Ray Kurzweil introduced 300 secondary-school students across Europe to robotics and AI in an interactive Internet chat set up by Xplora, the European gateway to science education.
Originally published on www.xplora.org.
Published on KurzweilAI.net November 9,2005.
My name is Karl Sarnow and I am member of the Xplora team, trying
to enable teachers of mathematics and science to give fascinating
science lessons.
It is a great pleasure and honour to have Ray Kurzweil here in
the chat. The topic itself is really fascinating and inspiring.
But having one of the early birds of AI applications personally
here is nothing more but wonderful.
Cordially welcome Ray.
Ray Kurzweil says:
Hi, glad to be here.
Karl Sarnow says:
We now start with the procedure as discussed in the mail in advance.
Ray will start with a short introduction and then the others follow
with a short sentence.
Ray Kurzweil says:
Yes, here is something I wrote recently that is a brief introduction
to my latest book, The Singularity is Near, When Humans Transcend
Biology:
Ray Kurzweil says:
So what is the Singularity?
Within a quarter century, nonbiologicalintelligence will match
the range and subtlety of human intelligence. It will then soar
past it because of the continuing acceleration of information-based
technologies, as well as the ability of machines to instantly share
their knowledge. Intelligent nanorobots will be deeply integrated
in our bodies, our brains, and our environment, overcoming pollution
and poverty, providing vastly extended longevity, full-immersion
virtual reality incorporating all of the senses (like “The
Matrix”), "experience beaming” (like “Being
John Malkovich”), and vastly enhanced human intelligence. The
result will be an intimate merger between the technology-creating
species and the technological evolutionary process it spawned.
And that’s the Singularity?
No, that’s just the precursor. Nonbiological intelligence
will have access to its own design and will be able to improve itself
in an increasingly rapid redesign cycle. We’ll get to a point
where technical progress will be so fast that unenhanced human intelligence
will be unable to follow it. That will mark the Singularity.
When will that occur?
I set the date for the Singularity—representing a profound
and disruptive transformation in human capability—as 2045.
The nonbiological intelligence created in that year will be one
billion times more powerful than all human intelligence today.
Why is this called the Singularity?
The term “Singularity” in my book is comparable to the
use of this term by the physics community. Just as we find it hard
to see beyond the event horizon of a black hole, we also find it
difficult to see beyond the event horizon of the historical Singularity.
How can we, with our limited biological brains, imagine what our
futurecivilization, with its intelligence multiplied trillions-fold,
be capable of thinking and doing? Nevertheless, just as we can draw
conclusions about the nature of black holes through our conceptual
thinking, despite never having actually been inside one, our thinking
today is powerful enough to have meaningful insights into the implications
of the Singularity. That’s what I’ve tried to do in this
book.
Okay, let’s break this down. It seems a key part of your
thesis is that we will be able to capture the intelligence of our
brains in a machine.
Indeed.
So how are we going to achieve that?
We can break this down further into hardware and software requirements.
In the book, I show how we need about 10 quadrillion (1016) calculations
per second (cps) to provide a functional equivalent to all the regions
of the brain. Some estimates are lower than this by a factor of
100. Supercomputers are already at 100 trillion (1014) cps, and
will hit 1016 cps around the end of this decade. Several supercomputers
with 1 quadrillion cps are already on the drawing board, with two
Japanese efforts targeting already on the drawing board, with two
Japanese efforts targeting 10 quadrillion cps around the end of
the decade. By 2020, 10 quadrillion cps will be available for around
$1,000. Achieving the hardware requirement was controversial when
my last book on this topic, The Age of Spiritual Machines, came
out in 1999, but is now pretty much of a mainstream view among informed
observers. Now the controversy is focused on the algorithms.
And how will we recreate the algorithms of human intelligence?
To understand the principles of human intelligence we need to reverse-engineer
the human brain. Here, progress is far greater than most people
realize. The spatial and temporal (time) resolution of brain scanning
is also progressing at an exponential rate, roughly doubling each
year, like most everything else having to do with information. Just
recently, scanning tools can see individual interneuronal connections,
and watch them fire in real time. Already, we have mathematical
models and simulations of a couple dozen regions of the brain, including
the cerebellum, which comprises more than half the neurons in the
brain. IBM is now creating a simulation of about 10,000 cortical
neurons, including tens of millions of connections. The first version
will simulate the electrical activity, and a future version will
also simulate the relevant chemical activity. By the mid 2020s,
it’s conservative to conclude that we will have effective models
for all of the brain.
