The Virtual Thomas Edison

by	Ray Kurzweil

As machines exceed human intelligence, will they threaten humanity? How will inventors keep up? Raymond Kurzweil lays out his vision of the future for Time Magazine's special issue on the future.

Originally published November 30, 2000 at Time.com. Published on KurzweilAI.net March 22, 2001.

Robots--even ones more intelligent than M.I.T.'s Kismet--are coming, the inevitable result of accelerating technological revolutions. The exponential growth of computing, communications, brain scanning and brain "reverse engineering," combined with rapid miniaturization, will bring machines that can equal or exceed human intelligence within three decades.

Is this good news? Or is this a threat to humanity's perch of evolutionary superiority? Alarm at the specter of ceding control over the creative process to machines has catapulted the debate beyond the scientific community and into the public forum. Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, has written about a wide range of dangers that could arise when we no longer have our metaphorical hands "on the plug."

Before we indulge these philosophical concerns, it's worth exploring just how intelligent and inventive machines are evolving. A powerful paradigm for emulating the creative process in a computer is to copy the ways of nature. One particularly compelling "biologically inspired" approach is actually to simulate the process of evolution inside the computer.

Brandeis University professors Jordan Pollack and Hod Lipson recently used "genetic" algorithms to design simple robots, which were then assembled by other robots. General Electric also uses genetic algorithms, in the design of jet engines, and its simulation of evolution produces designs superior to those created by unaided human designers. Microsoft has reportedly evolved some of the software it uses to balance system resources rather than have human programmers explicitly write these codes.

Another approach is to create "neural nets"--simulated versions of neurons and their massive interconnections that, while highly simplified, are able to solve real-world design problems and come up with unexpected though still appropriate solutions. These and related methods are also used in computer programs that "automatically" create art, music and poetry. The results of emulating nature in this way can be surprisingly effective, often solving difficult engineering and other design problems. However, as a human inventor who routinely uses these techniques, I can report that I continue to feel that I am still in charge of the process; they feel like just another set of yet more powerful tools.

A Time Line

So when will this feeling of apparent control change? When will we regard machine intelligence as the true originator of something creative?

In my view, the advent of the fully creative machine will not arrive overnight but will continue to evolve in stages, as machine intelligence continues its progression up the skill ladder. The first computers were designed during World War II with pen on paper and assembled by hand with screwdrivers and wiring tools. Today a computer designer sits at a graphics terminal and specifies sets of high-level design parameters. The computer performs dozens of intermediate design stages of circuit schematics, board layouts and even the chips themselves. Then other computers actually build and assemble these components into working systems. The tasks these machines perform required highly skilled engineers and technicians just a couple of decades ago. Such "computer-assisted design" software packages are now used in every engineering discipline, as well as by architects and clothes designers. They represent the latest chapter in the story of automation, which started by amplifying the power of our muscles and in recent times has been amplifying the power of our minds. Since the Industrial Revolution was born two centuries ago with automated textile machines for the English clothing industry, we have been eliminating jobs at the bottom of the skill ladder while creating new (and, incidentally, more interesting and better paying) jobs at the top of the skill ladder. This process has progressed to the point where we are harnessing machines to assist with the creative process of creating yet better machines.

By the end of this decade, it will be possible for people without technical training to use an even more sophisticated generation of design tools to create complex electronic and mechanical systems. Many products will be designed not by research-and-development departments (at least not directly) but by professionals who understand the needs of their markets, aided by increasingly intelligent Web-research tools. Even consumers will design their own products, ranging from their clothes to their homes. We will continue to regard these machines as tools, but they will emerge as remarkably powerful amplifiers of the human creative process.

Equal Partners

By 2020, machines will emerge as true collaborators. They will have sufficient understanding of human language and culture to monitor trends on their own. And since they will have the speed (and patience) to read most of the world's literature and websites (albeit still not with the discernment that comes with full human intelligence), they will identify market opportunities on their own and bring them to our attention, along with their own suggested designs. We will then try out their creations either in virtual-reality simulations or as actual physical products produced by rapid prototyping machines. By this time, the line between human and machine creativity will indeed begin to blur.

