Nov 082011
 

Covered this way back in June, when Fujitsu and RIKEN were all like: “Yeah, our new computer is at 8 flops now, that’s almost 4 times faster than the next best supercomputer – just saying.” At that time the next closest was a 2+flopper from China.

Oh, and a few days ago they were all like: “So, we decided to add another couple of flops, so it’s at 10 now, JSYK.” Criticize Kurzweil all you like when he raps about the exponential returns in technological advancement, but I’m pretty sure that 2³ = 8, and that’s like, you know, an exponentiation – which is totally a word.

For now, the next projected leap for the Fujitsu RIKEN machines will be up to 23 flops or so. No, that’s not exponential, but seriously, how far away can 100 flops be?

Of course the term “supercomputer” means a lot of different things depending on intended use and each machine’s particular task orientation and software array, and faster doesn’t always mean better – but it still means a lot.

In any case, stuff’s changing fast, son.

[ARTICLE VIA REGISTER UK]

Oct 272011
 

Follow the Names – Follow the Cash
So, whether you think The Singularity is near or far, agree or disagree, have weird religious fervor for or against it, or aren’t interested at all, you’d be foolish not to pay attention to who’s paying attention to the concept. Have a look at who founded and is funding Singularity University, and that should give you a good idea what I’m talking about here.

Anyway, they just had their 2011 Singularity Summit. It’s stuffed full of interesting people who’ve got interesting ideas about almost everything in the world that’s interesting. Their site has videos, articles, and other stuff stuff from the world’s leading futurists and technology experts.

Oh, and Singularity Hub has a great 3-part series on the event – recommended.
Singularity Hub on the Singularity Summit Part 1:
Longevity and Health
Singularity Hub on the Singularity Summit Part 2:
Artificial Intelligence and the Brain
Singularity Hub on the Singularity Summit Part 3
Singularity and the Future

[SINGULARITY SUMMIT 2011 - SINGULARITY HUB]

Oct 232011
 

Ahhh, That’s Nice
And upon reading Kurzweil’s remarks, one gets the sense that Allen should feel lucky to even be mentioned in the same article. It’s a pretty diplomatic rebuttal from Kurzweil – but you get the feeling he’s holding back a significant level of, oh I don’t know… scathing intellectual contempt?

You know that feeling you get when someone you respect, who you know is intelligent and very good at what they do – when they open their mouth about something way outside their area of expertise and sound really foolish, and you suddenly feel like you just watched your neighbor’s dog drag its ass across the front lawn? In any case, my opinion is that Kurzweil was taking the high road in his response to Allen’s disparagingly cursory overview of the Technological Singularity (not to mention his weak logic), and that’s nice of him.

This Guy Does That and That Guy Does This
It brings to mind an excellent piece from Wired on the Intellectual Vs. the Engineer, by Timothy Ferris. Paul Allen knows business & marketing, and we should listen to what he says about that. But when it comes to all things Singularity, he’s an armchair intellectual who hasn’t actually done anything of note in the field. No one can really argue that Paul Allen isn’t a good businessperson or marketer, but I think it’s obvious who was the dorky programmer and who was the savvy businessman in the ‘Gates+Allen=Global Dominion Over PCs‘ equation.

Kurzweil, on the other hand, was making computers compose original music in 1965. So… who would you trust on the issue of machine intelligence?

That’s why I don’t run a website about cooking.
And Paul Allen should just make with fixing NBA 2011/2012.

[KURZWEIL'S REBUTTAL HERE - KURZWEIL AI]

BOOKS MENTIONED IN THIS POST:
Get your copy of
The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology,”
by Ray Kurzweil at Anthrobotic’s Amazon!


Oct 172011
 

Here’s an articulate, well-composed piece by Paul Allen and a colleague wherein they argue that, contrary to the Kurzweilian & Vingeian(?) assertion that “It’s Near,” the Singularity is, umm… far.
If ever.

