Future of technology, Morality discussion. - General

Hi there, I wanted to start a small debate about how we see the future of technology For instance, it is possible that in the near future ( 40 years +) computers might be more powerful than all the human race combined. Which mean that from there, It is almost impossible to predict what could happen then. It is known as the Computing Singularity. From then, any AI could be way more intelligent than a human being and most likely being capable of sentience. [img]http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2011/1102/singularity_graphic.jpg[/img] Or the biology department, it might be possible to genetically create our own child in a few decades. It is possible that we just decide to have a child more or like if it was shopping. By that I mean like choosing the air colour, the skin colour, etc of your child. I also think about both side, There are a lot of good things that could happen and a lot of bad things too. What about privacy? I like the new researches done over 3d printing of stem cells, Scientist are working on a way to print different organ using stem cells by printing them. They have successfully created bones and some tissues. What would be the thing that would scare you? I think that having a cpu/gps device inside our body will be awesome but at the same time it will be possible for the government to know where are everyone or worst. Let's discuss about the future and your opinion. What are you afraid of?

We've managed to create some functioning organs. [url]http://video.pbs.org/video/1754537562/[/url] If I could embed this I would

On the topic of engineering human babies; Do you really want every generation to have alot of babies that look like some pop star? Imagine if we had genetic engineering during elvis' day. Everyone would make a baby elvis look-alike. Responsibility also will no longer be in a person's hands. Their ambition will be seen to ought to be nothing more than a function of their genetics. If a child fails they will ask things like "Why didn't you buy me service pack 2?" "Why did you make my hair brown? I wanted blonde!" "Why can you blame me? You made me this way". And what about those who do not want to make a designer baby? Who want to do it the good old fashioned vertical gene transfer way? What about those who cannot afford it? Are we really going to try to make a race of ubermensch? Remember how that turned out last time? All in all, looking at technology, we are either going survive and enter a golden age, or we will kill ourselves with our own pride.

Is there any moral integrity when we know the type of vulnerability people are willing to subject things to for no good reason at all. I'm saying there is no ethical intentions for bringing someone into existence, let alone creating our own frankenstein monsters.

I'd say it's a pretty inevitable thing to happen, you know, the whole "engineer your own child for just 1000$!" To me the more important question is "when will this technology be available" and "how far [I]should[/I] we go?" I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with being able to give your child blue eyes and blonde hair. Where I think we'd go to far is when we'd able to choose our children's facial attributes as they grow up, maybe even their body shape somehow. This will no doubt make people immensely proud of their "creation" and will likely breed insane amounts of pride, which will carry on to the kids. People will become obsessed with creating the perfect child, outdoing others (at least some people would).

[QUOTE=Satane;45284863]So regarding that picture. Silicon cpus can't infinitely get smaller and smaller. They're going to hit 5nm by 2020 and that's pretty close to as small as they can get. From there we can only make bigger and hotter chips. Unless we come up with a new way like quantum computing or graphene, that graph will sharply stop around 2020.[/QUOTE] Well just because they can't get smaller doesn't mean they can't get more efficient in design or simply bigger, progression doesn't stop just because we can't make it more compact.

[QUOTE=ntzu;45285312]Well just because they can't get smaller doesn't mean they can't get more efficient in design or simply bigger, progression doesn't stop just because we can't make it more compact.[/QUOTE] The main reason why we can not get them much smaller is because of the Quantum physic problem. If you are not aware about it, it is that in quantum physic, there is a random chance that an electron will pass through small amount of space. Basically it mean that your super small transistor has a chance to not work properly because electrons will pass even if they are not supposed to. It may be a problem in the near future, Probably in less than 10 years. That's why we need to start using new materials. The low progression will cause the production two slow down a lot since we don't have much other alternative. And making larger products only mean they will get heavier too. It is a problem when you want to transport them. At least, they are working on Quantum computer at the moment, I saw some news about the first quantum processors being made in Canada I think

[QUOTE=pac0master;45278356]Or the biology department, it might be possible to genetically create our own child in a few decades. It is possible that we just decide to have a child more or like if it was shopping. By that I mean like choosing the air colour, the skin colour, etc of your child. [/QUOTE] I wold definitely not want to change the random attributes of my child, except for crippling genetic diseases, like the ones that cause organ failure. Of course then there's those who would want their child to be a genius or super athlete or change them to exact specs. What happens when we've made the next generation super-people? Science Fiction covers this pretty often with interesting results.