Within three decades, machines will be as intelligent as humans. By 2030 the available computer hardware will exceed the memory and processing capacity of the human brain by a factor of thousands. Though raw capacity alone does not automatically provide human levels of intelligence, we will have largely completed the reverse engineering of the human brain. Powerful, biologically inspired models based on the various templates of human intelligence will be capable of simulating human thought processes and will ultimately do so at far greater speeds and with far greater overall capacity than unaided human thought.

So what would a thousand simulated scientists and engineers, each with a thousand times greater memory and each thinking at speeds at least a thousand times faster than today's human inventors, accomplish? What would they invent? Well, for one thing, they would invent technologies that would allow them to become even more intelligent (because their intelligence is no longer of fixed capacity). They would change their own thought processes to think "bigger" and more complex thoughts-and to think them faster. When and if these "inventors" evolve to be a million times more intelligent and operate a million times faster, then in today's terms, an hour would result in a century of progress.

The Next Question

Which, of course, brings up the issue of how we mere human inventors are going to keep up. As an inventor, I have more than a passing interest in this question. My view, however, is that these developments do not represent an alien invasion of intelligent machines. They are emerging from within our human/machine civilization, and the intelligence we are creating is both derivative of and an extension to our human intelligence. We are already placing today's generation of intelligent machines in our bodies and brains, particularly for those with disabilities (e.g., cochlear implants for the deaf) and diseases (e.g., neural implants for Parkinson's patients). By 2030 there will be ubiquitous use of surgery-free neural implants introduced into our brains by billions of "nanobots" (i.e., microscopic yet intelligent robots) traveling through our capillaries. These noninvasive neural implants will routinely expand our mind through direct connection with nonbiological intelligence.

These prospects will bring enormous benefits, such as vastly expanded wealth, longevity and knowledge. We will have the ability to overcome most diseases, clean up the environment and alleviate illiteracy and poverty. However, deeply intertwined with these gains will be profound new risks. New concerns will include such questions as "Who is controlling the nanobots?" and "Whom are the nanobots talking to?" For example, organizations (e.g., governments, extremist groups) could distribute trillions of undetectable nanobots that could then monitor, influence or even control our thoughts and actions. Nanobot self-replication run amuck could have the potential to create a nonbiological cancer. And as for intelligent robots, how can we be sure they will remain our faithful servants, or even our friends?

Technology has always been a double-edged sword, and we don't have to look further than today to see both profound promise and peril. It is important to understand that these developments are not emerging from a few isolated projects but are the inevitable result of many thousands of competitive efforts. We would have to repeal free enterprise and every visage of economic competition to prevent the ongoing progression of these technologies. In the end, we will have no choice but to address the threats emerging from technology through a combination of ethical standards, technological "immune systems" and law enforcement. Although I believe the hazards are real, I am optimistic that we will ameliorate these dangers while we overcome age-old problems of human distress. The merger of humanity and its technology is the inevitable next step in the evolutionary progress of intelligence on our planet.

Within three decades machines will be as intelligent as human beings .

Join the discussion about this article on Mind·X!

[Post New Comment]
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:


