Skynet is coming.

[GIThruster]

Will never make it into regular use since it has already been demonstrated to be a health hazard.

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/

Correction. Looks like though there is adequate evidence that Thz radiation does DNA damage, these scanners are passive--they use the natural Thz radiation coming from warm bodies to scan, so looks like this is going to stay.

http://www.wi-ltd.com/security/Scanning ... tz_Scanner

[Luzr]

Cool ideas to be sure, but we lack the ability to create awareness.

Yet. If Moore's law continues to work, we get there by around 2040.

In fact, I think the combined HW of world or even some google data center _might_ have the raw HW power now (if you count in that brain might be ineffective dealing with all that biology stuff). The problem is lack of algorithm...

At least we know that awarness algorithm can be compressed to about 0,5GB of data (human DNA code).

I don't see this happening without a break-through like the integrated circuit. You're talking nano-scale development for just the hardware and near quantum computing level read/write/weighting. To clarify, when I say weighting, I'm saying the ability to place value through a neural network where every change is like poking a spider web, the whole thing has to adjust potentially. You pull on one connection (or string) in the network and all the other values have to adjust.

You _might_ be victim of your prejudice about how AI is supposed to work. Emulating brain is something I consider "brute force" algorithm to solve the problem. Even so, if the Moore's law holds, it gets us there by 2040, even if we perform the simulation on regular hardware.

AFAIK, we are now at phase when we are able to emulate, at slow speed, the brain of lower mammals...

Anyway, I think that neural network might be just bad implementation of something that could be implemented better in some other way.

Assuming however; that we do have the current tech to build a self-aware consciencousness that wants to go all terminator on us, we can conclude a few things:

1. There are a limited number of data centers that this "AI" could be housed for base storage.
2. While the "AI" may have access to infinite amounts of data at varying speeds (the internet); it still has to poll that data to effect its neural net, which takes a lot of time, regardless of processors.
3. We would have to stipulate that there are no closed-systems for missile/rocket/rail gun/power/water...etc.

Well, while I do not really agree with everything this guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Yudkowsky

said about the theme, I still recommend reading some of his stuff just to get idea how things could go bad. I think your analysis is quite naive.

[Luzr]

I repeat, "SKYNET" will be run by Humans at the top. They will be dictators, and they will use the machines to force obedience on those of us outside of their clique.

For some limited time, maybe. In the long term, singularity comes and whatever we think about the future will be obsolete.

Personally, I see that moment as inevitable and in fact, a logical next step, if you believe us is culture based on technology.

[ScottL]

You _might_ be victim of your prejudice about how AI is supposed to work. Emulating brain is something I consider "brute force" algorithm to solve the problem. Even so, if the Moore's law holds, it gets us there by 2040, even if we perform the simulation on regular hardware.

AFAIK, we are now at phase when we are able to emulate, at slow speed, the brain of lower mammals...

Anyway, I think that neural network might be just bad implementation of something that could be implemented better in some other way.

Assuming however; that we do have the current tech to build a self-aware consciencousness that wants to go all terminator on us, we can conclude a few things:

1. There are a limited number of data centers that this "AI" could be housed for base storage.
2. While the "AI" may have access to infinite amounts of data at varying speeds (the internet); it still has to poll that data to effect its neural net, which takes a lot of time, regardless of processors.
3. We would have to stipulate that there are no closed-systems for missile/rocket/rail gun/power/water...etc.

Well, while I do not really agree with everything this guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Yudkowsky

said about the theme, I still recommend reading some of his stuff just to get idea how things could go bad. I think your analysis is quite naive.

I am the victim of degrees in computer science and electrical engineering. Based on what I've studied, seen in the industry, and am currently working on, I can safely say we aren't even remotely close and brute-force simply won't be fast enough or efficient enough. Even with multi-core processors in large computing clusters, we have trouble simulating insect brains. Furthermore, Moore's law hasn't held true in nearly 10 years. Systems have not been getting smaller and faster. To step around this issue, we've added more cores, but the truth of the matter is, barring a major break-through, we're hitting our limit in major computing power. We're already fabricating processors at the nanometer scale and silicon just can't do it anymore. We need a break-through.