Problem is when everyone in the world looks insanely beautiful would you really want to have a kid thats not? that one fat girl who's really sweet but has no self esteem, needs glasses, crooked teeth and brown eyes just because you believe its " more natural" She will NOT thank you for that

[QUOTE=mini me;45325750]Problem is when everyone in the world looks insanely beautiful would you really want to have a kid thats not? that one fat girl who's really sweet but has no self esteem, needs glasses, crooked teeth and brown eyes just because you believe its " more natural" She will NOT thank you for that[/QUOTE] Definitely this. It may not be "natural" but I would be a hell of a lot happier if I looked a bit more physically desirable. We've developed technology to the point where we can alter children before they are born. No child is going to want to grow up and be less beautiful/handsome than their peers. Besides, what does "normal" even mean? You have to have sex in order to make a child? I can't see any morals being defied by designing a baby. In fact, I can see them being upholded because you are giving the child a more desirable appearance, meaning more children/people will want to interact with them. Normal is constantly changing.

Basically the problem lies in the fact that the person who's designing this person isn't the person themselves. I imagine it'd be just fine if we come up with cheap surgery to drastically alter your appearance before we get to hardcore genetic manipulation, because then the kid can look however the fuck they want.

On an other way, it scare me a lot that it might be possible to alter ourselves in the future but maybe it is simply progress and our intelligence leads us to Self manipulated evolution. And I look at it like today might be very scary for someone who lived thousand of years ago. Changes are just arriving faster and faster which is the Singularity. One day, within the time of one generation the change will be so severe that the first one might not even be able to follow the change entirely. Looks how hard it is for our grandparents to keep track with the Computers or Internet.

[QUOTE=pac0master;45340419]On an other way, it scare me a lot that it might be possible to alter ourselves in the future but maybe it is simply progress and our intelligence leads us to Self manipulated evolution. And I look at it like today might be very scary for someone who lived thousand of years ago. Changes are just arriving faster and faster which is the Singularity. One day, within the time of one generation the change will be so severe that the first one might not even be able to follow the change entirely. Looks how hard it is for our grandparents to keep track with the Computers or Internet.[/QUOTE] I don't know about you, but if genetic engineering becomes a thing, I will be one of those people who just utterly refuse to do it. There will be a schism in the races of humanity when that happens. I prefer to keep my children's DNA intact. I'll be the old geezer grumbling about where society has gotten to.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;45340643]I don't know about you, but if genetic engineering becomes a thing, I will be one of those people who just utterly refuse to do it. There will be a schism in the races of humanity when that happens. I prefer to keep my children's DNA intact. I'll be the old geezer grumbling about where society has gotten to.[/QUOTE] that's why I find this scary. One one side i find the idea awesome but I also see the problems so I can't make my decision about it

fuck morals I want a robot and I don't care about no singularity

Either we go the way we're going or we kick back and become super luddites again. There is no way to hang on the middle that we call comfortable.

Although raw processing power is increasing exponentially I wouldn't say our knowledge of AI is as well. A processor faster than the human brain won't necessarily compare unless it has the needed software and we aren't very close to unlocking the secrets of thought, emotion, etc. So I'm not very afraid of a conscious AI so much as much as I am of these powerful computers being programmed to do one thing very well (like play the stock market, create video games, etc.) and displacing human workers.

[QUOTE=Delerme;45344389]A processor faster than the human brain won't necessarily compare unless it has the needed software and we aren't very close to unlocking the secrets of thought, emotion, etc.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network#Convergence"]Artificial neural networks[/URL] use a system similar to organic learning, in order to make associations better. It's a way to make [B]Artificial Intelligence[/B], and it is currently very useful for data gathering and data analysis and what not. Artificial neural networks grow in intelligence. Because of this sort of software, [U]I don't think we need to know as much as you say.[/U] We might at some point in time, make a sort of digital embryo. And it could [I](even mistakenly)[/I] have all the basic instructions on how to grow into a superhuman intelligence.

