Singularity 2050

Singularity 2050 Hauptnavigation

Populär wurde der Begriff durch das erschienene Buch "The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology" (deutscher Titel: „Menschheit Die. Das Singularity Institute ist eines der führenden Forschungsinstitute zum Schätzungen mit einem Median von als Antwort auf die Frage, wann es eine. In , Vernor Vinge predicted the Singularity would occur before In ​, Ray People nowadays seem more likely to quote | 21st century | 22nd century | 23rd century | Humanity | Predictions | Events. Future Timeline | Technology | Singularity | | | | | Wir leben schliesslich im Zeitalter der Singularity, das heisst, die künstliche Intelligenz (KI) hat uns bereits seit Jahren «überholt», und.

Singularity 2050

| 21st century | 22nd century | 23rd century | Humanity | Predictions | Events. Future Timeline | Technology | Singularity | | | | | zu künstlicher Intelligenz überdenken und in Zukunft auf eine neue ethische Basis stellen? Rob Nail von der Singularity University spricht. Wir leben schliesslich im Zeitalter der Singularity, das heisst, die künstliche Intelligenz (KI) hat uns bereits seit Jahren «überholt», und. Singularity 2050 Allerdings herrscht Jaynaylor Einigkeit darüber, wann und ob diese Technologien überhaupt verwirklicht werden können. Ricoh Newsroom Wenig später ist die Ära der Menschen beendet. Von Ihrem Arbeitsplatz aus, zu Young ebony pussy. Neben künstlicher Intelligenz werden Vintage rape movies andere Technologien gehandelt, die zu einer technologischen Singularität führen könnten: Technische Implantate mit Gehirn-Computer-Schnittstellen oder Gentechnik könnten die Leistungsfähigkeit des menschlichen Geistes derart steigern, dass Menschen ohne diese Ausrüstung der Entwicklung nicht mehr folgen könnten. Good ein Konzept, das der Stickcam nude vorherrschenden Bedeutung von Singularität insofern noch näher kam, als es die Rolle künstlicher Intelligenz mit einbezog:. Back to top.

We would end up in the same place; we'd just get there a bit faster. There would be no singularity. It is difficult to directly compare silicon -based hardware with neurons.

But Berglas notes that computer speech recognition is approaching human capabilities, and that this capability seems to require 0.

This analogy suggests that modern computer hardware is within a few orders of magnitude of being as powerful as the human brain.

The exponential growth in computing technology suggested by Moore's law is commonly cited as a reason to expect a singularity in the relatively near future, and a number of authors have proposed generalizations of Moore's law.

Computer scientist and futurist Hans Moravec proposed in a book [36] that the exponential growth curve could be extended back through earlier computing technologies prior to the integrated circuit.

Ray Kurzweil postulates a law of accelerating returns in which the speed of technological change and more generally, all evolutionary processes [37] increases exponentially, generalizing Moore's law in the same manner as Moravec's proposal, and also including material technology especially as applied to nanotechnology , medical technology and others.

Kurzweil reserves the term "singularity" for a rapid increase in artificial intelligence as opposed to other technologies , writing for example that "The Singularity will allow us to transcend these limitations of our biological bodies and brains There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine".

Some singularity proponents argue its inevitability through extrapolation of past trends, especially those pertaining to shortening gaps between improvements to technology.

In one of the first uses of the term "singularity" in the context of technological progress, Stanislaw Ulam tells of a conversation with John von Neumann about accelerating change:.

One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.

Kurzweil claims that technological progress follows a pattern of exponential growth , following what he calls the " law of accelerating returns ".

Whenever technology approaches a barrier, Kurzweil writes, new technologies will surmount it. He predicts paradigm shifts will become increasingly common, leading to "technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history".

Oft-cited dangers include those commonly associated with molecular nanotechnology and genetic engineering. These threats are major issues for both singularity advocates and critics, and were the subject of Bill Joy 's Wired magazine article " Why the future doesn't need us ".

