Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Radio Controlled]

Besides, even if AI could find a solution to all our problems, that doesn't mean we'd follow its advice.

[FArgHalfnr]

Besides, even if AI could find a solution to all our problems, that doesn't mean we'd follow its advice.

Agreed. I mean we already know that reducing our CO2 emissions is our best bet, and yet we do nothing. As if we didn't care enough about our species to save it -_-

As for the AI thing, what we're asking it is to create a better version of itself, and considering how long it is taking us to do it, I doubt it will be able to succeed very quickly, even with an increased intellect and access to our scientific knowledge. I expect it would take at least a century before the second generation of AI is developed. Further generations might come quicker given our seemingly exponential technological progress.
So an AI singularity would be a very long term project in my mind. The human upgrading alternative would probably be just as long, but at least we would be able to make ourselves progressively better in the meantime.

[Culise]

Thing is, water vapor tends to be... well, complicated. It acts as both greenhouse gas and albedo contributer. This is one of the reasons why global warming can be so catastrophic- the ice caps are a massive source of albedo, and their melting would do far more than raise the height of the oceans: it would accelerate things at a terrifying pace. Considering how exponential this can become, it does make sense that there could very well exist a "point of no return" where, after we pass, no matter what we do, global warming will destroy the planet.

My fear is that we've already passed it and just don't realize it.

If it makes you feel better, we're highly unlikely to destroy the planet, or even all life on it.  If anything, the fact that the Earth has been in either a glacial period or interglacial for humanity's history is a rather exceptional circumstance; the last ice age hasn't technically ended yet so long as we still have polar ice sheets, while greenhouse situations are the norm for most of Earth's history.  The real thing we need to worry about is how a return to greenhouse conditions would affect humanity and ecosystems dependent on it, which holds the potential for some rather drastic consequences.  But as a whole?  To poach a turn of phrase, life finds a way. 

[WillowLuman]

As an environmental science student, I should probably go back and read this thread when I have time. But I gave it a quick skim. Anyway, just want to say a few things real quick:

Things you can (most likely) do today to help:
-Eat poultry instead of other meats. Healthier, and more feed-efficient to raise. Plus, it often costs less at the store. Just pay attention to where it comes from, though.
-If you have to run your tap for a while before the water gets warm, put a bucket under it in the meantime so you can save all that cold water for other uses (watering plants, cleaning, or drinking if you put it in a kettle/filtered pitcher. Whatever you use water for.)
-If you have one, check the power requirements on your dish washer. Chances are you probably actually use less resources washing your dishes mechanically than by hand.
-Remember that humanity's impact on the planet is, for the most part, the sum of all our individual impacts, so making small changes to your life, and encouraging others around you to do so (don't be insufferable about it though!) can go a long way.

Things to keep in mind:
-Positive/Negative feedback cycles, look them up! They're key to understanding the mechanics of the environment, and its immense complexity.
-The big picture is never simple, but there is hope.
-Seafood will never be sustainable without either a reduction in demand, or switching our methods from hunting (that's what fishing is, even though its large scale) to farming (which, of course, has problems to solve before it could be sustainable).

[Zangi]

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet#RkKQdL71c3C0tSeO.99

So... bacon is on the same tier as chicken?

EDIT:changed spoiler to quote
EDIT2: Seriously though, ya'll keep saying chicken is good, but not mentioning bacon also.  Plus fish I guess.  Unless there is some vast difference between those.

[WillowLuman]

You don't just grow the bacon, you grow the entire pig.

[Frumple]

Eat the entire pig, too. Maybe feed the parts you don't back to other pigs. Or chickens, whatever. Feed leftover chicken to pig, leftover pig to chicken. Sounds like plan.

[WillowLuman]

You're missing the point here. Pound-for-pound, chicken meat is less resource-intensive to produce than pig meat.

[Frumple]

... the point was not a point. The point was idle glibness.

Though yeah, looking at it, the feed efficiency is about 50% worse for pigs compared to poultry (though still ~3/5ths what beef is on the low end, so you're still making major improvement if you switch from beef to pork).

[Cthulhu]

Besides, even if AI could find a solution to all our problems, that doesn't mean we'd follow its advice.

Agreed. I mean we already know that reducing our CO2 emissions is our best bet, and yet we do nothing. As if we didn't care enough about our species to save it -_-

As for the AI thing, what we're asking it is to create a better version of itself, and considering how long it is taking us to do it, I doubt it will be able to succeed very quickly, even with an increased intellect and access to our scientific knowledge. I expect it would take at least a century before the second generation of AI is developed. Further generations might come quicker given our seemingly exponential technological progress.
So an AI singularity would be a very long term project in my mind. The human upgrading alternative would probably be just as long, but at least we would be able to make ourselves progressively better in the meantime.

