# Technological singularity, why would it NOT happen? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 5, 2010, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technological-singularity-why-would-it-not-happen/549252 "2010-08-05T11:56:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2010, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technological-singularity-why-would-it-not-happen/549252/41 "2010-08-07T04:06:48Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It went as expected at first, until it came to the so-called “Bridge of Fools”, the proof that the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal. Euclid’s proof of this theorem is sufficiently complicated that it’s generally the first point where students of geometry get lost, and requires an extended diagram resembling a bridge, hence the “Bridge of Fools” title. The computer, however, instead came up with a simple, elegant proof that’s both significantly shorter, and requires nothing but the triangle itself for a diagram. If that’s not creativity, then it’s something just as good. Just using symmetry to prove the equality of the base angles of an isosceles triangle is at least as old as the third century, and I’d actually argue that Euclids proof is a lot more creative, albeit also a lot less elegant. Indeed, I’d be kinda blown away if a computer tasked with proving the equality of the two angles came up with the fairly convoluted “Bridge of Fools” (which I learned as the “Asses Bridge”, your geometry teacher was apparently a lot more proper then mine), or if it missed the far more obvious and simpler proof. The Elements are actually a pretty good example of something that a human would come up with that a machine intelligence wouldn’t. Despite its reputation, its not particularly rigorous, and a modern reader can come up with half a dozen uses of unstated assumptions in the first theorem alone. A computer would probably come up with something a lot closer to Hilbert’s modern axiomization of geometry, and wouldn’t come close to Euclids combination of rigorous logic, reliance on spatial intuition and proofs chosen for aesthetic concerns or a sense of plausibility rather then simply elegance or simplicity. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2010, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technological-singularity-why-would-it-not-happen/549252/42 "2010-08-07T04:20:52Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Everything seems so simple once it’s been discovered, the ability to see what isn’t there but should be is ingenuity. I sincerely doubt, even if we can get a self aware robot, that it’ll have that spark. Maybe, but I’m not sure it matters or not. Creating a AI that could be creative would be neat, but its not really obvious it would spurn ever greater innovation. After all, the planet is currently host to some 6 billion creative intelligences. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2010, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technological-singularity-why-would-it-not-happen/549252/43 "2010-08-07T18:26:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > IMHO we have to assign that as example #100004, of mainstream media getting it wrong, I’m still waiting for the ice age that they reported coming in the 70’s, and yes, the media got it wrong then, most climate scientists then actually thought that global warming was coming. It would not surprise me to find that USA Today also misinterpreted what actual AI researchers thought about the state of the research in those days. My point was that the problem with AI has nothing at all to do with the availability of powerful enough hardware. There are some things, like simulations, which scale nicely, but AI will take some sort of conceptual breakthrough. > [@](#): > > What **Evil Captor** said. No one working in the field uses nanotechnology to describe this, but be my guest. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2010, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technological-singularity-why-would-it-not-happen/549252/44 "2010-08-07T18:37:15Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > My point was that the problem with AI has nothing at all to do with the availability of powerful enough hardware. There are some things, like simulations, which scale nicely, but AI will take some sort of conceptual breakthrough. And that was provided in the previous reply to **Sitnam** > [@Voyager](#): > > No one working in the field uses nanotechnology to describe this, but be my guest. It is true that I could not take that offer until recently, but we are getting there. 🙂 [http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=ibm-and-caltech-experiment-with-dna-2009-08-17](http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=ibm-and-caltech-experiment-with-dna-2009-08-17) ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2010, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technological-singularity-why-would-it-not-happen/549252/45 "2010-08-07T23:04:06Z")
The technological singularity doesn’t specifically refer to nanotech or AI or any specific form of technology IIRC. It refers to a point in the future after which it is impossible to extrapolate from our existing knowledge. Take, for example, the perspective of futurists from a little over 300 years ago, before the practical widespread use of the steam engine. They might be able to extrapolate the future of sailing based on gradually increasing sail sizes or modifying hull shapes. But at some point, their imaginations would have reached the point beyond which further advancement in naval technology would be impossible without the steam engine and more advanced materials. Their singularity would be some sort of theoretical machine that could operate without wind and with much greater power. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2010, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technological-singularity-why-would-it-not-happen/549252/46 "2010-08-07T23:16:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And that was provided in the previous reply to **Sitnam** My opinion is that the first AI per se will come from a simulation of a brain, which should be possible with just a bit more development of networked multi-processors and understanding of brain structure. But we can do that without understanding or actually creating intelligence. Nothing in these links, at least the parts I glanced through, looked like something that will provide AI. > [@](#): > > > [@Voyager](#): > > > > No one working in the field uses nanotechnology to describe this, but be my guest. > > It is true that I could not take that offer until recently, but we are getting there. 🙂 > > [http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=ibm-and-caltech-experiment-with-dna-2009-08-17](http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=ibm-and-caltech-experiment-with-dna-2009-08-17) Perhaps you don’t understand how 20 nanometer process technology works. I’m not disputing the existence of nanotech, or that it will be very useful - just that what we are doing now isn’t it. I assure you that the 28 nm node involves neither nanotubes or placing stuff - it is not that different from bigger nodes. ---
**Author:** ![ChrisBooth12](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@ChrisBooth12](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChrisBooth12)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2010, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technological-singularity-why-would-it-not-happen/549252/47 "2010-08-07T23:42:19Z")
Look up and see how far BIO Technology has advanced since the 1900s…i mean we have rat brain cells in a petri dish learning to fly a flight simulator. Most of our fruits are genetically modifed. We are only at the early stages of bio-tech ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2010, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technological-singularity-why-would-it-not-happen/549252/48 "2010-08-08T01:40:31Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > > [@GIGObuster](#): > > > > And that was provided in the previous reply to **Sitnam** > > My opinion is that the first AI per se will come from a simulation of a brain, which should be possible with just a bit more development of networked multi-processors and understanding of brain structure. But we can do that without understanding or actually creating intelligence. Nothing in these links, at least the parts I glanced through, looked like something that will provide AI. 😕 The first Chapter of On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins refers to AI and the reasons why in the past we failed to make progress. The reason why I take the new theories seriously is that in both the simulation and natural front his theories are showing results, programs based on the theories are giving researchers uncanny results. In the human brain front, IIRC, recently there are confirmations of key predictions of the theory. [http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jun/15-can-single-neuron-tell-halle-berry-from-grandma-esther](http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jun/15-can-single-neuron-tell-halle-berry-from-grandma-esther) [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;314/5796/75](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;314/5796/75) > **[On Intelligence](https://books.google.com/books?id=Qg2dmntfxmQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=brain%2Btheory%2BJeff%2BHawkins&source=bl&ots=6hFoJ7MopW&sig=bLG6oYTZqXEwd6yso-F9V5KijIw&hl=en&ei=SLZcTLiECcH78Ab97-XaAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false)** > > The inventor of the PalmPilot shares a compelling new theory of intelligence, brain function, and the future of artificial intelligence. Tech innovator Jeff Hawkins reshaped our relationship to computers with devices like the PalmPilot. Now he... > [@GIGObuster](#): > > It is true that I could not take that offer until recently, but we are getting there. 🙂 > > [http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=ibm-and-caltech-experiment-with-dna-2009-08-17](http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=ibm-and-caltech-experiment-with-dna-2009-08-17) > [@Voyager](#): > > Perhaps you don’t understand how 20 nanometer process technology works. I’m not disputing the existence of nanotech, or that it will be very useful - just that what we are doing now isn’t it. I assure you that the 28 nm node involves neither nanotubes or placing stuff - it is not that different from bigger nodes. What we are doing isn’t? 😕 It seems that you are applying a very restrictive definition of Nanotechnology. > **[Nanotechnology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanotechnology)** > > Nanotechnology is the manipulation of matter with at least one dimension sized from 1 to 100 nanometers (nm). At this scale, commonly known as the nanoscale, surface area and quantum mechanical effects become important in describing properties of matter. This definition of nanotechnology includes all types of research and technologies that deal with these special properties. It is common to see the plural form "nanotechnologies" as well as "nanoscale technologies" to refer to research and app... > [@](#): > > Nanotechnology, shortened to “nanotech”, is the study of the controlling of matter on an atomic and molecular scale. Generally nanotechnology deals with structures sized between 1 to 100 nanometer in at least one dimension, and involves developing materials or devices within that size. So I looked at the Scientific American piece I linked early: > [@](#): > > Now comes a potential solution. IBM Research and the California Institute of Technology researchers say they may have found a way to control the placement of silicon nanowires, carbon nanotubes and other tiny components on microchips through the use of synthetic DNA and tiny lithographic templates. The scientists used the DNA molecules to function as scaffolding, to help deposit millions of nanosize particles in precise patterns, according to a study to be published in the September issue of Nature Nanotechnology . ( Scientific American is part of the Nature Publishing Group). The templates help the nanoparticles hold their shape. Humans are doing Nanotech already, there are even products of the technology in the market. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2010, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technological-singularity-why-would-it-not-happen/549252/49 "2010-08-08T04:10:54Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The first Chapter of On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins refers to AI and the reasons why in the past we failed to make progress. The reason why I take the new theories seriously is that in both the simulation and natural front his theories are showing results, programs based on the theories are giving researchers uncanny results. Uncanny results? We’ve had uncanny results for 50 years now, but are no closer to a theory. Now, the article on the brain is interesting, and, being a pure physicalist, have no doubt we will understand the brain well enough to simulate it - and thus create an intelligence resident in it - within some number of years. I don’t think strong AI is impossible - just a hell of a lot harder than people think it is. I think we are at the stage the alchemists doing their transmutation experiments were. Their goal was achievable, but they had no clue how to achieve it. The first paper mentions neural nets at the end - that was yet another way of doing AI stuff, which is somewhat useful today (in data mining, for instance) but not the salvation of the field. > [@](#): > > What we are doing isn’t? > > 😕 > > It seems that you are applying a very restrictive definition of Nanotechnology. No one in the field calls 28 nm fabrication and design processes nanotechnology. If you want to say they are all wrong, be my guest. The research you linked to is nanotechnology, but has nothing to do with silicon processes today. And I mentioned MEMS, which if not strictly nanotech are a step towards it. They are certainly being sold today, in your airbag and in your iPhone. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2010, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technological-singularity-why-would-it-not-happen/549252/50 "2010-08-08T05:19:44Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > > [@GIGObuster](#): > > > > The first Chapter of On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins refers to AI and the reasons why in the past we failed to make progress. The reason why I take the new theories seriously is that in both the simulation and natural front his theories are showing results, programs based on the theories are giving researchers uncanny results. > > Uncanny results? We’ve had uncanny results for 50 years now, but are no closer to a theory. Uh Jeff Hawkins main point is his theory of the brain. > [@Voyager](#): > > Now, the article on the brain is interesting, and, being a pure physicalist, have no doubt we will understand the brain well enough to simulate it - and thus create an intelligence resident in it - within some number of years. I don’t think strong AI is impossible - just a hell of a lot harder than people think it is. I think we are at the stage the alchemists doing their transmutation experiments were. Their goal was achievable, but they had no clue how to achieve it. The first paper mentions neural nets at the end - that was yet another way of doing AI stuff, which is somewhat useful today (in data mining, for instance) but not the salvation of the field. IIRC Hawkins also makes the point that data mining was indeed a “dead end” in the field. > [@Voyager](#): > > > [@GIGObuster](#): > > > > What we are doing isn’t? > > > > 😕 > > > > It seems that you are applying a very restrictive definition of Nanotechnology. > > No one in the field calls 28 nm fabrication and design processes nanotechnology. If you want to say they are all wrong, be my guest. The research you linked to is nanotechnology, but has nothing to do with silicon processes today. And I mentioned MEMS, which if not strictly nanotech are a step towards it. They are certainly being sold today, in your airbag and in your iPhone. Ok, I have to say that I was confused, indeed, the process you are mentioning is not usually referred as Nanotech, but the definition tells me it is not out of base [to call it that](http://www.nanotech-now.com/columns/?article=101). As for the last quote, first you were saying that what I linked to was not Nanotech. No biggie.. .. Literally 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2010, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technological-singularity-why-would-it-not-happen/549252/51 "2010-08-08T17:16:34Z")
Asimov’s three laws of robotics. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technological-singularity-why-would-it-not-happen/549252/52 "2010-08-08T17:58:49Z")