Take into considering the changes in motherboards over the last 3 years. The major changes aside from more core support are specialized caching for varying devices such as SSD. We're at our limit so to speak when it comes to current fabrication and processes. I repeat, we need a major break-through.

Finally, the processing of information assuming you have an adequate storage would require the likes of the entire internet (no exaggeration) to sluggishly equate to the decision making processes of a small mammal. We simply haven't gotten there yet. I'm not saying never, I'm saying 2040 is extremely optomistic based on our current advancements and slowing trend.

Diogenes assessment is far more likely to happen (even if I disagree with it) before we reach some new-world AI in 2040. I am prejudiced by my knowledge in the field and only that knowledge. If it does happen, and that's a big if, it will be by humans using remote control systems.

[Diogenes]

"1984," required reading freshmen year of high school.

1984 didn't have any robots, just cameras Funny you're citing a known Libertarian to make your point.

Libertarianism is not a mental disease, it is an adherence to a bad meme. Libertarians in general, are perfectly reasonable if you keep them outside of the area of their misconceptions. George Orwell, were he still alive, would no doubt see the potential for abuse in automated watchers as we have and are still developing, now.

I understand sort of what you're getting at, but I disagree as to the inevitability of the result with advancements in technology. I don't believe we'll be enslaved any more than I believe we're going to build a technological utopia. We'll continue to consume it as though it were part of our life at varying rates as we always have. The alternative, living by candle light, is not appealing to me and likely never will be.

It is not inevitable. If people are AWARE of the possibility, they may guard against it. Unfortunately, the technology is moving in the direction to make it easier and easier.

Consider this for example. Many Fire Departments have been issued grants to buy thermal imaging cameras, ostensibly to locate people in smoke filled buildings, because they can see the thermal image of a human through great distances of smoke. These thermal cameras have occasionally been "loaned" to members of police departments and used to locate houses that have unusual quantities of thermal energy escaping from them. Often such images make it possible to discover Marijuana growing operations by the thermal effects of their grow lamps.

Courts have routinely ruled such evidence as impermissible, (An Area where I completely disagree with the court's thinking. Throwing out evidence is always wrong. PUNISHING POLICE for obtaining evidence illegally is the correct way to prevent abuse. IMO) and as a result police have to prevent courts from discovering any of their evidence is linked to the "fruit of a poisoned tree". This results in the Police discovering illegal growing operations, but not acting on THAT information. Instead police will then intentionally scrutinize the building in hopes for gaining an excuse for raiding it under some other pretext.

The Courts are NOT going to be able to keep up with the technology. Years ago, these cameras cost something like $25,000.00 , but the prices keep falling every year. Eventually, these things will be ubiquitous and Joe Public will have them for play-toys. When that happens, are the court going to say no one has a right to look at other people's houses with one of these things?

The ability to spy on people and get them in trouble with the authorities is only going to continue getting better. Also, the ability of the authorities to force compliance with whatever they demand is likewise only going to get better. In any case, I think I have successfully communicated my concern. It does not bother me if you agree with me on this or not, as long as you understand what is my concern, and are able to consider it's possibility of occurring.

[Diogenes]

Not exactly on topic, but related in my opinion. You guys might find this enjoyable.

VIDEO: Home Invasion – A tale of Nanny State laws gone too far.






http://www.coiledsnake.com/2011/09/16/home-invasion/

The trend line now seems for the moment to be in the opposite direction. There is even talk of concealed carry in California. http://www.frontsight.com/CACCW/ One of the last three holdouts counting New York and Illinois. Most of us would probably agree Obama would do gun control if he could, but even with a democratically controlled house and senate which he had initially he didn't have the nuts to do much about it. If I had to guess, looking at Texas, wondering how long before many other states have "Stand your Ground" laws augmenting the castle doctrine type laws we have elsewhere. Or maybe even Texas style right to use deadly force to protect property. These things are happening with a pro-gun control prez..., imagine how it would take off with a pro gun rights president. Or even if Obama wins a 2nd term can't see him getting much done in area of gun control with the current Congress

Yes, the pro-gun forces have effectively won the war on this issue. One of the ways that they have done so is through the use of Public Service Announcements (informing the public) such as the humorous Youtube video up above. In many respects, we have Bill Clinton to thank for rallying the Gun forces and taking over legislatures all across the country. His Ban on Semi-Automatic fire arms was the wake up call for Pro-Gun Americans everywhere. It is to our credit that we have not stopped applying pressure on this issue.