So at that point we’ll just copy a human brain into a
supercomputer?
I would rather put it this way: At that point, we’ll have
a full understanding of the methods of the human brain. One benefit
will be a deep understanding of ourselves, but the key implication
is that it will expand the toolkit of techniques we can apply to
create artificial intelligence. We will then be able to create nonbiological
systems that match human intelligence in the ways that humans are
now superior, for example, our pattern recognition abilities. These
superintelligent computers will be able to do things we are not
able to do, such as share knowledge and skills at electronic speeds.
By 2030, a thousand dollars of computation will be about a thousand
times more powerful than a human brain. Keep in mind also that computers
will not be organized as discrete objects as they are today. There
will be a web of computing deeply integrated into the environment,
our bodies and brains.
Okay, that should do it. Sorry it had to be cut into a number of
pieces.
Karl Sarnow says:
Okay, lets start with an introduction. I propose in the order people
appear on the right. So Alexa will be the first one.
Alexa Joyce says:
I'm Alexa Joyce, I'm project manager of Xplora. I'm a biologist
originally but now working in technology.
Donelle Batty says:
Hello I'm Tom Steele and I'm a student from Riverside High School
from Tasmania. I'm be representing the Pegasus project during this
chat
Donelle Batty says:
(sorry I may be abit tired it is 1AM over here)
Karl Sarnow says to Donelle Batty:
Youre welcome Tom. A real student is fine. James now?
Ray Kurzweil says:
Where are you?
James Whipple says:
Hi I'm James, I'm a design student who has been interested in the
singularity for several years.
Damon Zucconi says:
Sorry I was reading... I'm Damon Zucconi, a student at Maryland
Institute College of Art in Interactive Media.
Karl Sarnow says:
I am a physicist with a PhD in biophysics, teaching mathematics,
physics and computer science at a German Gymnasium for about 30
years. Now I am seconded to the European Schoolnet to help setup
Xplora.
Matt Neil says:
I'm Matt I am in Australia 2, I work in technology as a IT Architect
designing systems for large corporates, the organisation I work
for is busy building a grid mesh for global computing. In my last
role I was working for a health organising changing the face of
radiology from traditional photograpghy to digital and I have a
passion for what we are talking about
Ray Kurzweil says:
I'm Ray Kurzweil, an inventor, author, and futurist. Delighted
to be with all of you, including all the students "listening"
in.
Sally H says:
I am Sally. I am in Loughborough, UK. I work in IT (eLearning)
and Home Educate my 15 year old son. He is very interested in robots,
the future of computing, as well as computer gaming!
Karl Sarnow says:
Ok, now we know who you are (almost).
Karl Sarnow says:
Now for the questions, only one per person please.
Karl Sarnow says:
(for this round).
Donelle Batty says:
Maybe I should start with a simple one
Karl Sarnow says:
Just go ahead
James Whipple says:
i will ask after Donelle's question
Donelle Batty says:
Some of the students wish to know what inspired you to create all
of the fantastic things you've created and they also wish to know
what troubles you encountered as they wish to be inventors themselves.
Ray Kurzweil says:
I've had the idea of being an inventor since I was 5. What is exciting
and inspiring about being an inventor is the link between dry formulas
on a black board (the invention) and transformations in people's
lives. As for challenges, the biggest issue is timing. Most inventors
get their inventions to "work" but most of the time the
timing is wrong, so it fails in the market place. That's why I got
into tracking technology trends over 30 years ago.
Ray Kurzweil says:
One more comment on Donnelle's question: the most gratifying project
I've been involved in has been reading machines for the blind. I
introduced the first one 30 years ago, and have been involved ever
since. We just introduced a print-to-speech reading machine that
fits in your pocket—it's 10,000 times smaller and lighter than
the first one.
Donelle Batty says:
Thanks.
Matt Neil says:
Ray my question is around how we are going to transfer/copy/replicate
those already higher congnitive functions of the mind, such as ESP
that may actually lay dormant in the mind, that we do not understand
and from observation may look like garbage as they are not normally
activated. Are these functions inherent? And if we copy the code
will these extras services come along with it?