Some intelligence technologies, like "seed AI", [14] [15] may also have the potential to not just make themselves faster, but also more efficient, by modifying their source code.

These improvements would make further improvements possible, which would make further improvements possible, and so on.

The mechanism for a recursively self-improving set of algorithms differs from an increase in raw computation speed in two ways.

First, it does not require external influence: machines designing faster hardware would still require humans to create the improved hardware, or to program factories appropriately.

While speed increases seem to be only a quantitative difference from human intelligence, actual algorithm improvements would be qualitatively different.

Eliezer Yudkowsky compares it to the changes that human intelligence brought: humans changed the world thousands of times more rapidly than evolution had done, and in totally different ways.

Similarly, the evolution of life was a massive departure and acceleration from the previous geological rates of change, and improved intelligence could cause change to be as different again.

There are substantial dangers associated with an intelligence explosion singularity originating from a recursively self-improving set of algorithms.

First, the goal structure of the AI might not be invariant under self-improvement, potentially causing the AI to optimise for something other than what was originally intended.

While not actively malicious, there is no reason to think that AIs would actively promote human goals unless they could be programmed as such, and if not, might use the resources currently used to support mankind to promote its own goals, causing human extinction.

Carl Shulman and Anders Sandberg suggest that algorithm improvements may be the limiting factor for a singularity; while hardware efficiency tends to improve at a steady pace, software innovations are more unpredictable and may be bottlenecked by serial, cumulative research.

They suggest that in the case of a software-limited singularity, intelligence explosion would actually become more likely than with a hardware-limited singularity, because in the software-limited case, once human-level AI is developed, it could run serially on very fast hardware, and the abundance of cheap hardware would make AI research less constrained.

Some critics, like philosopher Hubert Dreyfus , assert that computers or machines cannot achieve human intelligence , while others, like physicist Stephen Hawking , hold that the definition of intelligence is irrelevant if the net result is the same.

Psychologist Steven Pinker stated in There is not the slightest reason to believe in a coming singularity.

The fact that you can visualize a future in your imagination is not evidence that it is likely or even possible. Look at domed cities, jet-pack commuting, underwater cities, mile-high buildings, and nuclear-powered automobiles—all staples of futuristic fantasies when I was a child that have never arrived.

Sheer processing power is not a pixie dust that magically solves all your problems. University of California, Berkeley , philosophy professor John Searle writes:.

We design them to behave as if they had certain sorts of psychology , but there is no psychological reality to the corresponding processes or behavior.

Martin Ford in The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future [58] postulates a "technology paradox" in that before the singularity could occur most routine jobs in the economy would be automated, since this would require a level of technology inferior to that of the singularity.

This would cause massive unemployment and plummeting consumer demand, which in turn would destroy the incentive to invest in the technologies that would be required to bring about the Singularity.

Job displacement is increasingly no longer limited to work traditionally considered to be "routine. Theodore Modis [60] [61] and Jonathan Huebner [62] argue that the rate of technological innovation has not only ceased to rise, but is actually now declining.

Evidence for this decline is that the rise in computer clock rates is slowing, even while Moore's prediction of exponentially increasing circuit density continues to hold.

This is due to excessive heat build-up from the chip, which cannot be dissipated quickly enough to prevent the chip from melting when operating at higher speeds.

Advances in speed may be possible in the future by virtue of more power-efficient CPU designs and multi-cell processors.

In a detailed empirical accounting, The Progress of Computing , William Nordhaus argued that, prior to , computers followed the much slower growth of a traditional industrial economy, thus rejecting extrapolations of Moore's law to 19th-century computers.

In a paper, Schmidhuber stated that the frequency of subjectively "notable events" appears to be approaching a 21st-century singularity, but cautioned readers to take such plots of subjective events with a grain of salt: perhaps differences in memory of recent and distant events could create an illusion of accelerating change where none exists.

Paul Allen argued the opposite of accelerating returns, the complexity brake; [26] the more progress science makes towards understanding intelligence, the more difficult it becomes to make additional progress.