	RE: The Virtual Thomas Edison posted on 11/05/2003 11:04 AM by 99nguyer	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Machines may possess the computing power that can equal or go beyond human intelligence within the near future. However, whether these machines would be able to achieve that feat is a completely different story. First, a machine is as smart as the person who programmed it. With that in mind, how will machines ever exceed human intelligence? Without a doubt, machines of the future will have the sheer processing power to accomplish many feats that are not possible today. However, what the machine is capable of doing should not be confused with what it can or is able to do. Sure, the future 'will bring machines that can equal or exceed human intelligence,' but whether they will be intellectual beings comparable to humans remains to be seen. It would be an understatement to call the human brain a very complex organ. Correct me if I am wrong, but scientists to this day have not completely figured out the mechanics of the human brain. Moreover, the idea of brain 'reverse engineering' may be one feat deemed impossible regardless of how powerful computers become. The human brain is extremely intricate and each individual brain is different from the next. Since there is so much variation and the unknown, it seems virtually impossible to map out the entire human brain down to its core. Likewise, it would be difficult to program machines with human level intelligence given that the brain is far from being realized. As for whether it is 'a threat to humanity's perch of evolutionary superiority,' the answer is no. Humans are certainly not immune to extinction given that death is an inevitable reality for all. However, humans as a whole are extremely resilient beings and this is the reason for our survival and standing in evolutionary life. Humans are highly adaptive creatures able to cope and live in harsh conditions. We have combated plagues, diseases, famine and natural disasters, for example. Moreover, humans would never allow themselves to become inferior to another entity, especially to a creation of its own. Short of a cataclysmic event such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs, humans will persist. It is certainly not unusual to see machines build other machines. Automotive manufacturers have automated their systems with computers to aid in building automobiles with minimal human assistance, for example. As follows, the idea of machines building others of its own kind is certainly viable. However, as it stands, these machines are built by humans and programmed by humans to do what humans want. In order for these machines to be independent, they must be able to further enhance their own technologies without the aid of humans. I do not see this happening in the foreseeable future. By all means, machines have the capability. However, whether they have the knowledge to apply what they already know and what they may learn without human intervention to build something innovative and useful is completely different. In terms of the time 'when we will regard machine intelligence as the true originator of something creative,' sadly the answer is no. Machines will never exceed the level of creativity as it was originally programmed. That is, machines will never pioneer something innovative that is not within their original scope as programmed by humans. Sure, there exist 'computer programs that 'automatically' create art, music and poetry.' However, these programs are made by humans for the purpose to aid humans with their work. There is a difference between human and machine intelligence and creativity. Machines are mindless entities created by and run by their human inventors. In essence, machines are tools that make our lives easier. As for when the 'line between human and machine creativity will ' begin to blur.' The line may very well begin to blur, but the line can nonetheless be distinguished. Machine intelligence and creativity will never grow to the extent as it does in human beings. For machine creativity to flourish the machine must be able to extrapolate and more importantly interpret and comprehend what it has accomplished. Until this happens, machines will be nothing more than something created and used by humans. Machines will never be able to create something that was not originally programmed in their creative minds; such an achievement would boggle my mind.