Ray Kurzweil says:
WRG Matt's question, we're now embarked on a grand project to "reverse-engineer"
the human brain. We're in the early stages but the progress will
exponential not linear. So we will ultimately understand in precise
terms how the brain performs its functions, including ESP to the
extent that it can actually do that. We will routinely have brain-to-brain
communication when we have nanobots in our brains that are on the
Internet. We already have simulations of 20 regions of the brain
that perform well on tests compared to human function, for example,
the cerebellum which comprises more than half the neurons in the
brain, and 15 regions of the auditory cortext. There are several
hundred more regions to go. (end of response to Matt).
Matt Neil says to Ray Kurzweil:
Cheers
James Whipple says:
Will there be room for the human ego in a post-singularity society,
or will we be led to less and less individuation as our interconnections
grow? How much of the brain's baggage will we want to take with
us as we integrate with machines?
Ray Kurzweil says:
WRG James' question, I suppose we'll have to reconsider what ego
means. It's not always a bad thing if people are driven to perform
creative work. Machines can have it both ways—they can be individuals
and they can also merge to form one larger intelligence. Humans
"merge" also in societies but not with the same ease.
We'll still have ego and conflicting agendas but we'll have more
capability.
James Whipple says:
Interesting, reminds me of Howard Bloom's "Global Brain"
book. Thanks, Ray.
Ray Kurzweil says:
As for the brain's baggage—we will ultimately have the "source
code" for our intelligence—we'll have a precise description
of its algorithms and be able to modify them. We'll have to proceed
with caution, of course, but there will be obvious dysfunctions
we'd like to fix. (end of response to James).
Sally H says:
With the known vulnerabilities in current O/S software and computer
security still being a nightmare—do you think that this vision
of the future could be scarily nightmarish, and can you see a way
that this would be countered?
Ray Kurzweil says:
WRG Sally's question, there are definitively downsides to all 3
overlapping revolutions—G (genetics or biotech), N (nanotech)
and R (robotics which really refers to strong AI, AI at the human
level). We have the downside of "G" now—the potential
for bioengineered biological viruses. I wrote (coauthored with Bill
Joy) an op-ed piece in the New York Times recently criticizing the
US Goverment for publishing the genome of the 1918 flu virus, for
example, as it could aid bioterrorists. WRG software, I actually
think we're doing reasonably well. We have "mission critical"
software running intensive care units in hospitals, flying and landing
airplanes, running factories, etc., and this software almost nevere
fails. We do know how to create reliable software. And with regard
to software pathogens (software viruses, etc.), we're also reasonably
keeping pace. Our technological "immune system" responds
generally within hours of a new type of attack. (end of response
to Sally).
Karl Sarnow says:
You mention “We’ve already created simulations of ~ 20
regions (out of several hundred) of the brain”. Do you mean
computer programs, that behave like the brain regions? How can you
test that? Is there any interface to living beings?
Ray Kurzweil says:
WRG Karl's question, yes these are computer programs—computer
simulations and yes, these are tested—for example by applying
psychoacoustic tests to the simulation and applying the same tests
to human auditory perception. It does not prove that the simulations
are perfect, and undoubtedly they are not, but it shows we are moving
in the right direction.
Ray Kurzweil says:
WRG interfacing to living beings, we have of course a variety of
neural implants now—cochlear implants, and implants for Parkinson's
patients which replaced diseased brain tissue. The latest generation
of the Parkinson's implant allows you to download new software to
your neural implant from outside the patient. There are stroke patients
who have an implant that can now communicate to their computer and
by extension to the rest of the world and to control their environment.
(end)
Alexa Joyce says:
yes exactly I'm rather worried to read about the re-creation of
the live virus by bio-engineering too
Karl Sarnow says:
Did everybody have his question?
Matt Neil says to Ray Kurzweil:
Not a question but an interuption—are you using speech to
text for todays session?
Jan Kapoun says:
Hi, Ray. I was interested in Martin Rees´ book "Our
Final Hour", especially the part about dangers of new technology.
Have you read the book? What do you think about it?
Ray Kurzweil says:
WRG Kapound's question:
Ray Kurzweil says:
I alluded earlier to the downsides—the perils—of GNR.