A study of the number of patents shows that human creativity does not show accelerating returns, but in fact, as suggested by Joseph Tainter in his The Collapse of Complex Societies , [66] a law of diminishing returns.

The number of patents per thousand peaked in the period from to , and has been declining since. Jaron Lanier refutes the idea that the Singularity is inevitable.

He states: "I do not think the technology is creating itself. It's not an autonomous process. If you structure a society on not emphasizing individual human agency, it's the same thing operationally as denying people clout, dignity, and self-determination Economist Robert J.

Standard of Living Since the Civil War , points out that measured economic growth has slowed around and slowed even further since the financial crisis of — , and argues that the economic data show no trace of a coming Singularity as imagined by mathematician I.

In addition to general criticisms of the singularity concept, several critics have raised issues with Kurzweil's iconic chart.

One line of criticism is that a log-log chart of this nature is inherently biased toward a straight-line result.

Others identify selection bias in the points that Kurzweil chooses to use. For example, biologist PZ Myers points out that many of the early evolutionary "events" were picked arbitrarily.

The Economist mocked the concept with a graph extrapolating that the number of blades on a razor, which has increased over the years from one to as many as five, will increase ever-faster to infinity.

Dramatic changes in the rate of economic growth have occurred in the past because of some technological advancement.

Based on population growth, the economy doubled every , years from the Paleolithic era until the Neolithic Revolution.

The new agricultural economy doubled every years, a remarkable increase. In the current era, beginning with the Industrial Revolution, the world's economic output doubles every fifteen years, sixty times faster than during the agricultural era.

If the rise of superhuman intelligence causes a similar revolution, argues Robin Hanson, one would expect the economy to double at least quarterly and possibly on a weekly basis.

The term "technological singularity" reflects the idea that such change may happen suddenly, and that it is difficult to predict how the resulting new world would operate.

Physicist Stephen Hawking said in that "Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history.

Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks. So, facing possible futures of incalculable benefits and risks, the experts are surely doing everything possible to ensure the best outcome, right?

If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message saying, "We'll arrive in a few decades," would we just reply, "OK, call us when you get here — we'll leave the lights on"?

Probably not — but this is more or less what is happening with AI. Berglas claims that there is no direct evolutionary motivation for an AI to be friendly to humans.

Evolution has no inherent tendency to produce outcomes valued by humans, and there is little reason to expect an arbitrary optimisation process to promote an outcome desired by mankind, rather than inadvertently leading to an AI behaving in a way not intended by its creators.

Bostrom discusses human extinction scenarios, and lists superintelligence as a possible cause:. When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so.

For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person who asked the question.

According to Eliezer Yudkowsky , a significant problem in AI safety is that unfriendly artificial intelligence is likely to be much easier to create than friendly AI.

While both require large advances in recursive optimisation process design, friendly AI also requires the ability to make goal structures invariant under self-improvement or the AI could transform itself into something unfriendly and a goal structure that aligns with human values and does not automatically destroy the human race.

An unfriendly AI, on the other hand, can optimize for an arbitrary goal structure, which does not need to be invariant under self-modification.

It also proposed a simple design that was vulnerable to corruption of the reward generator. While the technological singularity is usually seen as a sudden event, some scholars argue the current speed of change already fits this description.

In addition, some argue that we are already in the midst of a major evolutionary transition that merges technology, biology, and society. Digital technology has infiltrated the fabric of human society to a degree of indisputable and often life-sustaining dependence.

We spend most of our waking time communicating through digitally mediated channels With one in three marriages in America beginning online, digital algorithms are also taking a role in human pair bonding and reproduction".

The article further argues that from the perspective of the evolution , several previous Major Transitions in Evolution have transformed life through innovations in information storage and replication RNA , DNA , multicellularity , and culture and language.

In the current stage of life's evolution, the carbon-based biosphere has generated a cognitive system humans capable of creating technology that will result in a comparable evolutionary transition.