	Re: RE: The Virtual Thomas Edison posted on 11/05/2003 1:31 PM by griffman	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
First, a machine is as smart as the person who programmed it. The goal of AI research is to have a system go beyond it initial programming. most research in the works has this in mind. AI is suppose to gather knowledge and rewrite its own code to use that knowledge. this is a difficult task but not imposible. Anyone not having this in mind is not working on AI, they are using AI technology as a tool. Correct me if I am wrong, but scientists to this day have not completely figured out the mechanics of the human brain. Moreover, the idea of brain 'reverse engineering' may be one feat deemed impossible regardless of how powerful computers become. True, we have not completely figured out the mechanics. but we are making headway. we understand more components, one by one every day/year. there is a finite number of components and new components are not evolving as fast as we can discover them. there will come a point when the two trends meet, unless inovation stops somehow which what is truely imposible. The human brain is extremely intricate and each individual brain is different from the next. Since there is so much variation and the unknown, it seems virtually impossible to map out the entire human brain down to its core. the variations in the in the brain is a direct result of it environmental conditions and growth patern..... I believe an AI equivelent system will require the same process, at least initially, the thing is it will not have the limitations put on us of survival, rest, distraction(maybe), age, etc. which will make it grow at a faster rate than an equivalent human substrate. subsquent AI systems may not have to go through the entire growth period as the AI will have a much easier time relaying information than we can (15 years of schooling could be downloaded in minutes). Our limitations in learning are not the understanding and aplication of that knowledge, but the retention and transfer of it to others. we are just now improving and seeing the importance of collaboration (much thanks to machines) collaboration is something computers are designed to do, people are not. As for whether it is 'a threat to humanity's perch of evolutionary superiority,' the answer is no. I disagree, though I believe that our perspective must be changed for what a machine is to avoid a catastorphic confrontation. if we aproach this wrong, if a mistake is made and machines are given the ability and desire to combat us, they have the capability to wipe out the majority of humans on this planet. we may survive, but we will not stay on top. However, as it stands, these machines are built by humans and programmed by humans to do what humans want. In order for these machines to be independent, they must be able to further enhance their own technologies without the aid of humans. I do not see this happening in the foreseeable future. By all means, machines have the capability. However, whether they have the knowledge to apply what they already know and what they may learn without human intervention to build something innovative and useful is completely different. This is what we are striving for. so why would we fail? we are looking to add this capability and we are searching for the algorithms that will acomplish this. In terms of the time 'when we will regard machine intelligence as the true originator of something creative,' sadly the answer is no. Machines will never exceed the level of creativity as it was originally programmed. again, Why not? There is a difference between human and machine intelligence and creativity. Machines are mindless entities created by and run by their human inventors. In essence, machines are tools that make our lives easier. This understanding is at a moment of change. and a change of understanding is needed to progress safely. machines are not/will not be only tools, they will be colaborators providing information and reciving it equally. as colaborators, they will need to be treated as near equals to be effective/efficient/productive. If something provides you with an advange you could not gain on your own, you should be apreciative not dismissive. feeling and emotion and friendship between man and machine starts with man respecting and careing about the machine. they will first arive with capasities of intellegence like dogs, if you treat it well it will be your companion for life, treat it poorly, and it is liable to bite your hand. the analogy is obscure but it is an important point about relationships. As for when the 'line between human and machine creativity will ' begin to blur.' The line may very well begin to blur, but the line can nonetheless be distinguished. Machine intelligence and creativity will never grow to the extent as it does in human beings. one more time, why not? For machine creativity to flourish the machine must be able to extrapolate and more importantly interpret and comprehend what it has accomplished. not impossible Until this happens, machines will be nothing more than something created and used by humans. Machines will never be able to create something that was not originally programmed in their creative minds; such an achievement would boggle my mind. this only boggles the mind if you are unwilling to accept it. current techniques, genetic algorithms, neural nets, recursive analysis, data mining, etc. all have made impressive headway into different abilities of the human intellegence. current hardware is unable to utilize many or all of these aproaches at the same time. along with the fact that we have not integrated them together effectively (i believe simply because of the hardware limitation). the hardware limitation is dissapearing at an excelerating rate. THERE ARE NO OTHER ROAD BLOCKS. We must get off our high horse of being above everything else on this planet. "Gods children..... made in the image of God" is the biggest bull that unitellegent men have ever believed. Pardon my attack on religion at this point but I feel that our superiority complex stems directly from that line. we are part of this planet, as are all other living being. AS ARE MACHINES. we are striving to give a gift of animation to an inamimate object. if anything, everything is made in the image of God, humans are not different from any other object. the only reason to believe machines cannot exceed our own intellegence is to believe that humans are unable to exceed our own. evolution proves this false. Griffman


	Re: RE: The Virtual Thomas Edison posted on 11/05/2003 3:08 PM by MindsEye	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
It would be an understatement to call the human brain a very complex organ. Correct me if I am wrong, but scientists to this day have not completely figured out the mechanics of the human brain. Moreover, the idea of brain 'reverse engineering' may be one feat deemed impossible regardless of how powerful computers become. The human brain is extremely intricate and each individual brain is different from the next. Since there is so much variation and the unknown, it seems virtually impossible to map out the entire human brain down to its core. I don't think that mapping the human brain is "virtually impossible"; more of a difficult challenge, but it will be done in time. How much time? I don't know, but there are projects out there that are taking the challenge head on and very seriously. Check out Paul Allen's latest venture. www.brainatlas.org


	Re: The Virtual Thomas Edison posted on 11/05/2003 4:38 PM by 99mav_	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Just as the idea of mapping the human genome was deemed impossible, so to is true of the speculations that mapping the human brain will be impossible. And machines have had the ability to program themselves for quite some time now. So considering all this, it seems like the next logical step is for the machines to continue to evolve on their own. However, my fear of all this is concerned with the initial programming of such intelligent machines. Software has reached a point where complex systems programs cannot be written by a small team of developers alone, but require a proportionally large task force. Such demanding programs, distributed over hundreds of developers are already next to impossible to perform sufficient debugging on. Given the monumental task of creating a program that functions as a self learning AI, designed to surpass the intelligence of humans, what would be the effect of errors in the program code? I'd imagine that the influence of such errors would be monumental as it propagates throughout the AI programming.