I'm familiar with Rees' book. He talks about these perils as well
as natural ones, like an asteroid hitting Earth. On that last one,
this happens infrequently (at least a big one) and I'm confident
we'll have the technology to blast it out of the sky before that
happens. The more daunting challenges are the downsides of the self-replicating
technology we're creating. I mentioned bioterrorists creating a
modified biological virus. When we have full nanotechnology manufacturing,
there will ultimately be the potential for self-replicating nanotechnology.
There are strategies for dealing with these issues. The issue for
society is one of priorities. We need to put a higher priority on
the defenses—I gave testimony to the U.S. Congress on a proposal
for a $100 billion program to develop new technologies (like RNA
interference) to combat new biological viruses. President Bush recently
proposed a $7 billion program for this—it's a start but not
enough. We also need to be smart about not disseminating overtly
dangerous information. No one proposes putting the design of an
atom bomb on the web, so why put the design of a killer virus there?
(end)
Jan Kapoun says:
Thank you. But is it certain that we will avoid a situation, such
as the example in Michael Crichton´s Prey?
Ray Kurzweil says:
Now with regard Crichton's prey.
Ray Kurzweil says:
He was writing about self-replicating nanotech, although he mixed
it up with biological viruses and there are some scientifically
unrealistic aspects to his novel, but the basic danger of self-replicating
nanotech is—or I should say will be—real. The existential
danger we face now is with biological viruses, we don't yet have
full molecular nanotechnology assembly. When we do the basic message
for society is the same—which is to put more stones on the
defensive side of the scale by developing explicitly defensive technologies.
I describe some stratgies in Singularity is Near. There are also
ethical guidelines that need to be followed by responsible practitioners.
The Foresight Institute, founded by nanotechnology pioneer Eric
Drexler has articulated a set of these. (end)
Damon Zucconi says:
With technologies such as the Fritz chip coming into play do you
think that the fragmentation of THE computer (the Internet) is something
that is possible and a legitimate concern for the iminent singularity?
Ray Kurzweil says:
WRG Damon's question—by fragmentation I assume you mean decentralization.
This is a very good trend. Decentralized technologies are more stable.
We are moving to a "world wide mesh" in which computing
and communications will be distributed among billions of <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Device')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Device')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">device</a>s
in a flexible and self-organizing manner. (end)</p>
<p><b>Damon Zucconi says:</b></p>
<p>I think I meant fragmentation more like cut of <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Government')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Government')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">government</a> controlled
<a href="javascript:loadBrain('Network')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Network')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">network</a>s.</p>
<p><b>Damon Zucconi says:</b></p>
<p>cut-off rather</p>
<p><b>Ray Kurzweil says:</b></p>
<p>I'm not using speech to text—I type faster.</p>
<p><b>Ray Kurzweil says:</b></p>
<p>WRG Damon's question—do you mean attempts by the Chinese government
to control the web? I think these will fail—they may nominally
"control" overt <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Expression')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Expression')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">expression</a> of a few sensitive political
issues, but people will work around them. There is already an enormous
explosion of expression on Chinese web sites including a healthy
and exploding blogger community. This is a democratizing force.
I wrote in the 1980s that the decentralized communication technologies
that would emerge would ultimately destroy the Soviet Union, which
it did. That 1991 coup against Gorbachev failed not because of Yeltsin
standing on a tank but because of the clandestine network of fax
machines and early <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Email')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Email')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">email</a> using teletype machines. I mentioned this
to Gorbachev recently at a lunch I had with him and he heartedly
agreed. Of course, anything to put Yeltsin down.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Alexa Joyce says:</b></p>
<p>Do you think then, by extension of what you say about bio-viruses,
in the next few years we'll see teenage bio-<a href="javascript:loadBrain('Hacker')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Hacker')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">hacker</a>s the same way
we have young hackers on the Internet now?</p>
<p><b>Ray Kurzweil says:</b></p>
<p>WRG Alex's concern:</p>
<p>Yes, it will ultimately get easier and easier to do this kind of
work, so the answer is we need to develop a (very) rapid response
system that can combat ANY new biological virus whether natural
(like bird flu) or bioengineered. The good news is that the tools
to accomplish this are coming into place. RNA interference can turn
any gene off—we send pieces of RNA in as a medication, it latches
on to the messenger RNA expressing a gene and destroys it.</p>
<p>This has been effective for stopping biological viruses. I described
a plan in which we would have a rapid response system that could
quickly sequence a virus, create an RNAi medication and gear up
production, all in a manner of days. We have the tools to do this
but we need to put it in place. There are other protective ideas
as well.</p>
<p><b>Alexa Joyce says:</b></p>
<p>You mean antisense RNA here to block the genes?</p>
<p><b>Alexa Joyce says:</b></p>
<p>This concept of an <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Open Source')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Open Source')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">open source</a> biology community is very intriguing.</p>
<p><b>Ray Kurzweil says:</b></p>
<p>Wel first to clarify in response to Joyce—there are two competing
technologies that can block the messenger RNA expressing a gene
- antisense technology and RNA interference (RNAi). RNAi works very
well, antisense technology has been disappointing.</p>
<p><b>Ray Kurzweil says:</b></p>
<p>WRG Joyces comment—yes there will be open source biology.