> [@Snag](#): > > Asimov’s three laws of robotics. It would be a good point, If we lived in the Asimov universe. Unfortunately (or fortunately as YMMV) the laws are mostly talked about, seems that most of the current efforts are still concentrated on creating AIs that are specific to a situation, the three laws are not applicable.. yet. In the consumer front I see no choice but to find a way to encode the laws to the future robots (in this litigious society I foresee that the nanosecond a robot is programed to commit a crime that new federal rules will be made to make sure that the laws of robotics are enforced), but the military will not have that inconvenience. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2010, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technological-singularity-why-would-it-not-happen/549252/53 "2010-08-08T22:22:45Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > IIRC Hawkins also makes the point that data mining was indeed a “dead end” in the field. I can well believe it. The data mining book I use has a chapter on it, and an analysis tool has a neural net option, but I’ve never made use of it. And so it goes with AI methods - for the most part, non-AI ways of doing things work better. My old boss was enamored of expert systems, until he tried to write one for mushrooms (he was an amateur but published mycologist.) He quickly became disenchanted. > [@](#): > > As for the last quote, first you were saying that what I linked to was not Nanotech. No biggie.. > > .. Literally 😉 See how tough things are at 28 nm.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2010, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technological-singularity-why-would-it-not-happen/549252/54 "2010-08-08T22:25:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > In the consumer front I see no choice but to find a way to encode the laws to the future robots (in this litigious society I foresee that the nanosecond a robot is programed to commit a crime that new federal rules will be made to make sure that the laws of robotics are enforced), but the military will not have that inconvenience. Given that Asimov wrote two books worth of stories and several novels about the nuances of the 3 laws, I suspect that if encoded somehow they would be easy to get around. Plus there would be a major performance hit, as every action a robot took would have to be sent through a 3 laws filter. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2010, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technological-singularity-why-would-it-not-happen/549252/55 "2010-08-08T23:43:15Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > > [@GIGObuster](#): > > > > In the consumer front I see no choice but to find a way to encode the laws to the future robots (in this litigious society I foresee that the nanosecond a robot is programed to commit a crime that new federal rules will be made to make sure that the laws of robotics are enforced), but the military will not have that inconvenience. > > Given that Asimov wrote two books worth of stories and several novels about the nuances of the 3 laws, I suspect that if encoded somehow they would be easy to get around. Plus there would be a major performance hit, as every action a robot took would have to be sent through a 3 laws filter. Asimov either said or implied (would have to check references) that the three laws were somehow intrinsically embedded in the logic structures that made a robot sentient. That the AI simply wouldn’t _work_ in a manner that would contradict them. Of course Asimov handwaved the whole subject of how you program an artificial intelligence to begin with; he simply presumed that some extension of mathematical logic, carried out by machine and scaled up would somehow yield intelligence. Quite a few pioneers in computer science evidently thought so too, until it became clear that general intelligence (or “common sense”) wasn’t simply a matter of giving a computer an extensive enough list of rules to follow. A few Platonists like Roger Penrose claim that intelligence isn’t even computable in the algorithmic sense of the word. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technological-singularity-why-would-it-not-happen/549252/56 "2010-08-09T00:53:39Z")
My understanding is that it starts when we are able to emulate and replicate human cognition (problem solving, g factor, fluid intelligence, pattern recognition, etc) in a machine and take those talents to the nth level. As to why that wouldn’t happen, I don’t know. The advances may be slow, but I don’t see why we wouldn’t get there. Even if the best artificial intelligence can hope for is to be as smart as the smartest humans who ever lived, that is still going to result in endless advances. A world with trillions of AI, each with the cognitive capabilities of nobel prize winners, fields medalists, MIT professors, world renowned inventors, etc. is going to result in massive scientific advances. But creativity and intelligence likely extends far beyond what humans are innately capable of. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technological-singularity-why-would-it-not-happen/549252/57 "2010-08-09T03:42:38Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Given that Asimov wrote two books worth of stories and several novels about the nuances of the 3 laws, I suspect that if encoded somehow they would be easy to get around. Plus there would be a major performance hit, as every action a robot took would have to be sent through a 3 laws filter. What I take into account is that there are other common sense ways to apply the laws, as even Asimov noticed before, the laws actually apply to most tools humans use. > **[Three Laws of Robotics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics)** > > The Three Laws of Robotics (often shortened to The Three Laws or Asimov's Laws) are a set of rules devised by science fiction author Isaac Asimov, which were to be followed by robots in several of his stories. The rules were introduced in his 1942 short story "Runaround" (included in the 1950 collection I, Robot), although similar restrictions had been implied in earlier stories. > The Three Laws, presented to be from the fictional "Handbook of Robotics, 56th Edition, 2058 A.D.", are: > The Three L... > [@](#): > > In a later essay Asimov points out that analogues of the Laws are implicit in the design of almost all tools: > > 1. A tool must be safe to use. Hammers have handles, screwdrivers have hilts. > 2. A tool must perform its function efficiently unless this would harm the user. > 3. A tool must remain intact during its use unless its destruction is required for its use or for safety.