Well the idea is that scientific advancement has been accelerating so each iteration would be quicker so then we hit an asymptote and at that point it's pretty much "nobody knows what'll happen so feel free to insert whatever you think is coolest"
 
But yeah, we don't care about the fate of the species, that much is obvious.  The world is run by market forces -- you can't seize the means of production from the bourgeoisie because it already seized itself from them -- and market forces are generally only interested in one thing.

[Reelya]

With the singularity, the point is that you don't need to create a "super intelligence". You need to create an algorithm capable of generating something smarter than it is. The hurdles to creating this are in the same league as creating a "replicator" machine. We don't have a machine that can replicate itself without our involvement. But it's pretty obvious that replicators are possible to build, since we have examples from nature. We just haven't built one yet, because we don't know how to. Not knowing how it can work is not a sign that something is impossible.

There's also the concept that an intelligence (ourselves) can't create an intelligence which is greater than itself. By the same logic we could have said we can't build a machine stronger than ourselves, because how could we be strong enough to build it? Or we can't build a machine with vision more precise than ours, for how could we see well enough to engineer the parts?

even simple computers can already do many logical tasks much better than we can, so the "can't be greater" argument uses the same "god of the gaps" logic: Each generation whatever computers cannot yet do is held up as the hallmark of what makes human intelligence better: "yeah computers are smart at math, but they can't ... play chess!" right up until they beat the best of us at chess. And "computers can't ever match humans because we can... compose music" until computers were taught to compose music. The other argument is that because computers need to be taught these things by humans, they can't (ever) be intelligent. But, babies need to be taught many things, and that argument clearly doesn't hold for babies, so the argument fails.

Just like the religious "god of the gaps" argument, the line in the sand we keep drawing between "human" and "computer" abilities keeps getting washed away by the rising tide. When the line is redrawn, it's claimed that this time, like every time, the line is absolute, innate and special. That is the type of logic that is most insidious and it's a sure sign that someone is losing the argument.

The idea that "only greater intelligence can make intelligence" doesn't really hold up to scrutiny when you look for evidence. Single cells grow into super-intelligences every day. Clearly, something less intelligent can spawn a super-intelligence. So, I'd say the premise is disproven. And since a single cell using just the laws of chemistry and physics can in fact spawn a super-intelligence like the one we seek, clearly "dumb" programs based on a simple set of rules can be engineered which could design super-intelligences for us.

[FArgHalfnr]

@Cthulhu
Yes, my point is not that the singularity can't happen, it's just that it will probably take a while to start it. at some point maybe our AI will be able to improve itself in a very short delay, but the first few generations are probably gonna take a while to do so. If we consider the moment the first computer was created (A quick google search tells me it was built in 1822) as the moment we started working on a better version of ourselves, that's almost 200 years of development, and we aren't even close yet. Once we succeed, this first AI will probably be able to invent a second generation of AI quicker than we did, but it will probably still take a long time. In other words, the singularity is not something that happens instantly, it is rather a progressive event.

@Reelya
That kind of backward reasoning is something I can't stand. We've seen the same thing happens on social issues as well, such as black's rights and gay marriage. I don't think this reasoning is done by single individuals, it probably happen on many generations. Each one being slightly more progressive than the last one.

[Eagleon]

@Reelya: Everything you're saying amounts to prophecy, and that's exactly the main beef people have with singularitarians. You feel that you can be dismissive of the difficulties presented in AI research, but not even AI researchers can rely on feelings. Until we know what intelligence is, none of it is based on anything but projection of current trends for raw computational power, which judging by our current obsession with mobile devices isn't even a market imperative, let alone a way to decide if AI is possible. Business will probably hit 'good enough' long before anything like it could run on your desktop computer. After that, the closure of any gap to intelligence relies on us understanding how it can be made in silico with anything other than billions of years of environmental pressure on your aforementioned self-replicating system. That may happen tomorrow, or 500 years from now, or never. It's not some power bar to fill, and neither is intelligence (so 'greater' than us is a bizarre concept anyway), it's the construction of something either very, very complicated, or very simple with very complicated prerequisite insight. Either could take some time before someone connects the dots. In the meantime we should probably figure out how to save ourselves instead of relying on a god

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Reelya]

>  raw computational power, which judging by our current obsession with mobile devices isn't even a market imperative

This is a silly statement. Total world computation power isn't tied to the amount of CPU power in your pocket. Anyway, mobile device makers cram as much power in their as they can. People certainly pay a lot more for a powerful phone than a basic one right?

Anyway, mobile computing really doesn't have anything to do with the topic, so it's kind of questionable why you'd even bring that up.