Obama is a eunuch on this issue.

[Diogenes]

Will never make it into regular use since it has already been demonstrated to be a health hazard.

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/

Correction. Looks like though there is adequate evidence that Thz radiation does DNA damage, these scanners are passive--they use the natural Thz radiation coming from warm bodies to scan, so looks like this is going to stay.

http://www.wi-ltd.com/security/Scanning ... tz_Scanner

Your informing me of the DNA damage caused by active Thz radiation devices got me to thinking that it might be possible to selectively tune them for frequencies which are deadly to Bacteria and Viral DNA and turn them into a very effective means of eradicating disease in people. Imagine a treatment where you simply lay in a chamber for some period of time, and when you emerged, all pathogens in your body were destroyed.

I would suspect that researchers in this field have likely already thought of this idea, but if not, perhaps they should look into it.

[Diogenes]

I repeat, "SKYNET" will be run by Humans at the top. They will be dictators, and they will use the machines to force obedience on those of us outside of their clique.

For some limited time, maybe. In the long term, singularity comes and whatever we think about the future will be obsolete.

Personally, I see that moment as inevitable and in fact, a logical next step, if you believe us is culture based on technology.

My understanding of human nature leads me to think that those who wish to rule will never permit machines to take their place. The ability to tell others what to do is just too irresistible for the human species.

[ScottL]

I repeat, "SKYNET" will be run by Humans at the top. They will be dictators, and they will use the machines to force obedience on those of us outside of their clique.

For some limited time, maybe. In the long term, singularity comes and whatever we think about the future will be obsolete.

Personally, I see that moment as inevitable and in fact, a logical next step, if you believe us is culture based on technology.

My understanding of human nature leads me to think that those who wish to rule will never permit machines to take their place. The ability to tell others what to do is just too irresistible for the human species.

I second Diogenes comment here. Aside from several currently unattainable technical aspects I've pointed out, I just don't believe those in power will allow it to usurp their power. It's more pertinent to ones' safety to command a drone than to command a slave.

[choff]

I've been having fun reading about Agenda 21 on the internet of late. According to this conspiracy theory, we've got to worry about the greens a lot more than machines doing us in. Nothing overt, just very slow, very steady reprogramming so we never realize what's happening.

[williatw]

I second Diogenes comment here. Aside from several currently unattainable technical aspects I've pointed out, I just don't believe those in power will allow it to usurp their power. It's more pertinent to ones' safety to command a drone than to command a slave.

Very reassuring...but what about an extension of something like this: http://news.change.org/stories/predicting-future-crime
The recidivism rate with parole boards I believe is well north of 50% inaccurate (assuming they are actually seriously vetting cons to separate the wheat from the chaff). What about an expert system that is very accurate in prediction, say north of 90% accurate. In 10 or 20 yrs after said system is active parole boards are as rare as buggy whips. Or a black box that controls commercial airlines instead of a pilot (similar system replacing human traffic controllers), based on our increasingly autonomous drones. Much cheaper more reliable than human pilots or traffic control people. In no time at all no pilots or traffic controllers. Some sort of a head person who thinks he is still in charge but is increasing just a puppet who barely knows what the computers are doing. He looks at the big board with the blinky lights everything appears find to him off to play golf. Laziness and sloth on the part of our leaders who get to like dealing with computers instead of occasionally disobedient/complaining subordinate workers. Imagine that expanded to many other fields..fewer and fewer people who have a clue what the computers are doing, who think they are making the decisions but really aren't. Not necessarily true AI but expert systems running just about everything. Our leaders all puffed up and pretentious thinking they are still important but they are marginally relevant, making "decisions" that are really just rubber stamping the computers.