	Re: The Virtual Thomas Edison posted on 11/07/2003 2:13 AM by kathrynj	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
A lot of our intelligence is gained through experience. We do not become intelligent just by reading books or by having someone teach us; we become intelligent by learning from mistakes and experiencing emotions. Will machines ever be able to gain this kind of intelligence? No matter how much data we transfer to them, we will not be able to transfer emotions (or will we?); will they know when they have made a mistake? Will they feel bad if they hurt someone''s feelings? Some people have less empathy than others; will it be the same way for machines with intelligence? Every human is unique from all others, at this time, machines are not unique; we are unique because each of us have grown up in different environments, under different circumstances, and have a different set of genes. Are we planning to mimic this uniqueness in machine intelligence or are we just going to create the ''perfect'' being?


	Re: The Virtual Thomas Edison posted on 11/07/2003 8:29 AM by billmerit	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
So, what exactly is an emotion? What is a feeling?


	Re: The Virtual Thomas Edison posted on 11/07/2003 12:25 PM by kathrynj	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I'm assuming an emotion/feeling is our brain's reaction to some sort of stimulus. Or a release of some chemical in our brains. But people can have different feelings about the same event, it depends how we were brought up. For example, some people think that America's Funniest Home Videos is funny, I do not. Are we going to program machines the same way? Or are they going to "be born" with no knowledge and over time, they will develop depending on what environment they "grow up" in?


	Re: The Virtual Thomas Edison posted on 11/07/2003 12:33 PM by billmerit	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
An emotion is a fairly complex response to stimuli, eithyer external or internal, such as a memory, which might not even be conscious. It involves activation of parts of both the sympathetic and the parasympathic nervous systems, and primarily involves the primitive or R-brain structures. I have always found the involvement of the r-brain to suggest that even reptiles may have some emotion.


	Re: The Virtual Thomas Edison posted on 11/10/2003 10:44 AM by ahmed_yamani	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Technology is developing at a rapid pace and will eventually result in the emergence of intelligent robots. However, that intelligence will not exceed ours, and in fact, humans and robots will be dependent on each other if they are to further develop their intelligence and be more inventive. The intelligence of robots will result from the amplified intelligence of human brains, but their intelligence will not make them capable of inventing an original piece of creative work. The intelligence of future robots will be a result of the partial understanding of how our brains function. I do not believe that it is possible for us to precisely diagnose all the functions of the human brain, for the reason that it is too complex and should be beyond human comprehension. It is correct that the human brain consists of a fixed number of components, but it continues developing and each human brain is unique and develops differently than other ones. Hence, the research of the human brain will be an ongoing one and it will not be possible for robots to fully simulate the human brain. Further, even though robots can be given information to simulate the process of evolution, they could do it for an amount of time not exceeding their own existence. They would have to analyze their own existence and its effects in order to predict the future of our evolution. Humans are not perfect and consequently cannot create something perfect, especially in trying to make a robot simulate them. Nowadays, robots can have an extensive memory and I do not doubt that they will eventually possess a much larger processing capacity than us, but that does not mean that they become more intelligent than us. It will only make them imitate our intelligence in various ways but not substitute us for what we are. Their imitation of humans in general will not be that accurate either since they will be mainly missing out on our senses. They could be more reliable than us in performing a lot of tasks but let us not forget that the basics of these outlooks is only possible if we were to design these complex robots and insure that they are bug free. We are talking about creating a non-biological human or in other words a robot. Once we think that we understand the human brain well enough, only then can we move on to simulate it in a non-biological environment. Given that it is a complex system, the software design and development process will be enormous and will require large teams of developers and designers. It will be a humongous task to undertake and would be extremely challenging to make it meet its specifications and requirements. It is inevitable to keep bugs out of a complex system and will be a matter of a concern to have it in a robot that we would want to rely on. It will be a gigantic project and will involve couple of years of testing, not to mention that the project will get involved in political issues between developing and developed countries' Hence, despite our fast advance in technology, it will still take us more than three decades to successfully come up with these robots to be in the level of our intelligence. These robots would need to have boundaries in what they are allowed to do. This is to ensure that they do not break the law and overtake humanity or harm us by any chance. We should not let them be completely independent of humans and hence keep them under control. This could be done if we implement various laws and ethics into their system. A law such as Isaac Asimov's law of robotics is an interesting one to look at: [guote] 0. A robot may not injure humanity, or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm. 1. A robot may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by the human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the Zeroth or First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict the Zeroth, First, or Second Law.