Everything of <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Import')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Import')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">import</a>ance will ultimately be information. Even manufacturing
products. In the 2020s we'll be able to manufacture almost anything
we need/want with our own table top manufacturing devices—and
there will be open source versions of designs—sneakers, meals,
etc. (end)</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Karl Sarnow says:</b></p>
<p>I have read your PP with great intrest. In slide 56 there are a
lot of abbreviations. Is there some information available what these
abbreviations mean? Could you give us a pointer?</p>
<p><b>Ray Kurzweil says:</b></p>
<p>Which slide was that?</p>
<p><b>Karl Sarnow says:</b></p>
<p>It is about <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Reverse Engineering')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Reverse Engineering')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">reverse engineering</a> the brain and shows a diagramm
with many 3-letters abbreviations.</p>
<p><b>Damon Zucconi says:</b></p>
<p>Reverse engineering the human brain.</p>
<p><b>Ray Kurzweil says:</b></p>
<p>See endnote 96 for chapter 5 of Singularity is Near.</p>
<p><b>Karl Sarnow says to Ray Kurzweil:</b></p>
<p>Ok.</p>
<p><b>Ray Kurzweil says:</b></p>
<p>Page 546. The main text discussion is on pages 183-185. Chapter
4 is about reverse engineering the brain.</p>
<p><b>Ray Kurzweil says:</b></p>
<p>Did I miss a question?</p>
<p><b>Karl Sarnow says:</b></p>
<p>I don't thinks so, what say the others?</p>
<p><b>Jan Kapoun says:</b></p>
<p>Your great book, "The <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Age of Intelligent Machines')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Age of Intelligent Machines')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">Age of Intelligent Machines</a>," celebrated
15 years this year. Would you change something in it now?</p>
<p><b>Ray Kurzweil says:</b></p>
<p>I think it actually does track quite well. Obviously some things
are off by a few years—I would have said 1997 for a computer
taking the world <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Chess')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Chess')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">chess</a> championship not 1998. This brings up the
issue as to whether or not we can predict the future. The common
<a href="javascript:loadBrain('Wisdom')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Wisdom')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">wisdom</a> is that we cannot. But there are certain measures of information
technology—price-performance, <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Capacity')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Capacity')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">capacity</a>, <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Bandwidth')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Bandwidth')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">bandwidth</a>, etc.—that
are very predictable. And its not just computer devices, but information
technology is deeply influencing everything of value. So we can
anticipate many scenarios quite accurately. We might wonder how
can this be? Specific projects are indeed not predictable. yet the
overall impact is predictable. We see a similar <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Phenomenon')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Phenomenon')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">phenomenon</a> in thermodynamics—the
path of each <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Particle')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Particle')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">particle</a> in a gas is unpredictable, yet the overall
properties of the gas—made of a vast number of chaotic unpredictable
particles—is very predictable according to the <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Laws of Thermodynamics')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Laws of Thermodynamics')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">laws of thermodynamics</a>,
to a high degree of precision. So it is with <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Information Technology (IT)')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Information Technology (IT)')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">information technology</a>,
also a complex and chaotic system. (end)</p>
<p><b>Matt Neil says to Ray Kurzweil:</b></p>
<p>Which companies do you think will get the jump those coming from
the bio health side or those coming from the tech molecular computing
side.</p>
<p><b>Ray Kurzweil says:</b></p>
<p>There's clearly a role for both. If you look at how biology is
done now it is becoming an information technology. It used to be
hit and miss—we would just find something that happened to
work with no theory of <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Operation')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Operation')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">operation</a>, using "drug discovery."