Their Why is Wrong Though
It’s an interesting thing for a computer pioneer like Paul Allen to be a kind of technological naysayer. Because for all his genius and all this guy has given the world, his reasoning for not being hip to the possibility of a Technological Singularity is surprisingly lame. What I’m saying is, he might actually be right that it’s distant or unlikely, but his reason why is like, you know, fallacious.

My Logic is Undeniable. My Logic is Undeniable!
Okay, here’s the thing: I will totally concede that people like Paul Allen are in many ways smarter and more capable and more experienced than I (obviously, right?). But for some unknown reason, he and other analysts unenthusiastic about and absolutist naysayers against the Singularity fail to see a fundamental flaw in their most hallowed rebuttal, and that rebuttal is: We don’t understand thought or consciousness or intelligence or cognition and we can’t define them therefore we’re incapable of recreating human intelligence or a super-smart NBI (non-biological intelligence).

The Flaw
Quote: “This prior need to understand the basic science of cognition is where the “singularity is near” arguments fail to persuade us.” and “Building the complex software that would allow the singularity to happen requires us to first have a detailed scientific understanding of how the human brain works that we can use as an architectural guide…”

But… but… WHY? Continue reading »

Aug 252011
 

Look harder.

IBM is doing more amazing stuff.
First, props to Rhonda Callow for bringing up this socio-technological issue. It’s extremely relevant and timely and merits serious discussion. IBM, at 100 years and two months old, continues giant-stepping forward in the field of non-biological intelligence (NBI), and people should talk about that – because IBM is pushing AI and NBI, like, STAT.

The Wrong Question.
After mentioning Watson, this year’s non-human Jeopardy! champion, the author of the referenced piece also details IBM’s newest experimental brain-like chip that learns and does massively parallel processing stuff like the human brain. So then we have the question, which is the article’s title, but I think that, maybe without realizing it, what the author really means to posit here is: Can a computer be intelligent like a human?
And the real answer to the whole AI/NBI question is: It doesn’t have to be.

No offense to Callow, the brief article is well written and asks an important question. But the part that kills me is her in-article answer to the question, which is: “I don’t think so.” Okay, fine – her opinion – but directly after, she concedes that we have yet to really understand or define what intelligence is.  Here is where I’ll insert a giant figurative GLARING FLAW OF LOGIC neon sign. Granted, she’s only stating an opinion, but it’s obviously biased, and she pretty much dismisses even the possibility.

I have the Weirdest Logic Right Now.
Perhaps read her piece first, and then come back here.
I get worked up about even small articles like this because, in aggregate, such opinion becomes a kind of memetic force whose adherents seem oblivious to the inherent logical flaw of the “Artificial Human-Level Intelligence is Wildly Unlikely and/or Impossible Because We Don’t Know What Intelligence Is” camp. But go read her stuff, and then read the rest of my stuff here, and then decide for yourself if I’m being overly critical or picky or if it’s actually me who’s got the flawed logic. Comments welcomed. Continue reading »

Aug 132011
 

Data was Missing.

As the writing staff here (which is, you know, me) have been stuck in a southern Japanese forest for the past four days, not much new has happened at www.anthrobotic.com.  But we’re back in the stream now, and will put forth on Monday.  Until then, have a look at a slightly remixed/remastered version of the site’s most popular post ever:

Technology Created Organized Religion.
Next Project: Cults For & Against the Singularity.
(Now with snarky topical headings to ease the pain of the article’s length!)


Futurism, Techno-Sociology, Technological Anthropology, Sociotechnological Studies, Anthrobotic Sociology – or just, you know, generic human science or whatever, has borrowed from cosmology & astrophysics the concept of a “singularity,” and capitalized it.  Very basically, it’s where the rules break down – gravity, time, and space go bananas.  Regarding human technology, it centers around us producing an intelligence that supersedes our own, which in turn does its own thing, and as a result all we can predict about the future is that it will become utterly unpredictable – all truisms will fail, we’ll be flying blind.  (continue reading)

We’ll be back soon!
[ORIGINAL POST HERE]