[Luzr]

Furthermore, Moore's law hasn't held true in nearly 10 years. Systems have not been getting smaller and faster. To step around this issue, we've added more cores, but the truth of the matter is, barring a major break-through, we're hitting our limit in major computing power. We're already fabricating processors at the nanometer scale and silicon just can't do it anymore. We need a break-through.

You are interpreting the law in strange ways. But even so, you are wrong about resulting computer power. I looks like you misinterpret "clock speed" for "performance". Adding more cores IS legit way how to sidestep MHz limit. E.g. especially for simulating neural networks, more cores are just as fine as more GHz.

As for last 10 years, I pretty much remember that by 2002, the "state of the art" was Pentium 4 at 2Ghz with 256MB RAM. I am writing this on Sandy Bridge quadcore that is about 20 times faster and with 8GB RAM. And it was cheaper than that Pentium 4 in 2002. Remember, the law is about performance/price...

And do not let me even started about GPU's FPU processing power... Average gamer's machine has vector FPU potencial way higher than you could have bought by 2000 for thousands of dollars.

As for silicon limit and break-through needed - yes, that is correct, but you forget to notice how many breakthroughs we have lived through in last 15 years. GMR hardrive heads, SOI, use of rare metals with silicon, '3D' transistors....

Take into considering the changes in motherboards over the last 3 years.

I clearly see that the major change is motherboards is that motherboard chipsets are becoming irrelevant, all logic being moved to CPU die.

We're at our limit so to speak when it comes to current fabrication and processes.

I am old enough to remember that this mantra is being repeated since at least 1990...

In reality I see there are at least 2 steps ahead in 'standard' 2D litography and I am pretty sure that when this direction is exhausted, we shall be able to move to other directions. E.g. going 3D. It is just that there is still headroom in 2D for next 6-10 years...

I'm not saying never, I'm saying 2040 is extremely optomistic based on our current advancements and slowing trend.

Could be. But I would not put that further than 2100, if we keep being technological civilization... (Ironically, the only way how to limit technology is by using it to enforce the limit:)

[ladajo]

I second Diogenes comment here. Aside from several currently unattainable technical aspects I've pointed out, I just don't believe those in power will allow it to usurp their power. It's more pertinent to ones' safety to command a drone than to command a slave.

Very reassuring...but what about an extension of something like this: http://news.change.org/stories/predicting-future-crime
The recidivism rate with parole boards I believe is well north of 50% inaccurate (assuming they are actually seriously vetting cons to separate the wheat from the chaff). What about an expert system that is very accurate in prediction, say north of 90% accurate. In 10 or 20 yrs after said system is active parole boards are as rare as buggy whips. Or a black box that controls commercial airlines instead of a pilot (similar system replacing human traffic controllers), based on our increasingly autonomous drones. Much cheaper more reliable than human pilots or traffic control people. In no time at all no pilots or traffic controllers. Some sort of a head person who thinks he is still in charge but is increasing just a puppet who barely knows what the computers are doing. He looks at the big board with the blinky lights everything appears find to him off to play golf. Laziness and sloth on the part of our leaders who get to like dealing with computers instead of occasionally disobedient/complaining subordinate workers. Imagine that expanded to many other fields..fewer and fewer people who have a clue what the computers are doing, who think they are making the decisions but really aren't. Not necessarily true AI but expert systems running just about everything. Our leaders all puffed up and pretentious thinking they are still important but they are marginally relevant, making "decisions" that are really just rubber stamping the computers.

Spoken like a true bitter minion.

[ScottL]

You are interpreting the law in strange ways. But even so, you are wrong about resulting computer power. I looks like you misinterpret "clock speed" for "performance". Adding more cores IS legit way how to sidestep MHz limit. E.g. especially for simulating neural networks, more cores are just as fine as more GHz.

