Recent Comments
SIAI Bloggers
  • Michael Anissimov Media Director
  • Michael Vassar President
  • Eliezer Yudkowsky Research Fellow
Guest Bloggers
  • Seth Baum Pennsylvania State University
  • Nick Hay University of Auckland
  • Mitchell Howe Contributing Writer
  • Tom McCabe Yale University
  • Carl Shulman New York University
  • Peter de Blanc Temple University
Tag Cloud
academic academics accelerating change accelerating change agi AGI 08 ai Anthropic Reasoning anthropomorphism artificial intelligence artificial intelligence aubrey de grey barney pell biases BIL bloggers bloggingheads tv bruce klein catastrophic risks civilization conference conference agi 09 conference chairman conferences consciousness research conventions convergence convergence08 cto cynthia breazeal david hart director of research donations doug wolens eliezer yudkowsky eric baum esther dyson event horizon events evolution existential risks FAI feature length documentary films Friendly AI Friendly Artificial Intelligence future salon future shock futurist community goertzel institute research fellow intelligence explosion interest journal interesting articles interviews intros JAGI jaron lanier john horgan justin rattner language search engine lesswrong life extension machine consciousness marcus hutter martin rees math mathematics media meeting microsoft mit morality nanotechnology natural language search neil gershenfeld new york times news office of naval research open letter open source open source open source projects opencog opencogprime optimization processes outreach papers peter diamandis peter thiel pitt podcasts prediction quantum computing radio ray kurzweil relevant articles research fellow risk roadmap school science science fiction shane legg SIAI singularity singularity summit singularity institute singularity summit spectrum talk transhumanism utilitarianism utility vernor vinge videos virtual reality pioneer volunteers xiamen university yudkowsky
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for tags: .

SIAI: Why We Exist and Our Short-Term Research Program

July 31st, 2007Michael Anissimov

By Dr. Ben Goertzel and Tyler Emerson

Why SIAI Exists

As the 21st century progresses, an increasing number of forward-thinking scientists and technologists are coming to the conclusion that this will be the century of AI: the century when human inventions exceed human beings in general intelligence. When exactly this will happen, no one knows for sure; Ray Kurzweil, for example, has estimated 2029.

Of course, where the future is concerned, nothing is certain except surprise; but the mere fact that so many knowledgeable people (such as Stephen Hawking, Douglas Hofstadter, Bill Joy, and Martin Rees) take the near advent of advanced AI as a plausible possibility, should serve as a “wake-up call” to anyone seriously concerned about the future of humanity.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Stamp Collecting Device

June 11th, 2007Nick Hay

An avid stamp collector, who is also an AI enthusiast, decides to build a stamp collecting device. This margin is too small for the details, but the idea is simple:

  1. The device will be active for one year. It is connected to the internet, from which it sends and receives packets.
  2. The device has an internal model of the universe. This model captures how likely each state of the world is, can predict future packets received, and can simulate the effect of packets sent.
  3. For every possible sequence of packets, the model extrapolates the final state and counts the number of stamps collected.
  4. The device outputs the sequence leading to the largest number of stamps.

This is a powerful device. It models every possible course of action to output the best. Outputting a one kilobit packet per second, a single day has 286,400,000 = 1026,000,000 possible packet sequences. By comparison, the number of atoms in the observable universe is about 1080, and its volume is only 10426 cubic Planck units. There are a lot of possibilities to consider.

Read the rest of this entry »

5-Minute Singularity Intro

May 26th, 2007Eliezer Yudkowsky

This is a 5-minute spoken introduction to the Singularity I wrote for a small conference. I had to talk fast, though, so this is probably more like a 6.5 minute intro.

The rise of human intelligence in its modern form reshaped the Earth. Most of the objects you see around you, like these chairs, are byproducts of human intelligence. There’s a popular concept of “intelligence” as book smarts, like calculus or chess, as opposed to say social skills. So people say that “it takes more than intelligence to succeed in human society”. But social skills reside in the brain, not the kidneys. When you think of intelligence, don’t think of a college professor, think of human beings; as opposed to chimpanzees. If you don’t have human intelligence, you’re not even in the game.

Sometime in the next few decades, we’ll start developing technologies that improve on human intelligence. We’ll hack the brain, or interface the brain to computers, or finally crack the problem of Artificial Intelligence. Now, this is not just a pleasant futuristic speculation like soldiers with super-strong bionic arms. Humanity did not rise to prominence on Earth by lifting heavier weights than other species.

Intelligence is the source of technology. If we can use technology to improve intelligence, that closes the loop and potentially creates a positive feedback cycle. Let’s say we invent brain-computer interfaces that substantially improve human intelligence. What might these augmented humans do with their improved intelligence? Well, among other things, they’ll probably design the next generation of brain-computer interfaces. And then, being even smarter, the next generation can do an even better job of designing the third generation. This hypothetical positive feedback cycle was pointed out in the 1960s by I. J. Good, a famous statistician, who called it the “intelligence explosion”. The purest case of an intelligence explosion would be an Artificial Intelligence rewriting its own source code.

The key idea is that if you can improve intelligence even a little, the process accelerates. It’s a tipping point. Like trying to balance a pen on one end - as soon as it tilts even a little, it quickly falls the rest of the way.

The potential impact on our world is enormous. Intelligence is the source of all our technology from agriculture to nuclear weapons. All of that was produced as a side effect of the last great jump in intelligence, the one that took place tens of thousands of years ago with the rise of humanity.

So let’s say you have an Artificial Intelligence that thinks enormously faster than a human. How does that affect our world? Well, hypothetically, the AI solves the protein folding problem. And then emails a DNA string to an online service that sequences the DNA, synthesizes the protein, and fedexes the protein back. The proteins self-assemble into a biological machine that builds a machine that builds a machine and then a few days later the AI has full-blown molecular nanotechnology.

So what might an Artificial Intelligence do with nanotechnology? Feed the hungry? Heal the sick? Help us become smarter? Instantly wipe out the human species? Probably it depends on the specific makeup of the AI. See, human beings all have the same cognitive architecture. We all have a prefrontal cortex and limbic system and so on. If you imagine a space of all possible minds, then all human beings are packed into one small dot in mind design space. And then Artificial Intelligence is literally everything else. “AI” just means “a mind that does not work like we do”. So you can’t ask “What will an AI do?” as if all AIs formed a natural kind. There is more than one possible AI.

The impact, of the intelligence explosion, on our world, depends on exactly what kind of minds go through the tipping point.

I would seriously argue that we are heading for the critical point of all human history. Modifying or improving the human brain, or building strong AI, is huge enough on its own. When you consider the intelligence explosion effect, the next few decades could determine the future of intelligent life.

So this is probably the single most important issue in the world. Right now, almost no one is paying serious attention. And the marginal impact of additional efforts could be huge. My nonprofit, the Singularity Institute, is trying to get things started in this area. My own work deals with the stability of goals in self-modifying AI, so we can build an AI and have some idea of what will happen as a result. There’s more to this issue, but I’m out of time. If you’re interested in any of this, please talk to me, this problem needs your attention. Thank you.