[11] This is why robots for consumer use will not become taller than the average human and it is very unlikely that they would be made too strong or capable of using weapons. Thanks to pattern recognition this is not impossible to do. > [@Lumpy](#): > > Asimov either said or implied (would have to check references) that the three laws were somehow intrinsically embedded in the logic structures that made a robot sentient. That the AI simply wouldn’t _work_ in a manner that would contradict them. Of course Asimov handwaved the whole subject of how you program an artificial intelligence to begin with; he simply presumed that some extension of mathematical logic, carried out by machine and scaled up would somehow yield intelligence. Quite a few pioneers in computer science evidently thought so too, until it became clear that general intelligence (or “common sense”) wasn’t simply a matter of giving a computer an extensive enough list of rules to follow. A few Platonists like Roger Penrose claim that intelligence isn’t even computable in the algorithmic sense of the word. And here is why I wonder why many that are interested in this subject are not aware of Jeff Hawkins. [http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff\_hawkins\_on\_how\_brain\_science\_will\_change\_computing.html](http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_hawkins_on_how_brain_science_will_change_computing.html) > [@](#): > > Some people say, brains can’t understand brains. Very zen-like. Whoo. You know – (Audience Laughter) It sounds good, but why? I mean, what’s the point? It’s just a bunch of cells. You understand your liver. It’s got a lot of cells in it too, right? So, you know, I don’t think there’s anything to that. And finally, some people say, well, you know, I don’t feel like a bunch of cells, you know. I’m conscious. I’ve got this experience, I’m in the world, you know. I can’t be just a bunch of cells. Well, you know, people used to believe there was a life force to be living, and we now know that’s really not true at all. And there’s really no evidence that says, well, other than people just have disbelief that cells can do what they do. And so, if some people have fallen into the pit of metaphysical dualism, some really smart people, too, but we can reject all that. > (Audience Laughter) If one does not want to see the video one can read the transcript by clicking on “Open interactive transcript »” In that talk Hawkins does mention how wrong early AI researchers were (including the issue of why trying to use data mining and other brute force tools were dead ends) What is notorious to me is that even before he showed up I had proposed that AI research is or was affected by the prejudices present in many researchers. > [@](#): > > And finally, let’s think about how we test intelligence. We test it by prediction. What is the next word in this, you know? This is to this as this is to this. What is the next number in this sentence? Here’s three visions of an object. What’s the fourth one? That’s how we test it. It’s all about prediction. So what is the recipe for brain theory? First of all, we have to have the right framework. And the framework is a memory framework, not a computation or behavior framework. It’s a memory framework. How do you store and recall these sequences or patterns? It’s spatio-temporal patterns. Then, if in that framework, you take a bunch of theoreticians. > > Now biologists generally are not good theoreticians. It’s not always true, but in general, there’s not a good history of theory in biology. So I found the best people to work with are physicists, engineers and mathematicians, who tend to think algorithmically. Then they have to learn the anatomy, and they’ve got to learn the physiology. \*\*You have to make these theories very realistic in anatomical terms. Anyone who gets up and tells you their theory about how the brain works and doesn’t tell you exactly how it’s working in the brain and how the wiring works in the brain, it is not a theory. \*\*And that’s what we’re doing at the Redwood Neuroscience Institute. I would love to have more time to tell you we’re making fantastic progress in this thing, and I expect to be back up on this stage, maybe this will be some other time in the not too distant future and tell you about it. I’m really, really excited. This is not going to take 50 years at all. > > **So what will brain theory look like? First of all, it’s going to be a theory about memory. Not like computer memory. It’s not at all like computer memory. It’s very, very different. And it’s a memory of these very high-dimensional patterns, like the things that come from your eyes. It’s also memory of sequences. You cannot learn or recall anything outside of a sequence. A song must be heard in sequence over time, and you must play it back in sequence over time. And these sequences are auto-associatively recalled, so if I see something, I hear something, it reminds me of it, and then it plays back automatically. It’s an automatic playback. And prediction of future inputs is the desired output. And as I said, the theory must be biologically-accurate, it must be testable, and you must be able to build it. If you don’t build it, you don’t understand it.