/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11853192]

How true are actually all the futurist claims about accelerating change and the "singularity" being almost imminent within the next few decades?

[Anonymous No.11853268]

Nobody knows for sure desu. I hope they're true

[Anonymous No.11853436]

>>11853192
It's just a possibility. It only means you can not make predictions beyond this point. If it's happens this can change everything. And not necessary in a good way. E.g. machines take over and decide humanity has to be removed. We can hope it does not happen.

[Anonymous No.11853447]

>>11853192
Accelerating change doesn't exist. The ONLY thing that has ever increased exponentially has been number of transistors per square centimeter chip (or whatever size chip you're talking about). That is then applied to other domains to help with computationally heavy problems in those other fields of science and technology.
Some people took this and then ran with the narrative that "technology is increasing exponentially!" but that is not, was not, never has been and never will be true.

[Anonymous No.11853466]

The problem is that the metrics are narrow, especially if computational speeds sacrifice security or the long term supply of materials. Even ideally, it may reach an inflection point soon and turn out to be more fitted by a logistical curve. Limitations are an unfortunate reality.

[Anonymous No.11853474]

>>11853192
>the "singularity"
This is where they are mistaken.

Even by their own definition of the singularity they are mistaken.

They forget the curve is smooth.

The singularity they speak of is a total non-event.

>Can we follow everything that happens in todays world without computers?

No, that is, the singularity already happened by this definition, several years ago.

>But maybe the singularity is when super-human AI appears.

Sure, but remember, the curve is smooth, so before get super-human AI we have human equivalent AI, and before that we have retarded shitposter AI. It will be just another day at the office when the average AI scores 1 IQ point more than the average human.

In 50 years the streets outside will look the same, the beach nearby will look the same. The cars will look similar, some might be self-driving. But the small supermarket will be the same because automation is still expensive.

If I get cancer I can take a pill each day for three weeks and be cured.

If I need therapy I can talk to a therAIpist

That's about the only differences I expect to see in the rest of my life.

[Anonymous No.11853484]

>>11853192
Whats the maximal speed, you can accelerate an human (given he is indebted in liquid to distribute the forces), on an magnetic rail-gun expander, of 3 km? (lhc is 5km)

And how many fuel you would save?

[Anonymous No.11853623]

>>11853474
That sounds comfy though

[Anonymous No.11853630]

>>11853192
>In view of everything we've said up to this point, and in view moreover of the fact that the techies' vision of the future is based on pure speculation and is unsupported by evidence, one has to ask how they can believe in that vision. Some techies, e.g. , Kurzweil, do concede a slight degree of uncertainty as to whether their expectations for the future will be realized, but this seems to be no more than a sop that they throw to the skeptics, something they have to concede in order to avoid making themselves too obviously ridiculous in the eyes of rational people. Despite their pro forma admission of uncertainty, it's clear that most techies confidently expect to live for many centuries, if not forever, in a world that will be in some vaguely defined sense a utopia. Thus Kurzweil states flatly: "We will be able to live as long as we want... ." He adds no qualifiers-no "probably," no "if things turn out as expected." His whole book reveals a man intoxicated with a vision of the future in which, as an immortal machine, he will participate in the conquest of the universe. In fact, Kurzweil and other techies are living in a fantasy world.

[Anonymous No.11854193]

>>11853474
>Sure, but remember, the curve is smooth, so before get super-human AI we have human equivalent AI, and before that we have retarded shitposter AI. It will be just another day at the office when the average AI scores 1 IQ point more than the average human.
Assuming there are still that many offices by then.
>In 50 years the streets outside will look the same, the beach nearby will look the same. The cars will look similar, some might be self-driving.
Probably yes.
>But the small supermarket will be the same because automation is still expensive.
It's still expensive at the moment, but I wouldn't be so sure 20 years from now.

[Anonymous No.11856202]

bump

[Anonymous No.11856424]

>>11853192
completely incorrect
Futurists have claimed we'd have fucking flying cars by the year 2010

These people just make money from selling wild fantasies

[Anonymous No.11856455]

>>11853447
>Some people took this and then ran with the narrative that "technology is increasing exponentially!" but that is not, was not, never has been and never will be true.

So what you're saying is that between the year 0 and 1000 AD, they experienced 10 times the technological advancement as the 20th Century.

[Anonymous No.11858050]

bump

[Anonymous No.11858324]

>>11853192
0% probability

you need visionaries to push things but turn off your brain when they talk about timiing

[Anonymous No.11858372]

>>11854193
>It's still expensive at the moment, but I wouldn't be so sure 20 years from now.

20 years isn't that much time. It needs to be invented, it needs to be proven in real world situation, it needs to be rolled out on a large scale and the supermarket need to revise their workflow and supply chains to work with it.

A lot of steps to take.