On the topic of technology, moral and robots replacing humans, do you think a simple machine would ever be able to replace a human being. I mean, people talk how there will be nothing but robots in the military and police, and yet no one so far has been able to give "emotions" to a machine. The same thing goes for morale. If an army robot was told by its platoon commander to blow up a building full of one thousand people because there might be a terrorist inside, I don't think there would be much to stop it. If there is a theoretical way to transfer emotions to a robot, please, do tell, but until then, this is what I think. Keep in mind, this is in a time when a singularity has not happened. But ok, I was only talking about non-civilian jobs, when it comes to workers like janitors or taxi drivers, robots might be able to replace them, but people like translators and journalists will always be needed (as long as there are humans alive). Why? Because languages rapidly evolve, they have completely different structures, they have idioms and phrasal verbs, things you would have to manually "teach" to a robot. And by the time you are done, the structure of the said language would have probably changed even more. There is a real life example of such an artificial translator right now - Google Translate. Yes, in the future technology will advance and our understanding of the human languages will expand, but will it be enough to make a perfect robot translator? My point is that as long as there are humans alive, robots may only be able to replace jobs connected to, for example, unskilled manual labour. We will always needs human soldiers, police officers, journalists, etc. All of you will see somethings wrong with my post, just know, that this is all very generalized. The large gap between rich and poor in some countries, the lack of resources in others and different other factors can shape the face of these robots in a different way. I might be forgetting something, which could change what I wrote in my post, so feel free to correct me as much as you want.

[QUOTE=Nighty;45346828]If an army robot was told by its platoon commander to blow up a building full of one thousand people because there might be a terrorist inside, I don't think there would be much to stop it.[/QUOTE] We already have military robots. They're called drones. Commanding officers don't even give them direct orders necessarily - the on board A.I. determines targets and they do not have an emotion holding them back from collateral destruction, just like in your example. [QUOTE=Nighty;45346828]Janitors or taxi drivers, robots might be able to replace them, but people like translators and journalists will always be needed (as long as there are humans alive).[/QUOTE] When it comes to accountancy work and data analysis and the like, computers are already leagues ahead of us. They kick our ass at repetitious logical tasks. But what machines fail at is practical physical work within a dynamic environment like an office building or a school or a city. Modern robots are crap in those environments, unlike modern software systems - which have a very essential role these days - as they can do their jobs better than humans can. My point is, today, machines replace data analysts and translators better than they replace janitors and low education manual labourers - why would it be in reverse in the future? Oh, but regarding journalists and social based jobs, I can't see them being replaced as easily as language translators. Because companies wouldn't trust robots enough to write articles on their behalf. People will remain to be better at emotional communications for a long time, I'd say.

[QUOTE=mini me;45325750]Problem is when everyone in the world looks insanely beautiful would you really want to have a kid thats not? that one fat girl who's really sweet but has no self esteem, needs glasses, crooked teeth and brown eyes just because you believe its " more natural" She will NOT thank you for that[/QUOTE] i don't think it's possible to have a future where everyone is beautiful. not only because beauty is subjective, but also because if everyone started having similar-looking children, new beauty standards would be created

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;45340643]I don't know about you, but if genetic engineering becomes a thing, I will be one of those people who just utterly refuse to do it. There will be a schism in the races of humanity when that happens. I prefer to keep my children's DNA intact. I'll be the old geezer grumbling about where society has gotten to.[/QUOTE] I would find it immoral if I had kids and refused to give them all the advantages that technology could offer, especially if a significant portion of other children had those advantages. If during your child's pregnancy doctors were able to determine that it would be born with a terminal heart defect that would result in death early in life, but this could be remedied through genetic engineering and give your child a full, long life, would you really condemn that child to a shortened life just because genetic engineering makes you feel icky? I know you'd prefer to keep your children's DNA intact, but let's face it: human DNA is flawed. We have tons of diseases and disorders that can be largely attributed to our genetic makeup. Why shouldn't we improve our DNA if we have the ability to do it, and give future generations better chances at living a longer, healthier life?

[QUOTE=Kardia;45350209]My point is, today, machines replace data analysts and translators better than they replace janitors and low education manual labourers - why would it be in reverse in the future?[/QUOTE] Well, you're talking about today, and I'm pretty sure in the future humanity will have evolved robotics to such an extent, that we will be seeing androids with the capabilities of human workers. And a robot with such qualities might prove to be cheaper than a human worker. About the translators, robots have only replaced them to very small degree. I mean, if you want a hight quality translation, you're not going to use Google Translate or Bing, are you? Machine translators only give you the general idea, sometimes not even that. The only use I find for them is when I don't know the meaning of a given word. They won't be able to replace human translators, they will be more like a helping hand.