** So, one more slide here. > > What is this going to result in? Are we going to really build intelligent machines? Absolutely. And it’s going to be different than people think. No doubt that it’s going to happen, in my mind. First of all, it’s going to be built up, we’re going to build the stuff out of silicon. The same techniques we use for building silicon computer memories, we can use for here. But they’re very different types of memories. And we’re going to attach these memories to sensors, and the sensors will experience real-live, real-world data, and these things are going to learn about their environment. > > **Now it’s very unlikely the first things you’re going to see are like robots. Not that robots aren’t useful and people can build robots. But the robotics part is the hardest part. That’s the old brain. That’s really hard. The new brain is actually kind of easier than the old brain. So the first thing we’re going to do are the things that don’t require a lot of robotics. So you’re not going to see C-3PO. You’re going to more see things like, you know, intelligent cars that really understand what traffic is and what driving is and have learned that certain types of cars with the blinkers on for half a minute probably aren’t going to turn** , things like that. > > (Laughter) ---
**Author:** ![Baboonanza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f475e1/32.png) [@Baboonanza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baboonanza)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technological-singularity-why-would-it-not-happen/549252/58 "2010-08-09T12:41:33Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Everything seems so simple once it’s been discovered, the ability to see what isn’t there but should be is ingenuity. I sincerely doubt, even if we can get a self aware robot, that it’ll have that spark. But that is exactly my point. By assuming that AI won’t have creativity you are making baseless guesses from an emotional position that human sentience is somehow ‘special’. Unless you believe in ‘spirits’ or ‘souls’ or any of that tosh then it’s a position that cannot be justified. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technological-singularity-why-would-it-not-happen/549252/59 "2010-08-09T14:37:07Z")
> [@Baboonanza](#): > > Well one things for certain: If the AI take over they won’t plug us into a giant simulation so that they can harvest ‘bio-electrical energy’, despite having fusion technology. > > Because that would be fucking retarded. That doesn’t eliminate it as a possibility, though. I like to think that the AI was, if not fucking retarded, at least bloody mental. Of course that’s a dumb energy source. They didn’t do it to harvest humanity, they did it to fuck with people, because they hated people. BUt they couldn’t admit that to themselves, so they came up with the FR “energy source” idea. > [@msmith537](#): > > Take, for example, the perspective of futurists from a little over 300 years ago, before the practical widespread use of the steam engine. They might be able to extrapolate the future of sailing based on gradually increasing sail sizes or modifying hull shapes. But at some point, their imaginations would have reached the point beyond which further advancement in naval technology would be impossible without the steam engine and more advanced materials. Their singularity would be some sort of theoretical machine that could operate without wind and with much greater power. A couple days ago I heard on the radio a story about how Syria (I think) has blocked the use of blackberries, a fact people discovered when service was interrupted, and that it was done because the encryption of blackberries impaired anti-terrorist surveillance. And I got to thinking how a 19th century person would be terrified by hearing that news story, how it would sound like some Russian absurdist playwright’s dystopian vision come to life. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technological-singularity-why-would-it-not-happen/549252/60 "2010-08-09T16:09:44Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Asimov either said or implied (would have to check references) that the three laws were somehow intrinsically embedded in the logic structures that made a robot sentient. That the AI simply wouldn’t _work_ in a manner that would contradict them. Of course Asimov handwaved the whole subject of how you program an artificial intelligence to begin with; he simply presumed that some extension of mathematical logic, carried out by machine and scaled up would somehow yield intelligence. Quite a few pioneers in computer science evidently thought so too, until it became clear that general intelligence (or “common sense”) wasn’t simply a matter of giving a computer an extensive enough list of rules to follow. A few Platonists like Roger Penrose claim that intelligence isn’t even computable in the algorithmic sense of the word. I was describing the difficulty of actually implementing the three laws in a real AI. Asimov was writing only about five years after Shannon invented digital logic, and he wasn’t a computer scientist or logician, so he can be excused for getting it wrong. What he got right was looking at the implications of robots. That’s why we read the stories today, and almost no one reads the Adam Link stories. BTW, IIRC Campbell actually wrote down the three laws first, but he said that they were implicit in Asimov’s story. Still, let’s not confuse technology which works for fiction with that which works in the real world. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technological-singularity-why-would-it-not-happen/549252.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technological-singularity-why-would-it-not-happen/549252.md?page=4)