Now we're actually <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Learning')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Learning')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">learning</a> the precise information processes underlying
biological processes like atherosclerosis (the cause of most heart
disease) and also gaining the means to reprogram these processes
away from disease. Biochemical <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Simulator')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Simulator')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">simulator</a>s are playing a big role.
Drug development is already quite specialized with smaller companies
doing the "risk removal" of specific treatments, then
doing deals with the larger pharma companies. (end)</p>
<p><b>Karl Sarnow says:</b></p>
<p>I am not sure about this <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Chat Room')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Chat Room')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">chat room</a>, but I assume it is kicking
us out at exactly 15h00 Brussels time. But I would not be happy
to finish the session, before saying a big, big, thank you to Ray.
It was very inspiring to read your answers and the questions from
all of you. You will be able to read an edited version of the chat
on Xplora. Thanks a lot again and I hope to see/read you again at
Xplora somehow.</p>
<p>Good bye and thanks.</p>
<p>Karl</p>
<p><b>James Whipple says:</b></p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p><b>Alexa Joyce says:</b></p>
<p>Actually I think we can carry on if Ray is still happy to take
a couple more questions...</p>
<p><b>Ray Kurzweil says:</b></p>
<p>I've got time for one or two more.</p>
<p><b>Karl Sarnow says:</b></p>
<p>I just hear that the tool will probably not kick us out, but nobody
will be able to get in. So feel free to continue. I will record
until the end of the debate.</p>
<p><b>Jan Kapoun says:</b></p>
<p>Thanks, Ray! It was a nice <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Experience')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Experience')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">experience</a> to chat with you.</p>
<p><b>James Whipple says:</b></p>
<p>I'm sure you know about people such as <a href="javascript:loadBrain('De Garis, Hugo')" onMouseOver="playBrain('De Garis, Hugo')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">Hugo de Garis</a>' pessimistic
visions of society's reaction to a technological singularity. How
will society react to change it can barely keep track of? How can
the transition to be smoothed out?</p>
<p><b>Ray Kurzweil says:</b></p>
<p>WRG de Garis, as I said before I am concerned with the downsides.
<a href="javascript:loadBrain('Joy, Bill')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Joy, Bill')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">Bill Joy</a>'s pessimistic piece in <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Wired')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Wired')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">WIRED</a> stemmed from a <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Conversation')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Conversation')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">conversation</a>
we had in 1998 and his reading Age of Spiritual Machines. I do think
that de Garis particular scenario does not make <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Sense')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Sense')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">sense</a>. He envisions
a war between the "cosmists" (those who have enhanced
themselves by merging with nonbiological intelligence) and the "terrists"
(those who have not). It's kind of absurd - like a war between those
who use <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Cell')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Cell')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">cell</a> phones and those who don't, or between the Amish and
the armed forces. There are certainly concerns about "strong
AI" run amok, but a war between those eschewing technology
and those embracing it does not make sense. Such a "war"
would be a non starter. (end)</p>
<p><b>Donelle Batty says:</b></p>
<p>I was just wondering about the use of nanobots to acheive <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Immortality')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Immortality')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">immortality</a>
becasue I. Wouldn't this create many more problems such as over-populization.</p>
<p><b>James Whipple says:</b></p>
<p>I agree!</p>
<p><b>Matt Neil says to Ray Kurzweil:</b></p>
<p>Yes and on that how many tablets are you taking a day for longevity—some
say its in the hundres!</p>
<p><b>Ray Kurzweil says:</b></p>
<p>WRG over population:</p>
<p><b>Ray Kurzweil says:</b></p>
<p>That would be a problem if we had radical <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Life Extension')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Life Extension')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">life extension</a> and NO
other changes. But nanotechnology will also enable us to create
any physical product we will need from inexpensive raw materials
being reorganized by massively parallel computerized processes using
table top nanotech fabricators (2020s scenario). We'll be able to
meet the needs of any conceivable size biological population. I
describe in Singularity is Near a scenario for <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Energy')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Energy')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">energy</a>—by capturing
just 3% of 1% of the sunlight that falls on the Earth we can meet
the projected energy needs of 2030. We'll be able to do with nanoengineered
solar panels and store the energy in highly decentralized nanoengineered
fuel cells. (end)</p>
<p><b>Ray Kurzweil says:</b></p>
<p>Finally, last question, wrg supplements:</p>
<p><b>Ray Kurzweil says:</b></p>
<p>I do take a lot of supplements (about 250 pills a day) to "reprogram"
my biochemistry. I take a lot of tests (50 or 60 blood levels) every
few months to see how I'm doing. And I'm doing fine. I had type
II diabetes 22 years ago but for 20 years have had no indication
of this. My cholesterol many years ago was 280, but its been 130
for a long time. And all my other levels are relatively ideal. And
according to biological aging tests, I was biologically 38 when
I was chronolically 40. Now that I'm chronologically 57, I come
out about 40 biologically. So there may be controversy about the
validity of these biological aging tests, but I do a lot of other
testing and feel I'm doing well. People may think this is a lot
of trouble to go to, but actually I think it's a lot more trouble
to get sick. For young people in their 20s and 30s, they only need
to stay reasonably healthy and perhaps take a good multivitamin.