I find it hard to reconcile some conflicting views from some pretty smart people on the topic. Kurzweil, a bit of a nut, but smart guy, proclaims the singularity will happen and that it'll be an overall positive thing in the long run Hawking who may not be a genius in the field of computers is pretty damn sure that the second we create an intelligent AI, we've started down a real scary road to our extinction.

[QUOTE=mini me;45325750]Problem is when everyone in the world looks insanely beautiful would you really want to have a kid thats not? that one fat girl who's really sweet but has no self esteem, needs glasses, crooked teeth and brown eyes just because you believe its " more natural" She will NOT thank you for that[/QUOTE] Well for a start, the 'natural' girl is gonna look a lot more unique than cookie-cutter perfect girls. If everyone is beautiful, then they're just average, and anything that defies the norm will become more popular. Plus some people find those 'flaws' attractive

[QUOTE=Satane;45360531]When we finally do create an AI it won't be any smarter than humans.[/QUOTE] If we could make AI at least as intelligent as we are, why couldn't it improve itself beyond our capabilities?

[QUOTE=kidwithsword;45361855]If we could make AI at least as intelligent as we are, why couldn't it improve itself beyond our capabilities?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Satane;45366514]Because it's still just a piece of software, it can't magically do things we haven't told it to.[/QUOTE] Well, first of all, you're wrong, but lets ignore that for now. Lets say someone actually succeeded in creating a computer with a level of intelligence exactly equal to a human being. What in the world does that mean? Would the machine not be able to learn any faster than a human? It would have instantaneous access to the entire world's knowledge, so that wouldn't be a practical metric. Would it not think any more deeply than a human? Sure, maybe - except you're dealing with an entity with 100% accurate memories that never degenerate. You could give it a problem and it could work on it for years with no fatigue, always at 100% efficiency. New information would be instantly and perfectly committed to memory and the entire problem could be examined with the new scope without limitation. Would it not be more complex than a human brain? Why not? If it was exactly as complex as a human brain, what happens if you upgrade it? For all intents and purposes, this machine would be like a human, only way way way better - which would give it the capability to think in ways we didn't plan for. Now, as to why you're wrong: it's a principle of mathematics. We can create infinitely complicated expressions with simple algorithms. Create a simple, perfect component that can interact with similar components in dynamic ways ([sp]like the human neuron[/sp]), and you've got a machine which can eventually arrive at incredibly complicated states ([sp]like the human brain[/sp]) without needing to be made to do so. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45360014]Hawking who may not be a genius in the field of computers is pretty damn sure that the second we create an intelligent AI, we've started down a real scary road to our extinction.[/QUOTE] We're already on a scary road to our extinction. Our sun is going to blow up and then the universe is going to end. Even before that, we're all going to die. A person, a human being, isn't a bag of flesh made from chemical code - a person is the total sum of all the information that has gone in and out of it's head. We're in flux, and we are flux itself; that's what it means to live. A dead person is dead because they are no longer changing or learning or thinking - they've become a single frame, a bag of meat. They've got state, but it's not very interesting. With that in mind, any machine we create is going to be a result of ourselves - it's going to be a continuation of that flux. A true AI would be human just as much as a new child would be. Ray Kurzweil's viewpoint doesn't even need to answer the question of extinction, because he views the role of technology as a force through which we guide our own evolution from random organization to intelligent organization. It may be the only way to [i]escape[/i] extinction.

I think a human designed AI would be human like in some elements but it would be unique to itself and incredibly alien to us. Programming an actual AI isn't just teaching it to think like you, it's teaching it how to make connections and it may not make connections as we do.

Numerous AI companions wouldn't be such a fearful thought as long as we maintained a certain method of control over them, such as the ability to shut them down completely from the ISS or something similar. The thing I'm worried most about is everything going down the drain before we can achieve true scientific prowess. World leaders for some reason always feel the need to fight and war and suck the life out of the planet and inhabitants. If things such as war, religion, and large governments didn't constantly get in our way, we might have colonized Mars by now, or more (think about the Dark Ages and the Crusades -- if it wasn't for those, we'd be at least a thousand years more advanced). Still, the thought of surviving long enough to get off this planet and doing amazing things (with robotics, virtual reality, space travel, even time travel) makes me all giddy inside. I'm keeping my fingers crossed we make it that far.

I hope we don't make a mistake and teach our greeds to these robots. But the thing is the day we can create more robots to create products ,etc... will be the extinction of Capitalism. No job? No money, no way to buy product. (Large) companies can't sell anymore. We are already seeing parts of it happening as the robotic industry started around the late 70's I think.