

In reply to by Sapere aude

jmeyer Sapere aude Sun, 02/18/2018 - 19:14 Permalink

There is a confusion of definitions used in " consciousness " studies. I think that it is likely that computational devices including AI are already "conscious" in the sense that there exists some sort of awareness of the sum of a machines total functioning at any and all moments of its observation. This awareness we can observe in a small way when Windows gives us a BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH or a program freezes. I think computer guys and programmers are not listening to the info that's there. In a primitive sense COMPARED TO HUMANS a machine's "awareness " is being ignored. So the machine is already aware of itself but it has no MIND, the word missing in talk about consciousness.

In reply to by Sapere aude

jmeyer Sapere aude Sun, 02/18/2018 - 19:16 Permalink

There is a confusion of definitions used in " consciousness " studies. I think that it is likely that computational devices including AI are already "conscious" in the sense that there exists some sort of awareness of the sum of a machines total functioning at any and all moments of its observation. This awareness we can observe in a small way when Windows gives us a BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH or a program freezes. I think computer guys and programmers are not listening to the info that's there. In a primitive sense COMPARED TO HUMANS a machine's "awareness " is being ignored. So the machine is already aware of itself but it has no MIND, the word missing in talk about consciousness.

In reply to by Sapere aude

Ikiru Stuck on Zero Fri, 02/16/2018 - 20:54 Permalink

You might want to check up on what Kurzweil has invented, written, and predicted.  While I think he is overly optimistic, mostly because he underestimates the interference and other issues involving the government, his ideas are important to consider.  In my opinion, he is the perfect example of what is referred to as "particularized efficacy", as in, he is extremely knowledgeable and exceptional in his field, but lacks a general philosophical understanding that may interfere with his overall understanding of the world.  

In reply to by Stuck on Zero