The "law" states a doubling over an 18-24 month period. I've seen no doubling from 2002 to 2012. In 10 years we've gone from as you say 2.2Ghz processors to 2x 2.2Ghz processor (the current standard is still Core 2 Duo or equiv, thanks Dell ) In 5 years we've failed to double. Also note we have not accomplish successful decoupling of multi-threaded programming; this is another impediment to the large scale processing of neural nets. Just remember, these weighted nets are huge as well.

As for last 10 years, I pretty much remember that by 2002, the "state of the art" was Pentium 4 at 2Ghz with 256MB RAM. I am writing this on Sandy Bridge quadcore that is about 20 times faster and with 8GB RAM. And it was cheaper than that Pentium 4 in 2002. Remember, the law is about performance/price...

Quad cores aren't the standard and the chips are 20x faster, each core contains the capability of a single P4 x.x GHz chip. The core is the idea that your single processor was busy so pass work to be done to another core. Furthermore, the law isn't about performance over price. The law, which is 30 years old, states that processing power would double every 18-24 months. From 2002 to 2012, 10 years, we should've seen a 5x speed increase. Assuming a Quad core at 2.2Ghz per core, 8.8 GHz, assuming your mentioned 2GHz after 2 years should be 4GHz, after 2 more should be 8GHz, after 2 more should be 16GHz, 2 more 32GHz, and finally 2 more for 64GHz. That would be a 32 core processor. Moore's law was a predictio, not an actual law and it hasn't held true for a long time.

And do not let me even started about GPU's FPU processing power... Average gamer's machine has vector FPU potencial way higher than you could have bought by 2000 for thousands of dollars.

These are a specialty processor for graphics. Sure there's documentation on them being capable of doing some impressive stuff, but, they aren't a CPU and have no positive or negative impact on neural networks unless specifically setup to do them and even then they'd be no better than your multi-core processor.

I clearly see that the major change is motherboards is that motherboard chipsets are becoming irrelevant, all logic being moved to CPU die.

The major changes are the addition of caches for SSD and GPU along with faster FSB; I'm not seeing what you're seeing that much and would gladly read any paper on this aspect. Regardless, where the instruction set resides does not factor into this discussion.

I am old enough to remember that this mantra is being repeated since at least 1990...

While old enough to have witnessed this claim, I also am wise enough to note the break through that was the Integrated Circuit. I've specifically stated it would take another break through of equivalent level to push us beyond. I mean come on, I was running dual AMD Athlon MP 1600+ in 2000. That's 2x 1.4Ghz and I was "behind in the times" at that point and I was still clocking in at 2.8Ghz. At that time 2x 1.8 and 2x 2.0 were definitely available so 3.6Ghz and 4Ghz respectively have been available for 12 years and we're coming in at a whopping 8.8 after nearly 12 years.

As always I'm not saying never, I'm saying we need a break-through and so far, chip makers are happy just adding cores. At some point the individual core will need to become faster.

[williatw]

Yes, the pro-gun forces have effectively won the war on this issue. One of the ways that they have done so is through the use of Public Service Announcements (informing the public) such as the humorous Youtube video up above. In many respects, we have Bill Clinton to thank for rallying the Gun forces and taking over legislatures all across the country. His Ban on Semi-Automatic fire arms was the wake up call for Pro-Gun Americans everywhere. It is to our credit that we have not stopped applying pressure on this issue.
Obama is a eunuch on this issue.

Yes he is but there is one caveat: Judges; if Obama wins a 2nd term he would have more opportunities to appoint more federal judges like Sotomayor and Kagan. One of whom flat out lied during her confirmation hearings about her support for the 2nd amendment. To say nothing of Ruth Bader Ginsberg feelings about our constitution being "flawed", other emerging democracies like Egypt should look elsewhere. It is fascinating in a tragic way to hear the Obama administration talk about not arming the rebels in Syria because "more guns would just make the situation worse". In other words if you arm the rebels and they defeat Syria's military or at least hold their own, you can't argue against the whole idea of an armed citizenry being a deterrent against a tyrant. People who think that the constitution is just a loose guideline to be followed or ignored based the whim of a judge who thinks they know what best for us poor serfs.