But for my contemporaries, people in their 50s and 60s, if they
really want to be in good shape when we have these dramatic new
technologies from biotech and nanotech, then they need to be aggressive
to reprogram their biochemistry now.</p>
<p><b>Ray Kurzweil says:</b></p>
<p>Thanks again for chatting—enjoyed it a great deal!</p>
<p>'<i> 2005 <a href="http://www.xplora.org" target="_blank">xplora</a>.
Reprinted with permission.</i></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</td><td> </td><td valign="top" class="sidebar"><a href="#discussion">Join the discussion about this article on Mind·X!</a><p></p></td><td> </td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="6"><img src="/blank.gif" height="35" width="35" alt="" border="0"></td></tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td colspan=4>
<a name="discussion"></a><p><span class="mindxheader"> [<a href="/mindx/frame.html?main=post.php?reply%3D51007" target="_top">Post New Comment</a>]<br> </span>Mind·X Discussion About This Article:</p><a name="id51008"></a>
<table border="0" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="0" height="1"></td>
<td colspan="4"><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="679" height="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" bgcolor="#CCCCCC" valign="top"><img src="/mindx/images/round-left.gif"></td>
<td bgcolor=#CCCCCC><p>Online Chat with Ray Kurzweil and European Schoolnet<br><span class="mindxheader"><i>posted on 11/14/2005 10:59 AM by <a href="/mindx/profile.php?id=2322">kcnickerson</a></i></span></td>
<td bgcolor=#CCCCCC align="right" valign="top"><span class="mindxheader">[<a href="#discussion">Top</a>]<br>[<a href="/mindx/frame.html?main=show_thread.php?rootID%3D51007%23id51008" target="_top">Mind·X</a>]<br>[<a href="/mindx/frame.html?main=post.php?reply%3D51008" target="_top">Reply to this post</a>]</span></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" bgcolor="#CCCCCC" valign="top" align="right"><img src="/mindx/images/round-right.gif"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td bgcolor=#DDDDDD colspan="4"><p>It was interesting in this chat how the students are thinking about the ramifications of the sigularity and other technologies. i think in the space-->computing-->internet era students were all about go-go-go and assumed like the rest of society that the next technological wave would fix the problems of the last. in this chat, the students are still enthusiastic about technology (e.g. online at a science chat at 1AM) but equally aware (worried?) about the impact or effect of these new developments. it's an interesting development from say a conversation like this circa 1980. great chat and too see the students thinking better than possibly their parents did. more proof of evoluion ;> thx, ken</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="1" height="1"></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" valign="bottom" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/mindx/images/round-bottom-left.gif"></td>
<td colspan="2" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="1" height="1"></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" valign="bottom" align="right" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/mindx/images/round-bottom-right.gif"></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p></p></td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</td></tr></table>
</body>
</html><script language="JavaScript">
window.onerror = error;
if (top == self ) {
restoreFrame();
}
if (!parent.document) {
restoreFrame();
}
function restoreFrame() {
top.location.replace('http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0623.html?');
}
function error(message,url,line) {
if (message.indexOf("Access is denied") != -1) {
restoreFrame();
return true;
}
else return false;
}
</script>