These robots/tools/machines cannot be the true originators of something creative. Although what they create could be mistaken for a human's creation. Yet, this does not mean that robots are more intelligent than us. They make use the knowledge that they received from us, but in a much better fashion, and that is due to their advantages over us (memory, processing speed, immortality, patience...). Robots can only clarify situations for us with thoughts that are more complex and unexpected of us but they will not be able to make wise decisions and will always be dependent on us. If you look at it in another way, we can't say that we as humans are as intelligent as our creator, God. God has given us a certain set of abilities' That is why we are not perfect and cannot create a robot that is perfect and superior over us.

Robots will be like mules, assisting and being more reliable than us in terms of work. This will cause a loss of jobs and could cause an unbalance in the economy. Further, if technical training is not required to use these robots, then the average population would not need to intellect themselves and may become heavily relied on these new tools which would slow down the evolution of the human brain. We will be relying on their knowledge and will not feel the need to use our brains and hence have them as an extension to our intelligence. As it is, the old generation and most of the population can't keep up with the pace of the current technology. Therefore with the emergence of the new robots, I expect that the general population will feel useless and will eventually be depressed due to the new life style that the robots will create. The Robot Age would not revolve around money and human beings would live without striving to achieve high goals using their brains. Robots would do all the work and people could concentrate more on adapting to the new life style and on socializing and give less importance to their jobs.

These robots will be relatively small but vary in size. They could be microscopic but this size will limit them to the amount of resources they could use. Everything in this life has a limit and a boundary. I do not believe that we can create nanobots, because the complexity of their operations would need a robot that is slightly bigger in size (not microscopic). Let us assume that it is in fact possible to create nanobots. Will our immune system try to fight them? What damages can they cause and how can they be controlled... Apart from all the uncertainties, their advantages will make Earth overpopulated with intelligent humans and robots. This overpopulation will further lead us to move out to other planets' Nanobots will make our brains develop much faster and consequently the robots brains. Although it sounds good to have nanobots around, life will start to become boundary-less and will be in chaos.

This advancing technology will eventually deliver us intelligent robots that do not exceed our intelligence. The research on the human brain will be on going and robot intelligence will develop in accordance with ours and visa versa. Robots and humans will be dependent on each other, and as time passes, robots will be less dependent on us while we will be more dependent on them. Nevertheless, this would cause our brains to develop faster and make humans and robots more intelligent. It will take a couple of decades for these robots to arrive and another decade for them to perform to our expectations and change our life style. If these robots become a threat to humanity, then we would have to control them as we have controlled nuclear weapons' I cannot predict if the new life style (robot age) will benefit us, but life goes on and humans will adapt to changes as they usually do.


	Re: The Virtual Thomas Edison posted on 11/10/2003 3:47 PM by billmerit	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
COOL WEB SITE. Is that Bach playing? I would like to see it when it is done. Welcome to the forum. bill


