Machines 'to match man by 2029

[ChordatesLegacy]

LINK

I think we all accept that machines are getting cleverer, and if this continues it is inevitable that they will become our equals, intellectually that is, at some point in the future.

As these machines would be far superior to us humans in the exploration of space etc, due to them not needing gases to breath, food to eat, company, not suffering zero gravity illnesses etc.

Are humans resigned to the dustbin, as the future seems to belong to you machines?

Will machines with imagination have to be considered to have souls?

 

[Atheuz]

I'm just waiting for the Technological Singularity, because it's badass. Seriously though, it's bound to come sooner or later, it's the last invention man needs to make - A computer smarter than man, it'll make us worthless in terms of technological progress because the singularity will just keep improving itself and make better versions which will become exponentially better because by every improvement it makes it'll be able to make even better improvements.

 

[Patashu]

I don't think I can see computers significantly smarter than humans any time soon. I do have a good hundred years to stick around to see one, on the other hand...

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

I don't think I can see computers significantly smarter than humans any time soon. I do have a good hundred years to stick around to see one, on the other hand...

In general I would agree, but continuous progress in AI technologies makes it inevitable that machines will one day be more intelligent than humans.

 

[AV1611VET]

In general I would agree, but continuous progress in AI technologies makes it inevitable that machines will one day be more intelligent than humans.

Ya ... someday.

We always get fed fancy futuristic paradigms. Someone comes up with an idea, and the first thing is that someone publishes it on page one. Then when the idea falls through, there's either no mention of it, or it's failure gets published on page nine. Weren't we supposed to run out of food eight years ago?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Ya ... someday.

We always get fed fancy futuristic paradigms. Someone comes up with an idea, and the first thing is that someone publishes it on page one. Then when the idea falls through, there's either no mention of it, or it's failure gets published on page nine. Weren't we supposed to run out of food eight years ago?

For once we are in agreement, however the trend is for faster and cleverer machine, unless there is some boundary to the continuation of this trend, the inevitable outcome is highly intelligent machines

 

[Patashu]

Ya ... someday.

We always get fed fancy futuristic paradigms. Someone comes up with an idea, and the first thing is that someone publishes it on page one. Then when the idea falls through, there's either no mention of it, or it's failure gets published on page nine. Weren't we supposed to run out of food eight years ago?

Put it in context, though; our failures today are probably better than our successes a decade or two ago. We're definitely getting better at this whole robotics and AI thing.

 

[Chalnoth]

So, as machines progress in intelligence, will we allow them to become more intelligent than ourselves, or will we instead just augment our own intelligent using them instead?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Borg

 

[[serious]]

"So, as machines progress in intelligence, will we allow them to become more intelligent than ourselves, or will we instead just augment our own intelligent using them instead?"

probably both. nanotech is a promising industry. implantable or even injectable performance enhancing machines may very well be a reality in my time.

 

[DeathMagus]

Why do people assume that without Asimov's Laws of Robotics, any machines we create will turn on us and "relegate us to the dustbin?"

I expect cybernetics to improve as technology does, and eventually our communications devices, data management services, and other conveniences will all be fully integrated.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do people assume that without Asimov's Laws of Robotics, any machines we create will turn on us and "relegate us to the dustbin?"

I see you've never met Deep Blue.

 

[Molal]

I think we will end up augmenting ourselves to become better, faster more resilient. We are already seeing this trend in medical devices (cochlear implant, ocular implants, amputee's, etc). We are also seeing tracking devices such as RFiD for pets and humans.

The big break through will be enhancing cognitive storage ability (and immediate access to stored information), and sensory enhancement through the melding of our nervous system.

In my opinion, robots will be doing repetitive and dangerous jobs and enhanced electronic equipment and software used for the enhancment of human life.

 

[Hnefi]

I very much doubt we will see widespread use of cybernetics within the next century. Besides all the technical difficulties, most people seem happy with who they are, except for minor improvements - but lasic eye surgery is a far cry from implanted hard drives.

I also think there is an overestimation of the capabilities of AI. AI is a very successful field, but not in the way some of us would like. We have long, long way to go before we can create anything that is even close to the cognitive abilities of mammals. The problem isn't hardware, it's software. It's damn hard to build intelligent systems, and it doesn't help that there is a gap between the academia, who are very good at creating algorithms, and the industry, which is very good at implementing algorithms. I don't think we'll see self-aware machines for another forty years.

 

[Split Rock]

"You have been targeted for termination."
http://www.vistawallpaper.com/data/media/5/terminator.jpg

 

[Patashu]

I see you've never met Deep Blue.

Luckily for mankind, chess has never killed anyone.

 

[AV1611VET]

Luckily for mankind, chess has never killed anyone.

The phrase was "relegate us to the dustbin." I've had that done to me a few times in tournaments.

 

[necroforest]

For once we are in agreement, however the trend is for faster and cleverer machine, unless there is some boundary to the continuation of this trend, the inevitable outcome is highly intelligent machines

There's theoretical upper bounds on what can be achieved computationally, but there's a lot more to being "smarter than man" than just fast computational power; computers work very differently than brains do, and to make a "smarter" machine we'd need a much better understanding of what makes us smart.

 

[DeathMagus]

There's theoretical upper bounds on what can be achieved computationally, but there's a lot more to being "smarter than man" than just fast computational power; computers work very differently than brains do, and to make a "smarter" machine we'd need a much better understanding of what makes us smart.

A large portion I think is intuition. We're able to solve problems in creative, abstract ways because we can instinctively spot patterns and trends in ways that computers simply can't.

 

[sfs]

I'll be impressed if Microsoft comes up with a decent operating system by that time.