	Re: The Virtual Thomas Edison posted on 03/13/2005 7:40 PM by Seelan	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
In the article 'The Virtual Thomas Edison' by Ray Kurzweil, the issue of where do humans fit in the future is discussed. I agree with Mr. Kurzweil's point that 'the merger of humanity and its technology is the inevitable next step in the evolutionary progress of intelligence on our planet.' I do not think the question we should ask ourselves is whether we will fit in or not in the future alongside intelligent machines. Rather, the question is how we want to fit in? Do we embrace the machine world and live alongside them? Or we do fear for our freedom and existence, and fight the inevitable? I do believe that the next phase of human evolution is tied in with machines and technology. I think we are just scared of the changes that will occur. The human race is just starting to realize things about themselves, their society, their planet, and the universe. We are comfortable where we are because so far it looks like we are our own masters. We seem to have ultimate control of ourselves, our planet, and our star system. Why should we share or give up this control to machines that are better than us? Though I believe this is how we all feel, I do not think this is the way it should turn out. Our own curiosity and desire to better ourselves will keep us from outdating ourselves. Machines will be smarter and stronger, but I believe humans will push themselves to be just as smarter and stronger in their own ways. Combination of machine and man will be the key to this. We drive cars because we want to get to places faster and farther. In the same way, we will bond with machines to do things faster and better. It is not in ourselves to settle for being the second-best, not if we can help it. Instead, we will find ways to co-exist alongside machines. It will not be in our best interest to stop the research and fight the future. As Mr. Kurzweil puts it: 'We would have to repeal free enterprise and every visage of economic competition to prevent the ongoing progression of these technologies. In the end, we will have no choice but to address the threats emerging from technology through a combination of ethical standards, technological "immune systems" and law enforcement.' Not only will this require a great effort on our part, but we will be doing exactly what we fear. We will be shutting down the human desire to achieve something great, to better ourselves, and to satisfy the unquenchable thirst of knowledge and curiosity. But it will not stop some from researching and developing these machines in secrecy. With these intelligent machines, certain organizations might achieve power that would topple the balance of society. The machines themselves will see humans as a threat to their existence. The future relationship between us and them will be of hostility, fear, and hatred. Ironically, our own fears would have given birth to what we fear. The quote 'keep one's friends close, and enemies even closer' would apply here. We should not distance ourselves from this because we will eventually face it in one way or another. I think its best for society to embrace the future, and to accept the next step in our evolution. Our destiny awaits, we cannot fight or linger.


	Re: The Virtual Thomas Edison posted on 11/13/2005 4:41 PM by titan7	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I do agree that current progress in technology will bring about machines that can equal or exceed human intelligence in the future. If you carefully think about how humans have improved civilization throughout history, you will notice that as each generation emerged, the technologies within that generation were much more sophisticated than the previous generations. In abstract terms, the reason is of course due to the fact that each subsequent generation used the ideas and unfinished inventions brought up in the past generations, along with their own creativity to improve old technologies (for example from black and white TVs to color TVs) or better yet invent new technologies (e.g. Computers). We can think of this trend as a linear function, as each generation came about (time passed) technologies became more complex. So if we continue on with this trend it will be inevitable that our technologies will be more complex in the future than it is today, and so ideas that were brought up today (e.g. intelligent machines) will be implemented in the future. If a bit of research is done on intelligent machines, you will be able to find that current technologies are greatly improving. As Jeff Hawkins, the inventor of the Palm and the Treo, put it at the PC forum tech conference 'The neocortex in the brain stores everything a human being knows. We now understand how to build a machine based on the neocortex.' The brain stores and recalls patterns. Every sensory input is translated into a sequence of patterns that is stored in the neocortex. "Through exposure," Hawkins explained, "it builds a model of the world. The point of this model is when you come across new things every moment of your waking life, it looks at the previous stored experiences and then predicts what will happen in the future." So the way it remembers the past is a sequence of patterns stored as connections hardwired between brain cells. Intelligence, then, is pattern recognition. The brain is intelligent, Hawkins said, because "it lets you imagine the future." Therefore, although theoretical in some aspects, these types of research and improvement on understanding the human brain and mapping it to computer is slowly leading to the creation of intelligent machines. Other evident premature signs of the emergence and dependence on machine intelligence can be found in almost all aspects of society. As Ray Kurzweil stated in his book, 'The Singularity Is Near" (Viking, 2005).' "If all the AI systems in the world suddenly stopped functioning, our economic infrastructure would grind to a halt. Your bank would cease doing business. Most transportation would be crippled. World communications would fail.' Although machine intelligence may become visible in the future, Ray Kurzweil does not really go into detail about the perils intelligent machines will bring. I think that as intelligent machines are brought about, it may be harder for humans to have full control over everything and monitor every aspect of a machines thought. If indeed monitoring becomes hard, which maybe inevitable, we maybe placed at dangerous tides, since no one knows for sure what the machines intentions will be. Our generation should not really indulge itself on whether there will actually be intelligent machines in the future, but we should think about the dangers that will be brought upon by intelligent machines and their subsequent hypothetical solutions.

Brain Archive

A Time Line

Equal Partners

The Next Question