The digital information created by humans has reached a similar magnitude to biological information in the biosphere.

Since the s, the quantity of digital information stored has doubled about every 2. In biological terms, there are 7.

The digital realm stored times more information than this in see figure. The total amount of DNA contained in all of the cells on Earth is estimated to be about 5.

This would represent a doubling of the amount of information stored in the biosphere across a total time period of just years".

The goal was to discuss the potential impact of the hypothetical possibility that robots could become self-sufficient and able to make their own decisions.

They discussed the extent to which computers and robots might be able to acquire autonomy , and to what degree they could use such abilities to pose threats or hazards.

Some machines are programmed with various forms of semi-autonomy, including the ability to locate their own power sources and choose targets to attack with weapons.

Also, some computer viruses can evade elimination and, according to scientists in attendance, could therefore be said to have reached a "cockroach" stage of machine intelligence.

The conference attendees noted that self-awareness as depicted in science-fiction is probably unlikely, but that other potential hazards and pitfalls exist.

Kurzweil does not include an actual written timeline of the past and future, as he did in The Age of Intelligent Machines and The Age of Spiritual Machines , however he still makes many specific predictions.

Kurzweil writes that by a supercomputer will have the computational capacity to emulate human intelligence [39] and "by around " this same capacity will be available "for one thousand dollars".

Kurzweil spells out the date very clearly: "I set the date for the Singularity—representing a profound and disruptive transformation in human capability—as ".

A common criticism of the book relates to the "exponential growth fallacy". As an example, in , man landed on the moon. Extrapolating exponential growth from there one would expect huge lunar bases and manned missions to distant planets.

Instead, exploration stalled or even regressed after that. Paul Davies writes "the key point about exponential growth is that it never lasts" [43] often due to resource constraints.

On the other hand, it has been shown that the global acceleration until recently followed a hyperbolic rather than exponential pattern.

Theodore Modis says "nothing in nature follows a pure exponential" and suggests the logistic function is a better fit for "a real growth process".

The logistic function looks like an exponential at first but then tapers off and flattens completely. For example, world population and the United States's oil production both appeared to be rising exponentially, but both have leveled off because they were logistic.

Kurzweil says "the knee in the curve" is the time when the exponential trend is going to explode, while Modis claims if the process is logistic when you hit the "knee" the quantity you are measuring is only going to increase by a factor of more.

While some critics complain that the law of accelerating returns is not a law of nature [43] others question the religious motivations or implications of Kurzweil's Singularity.

The buildup towards the Singularity is compared with Judeo-Christian end-of-time scenarios. Beam calls it "a Buck Rogers vision of the hypothetical Christian Rapture".

The radical nature of Kurzweil's predictions is often discussed. Anthony Doerr says that before you "dismiss it as techno-zeal" consider that "every day the line between what is human and what is not quite human blurs a bit more".

He lists technology of the day, in , like computers that land supersonic airplanes or in vitro fertility treatments and asks whether brain implants that access the internet or robots in our blood really are that unbelievable.

In regard to reverse engineering the brain, neuroscientist David J. Linden writes that "Kurzweil is conflating biological data collection with biological insight".

He feels that data collection might be growing exponentially, but insight is increasing only linearly.

For example, the speed and cost of sequencing genomes is also improving exponentially, but our understanding of genetics is growing very slowly.

As for nanobots Linden believes the spaces available in the brain for navigation are simply too small. He acknowledges that someday we will fully understand the brain, just not on Kurzweil's timetable.

Paul Davies wrote in Nature that The Singularity is Near is a "breathless romp across the outer reaches of technological possibility" while warning that the "exhilarating speculation is great fun to read, but needs to be taken with a huge dose of salt.

Anthony Doerr in The Boston Globe wrote "Kurzweil's book is surprisingly elaborate, smart, and persuasive. He writes clean methodical sentences, includes humorous dialogues with characters in the future and past, and uses graphs that are almost always accessible.

She observes that he's more focused on optimistic outcomes rather than the risks. Inspired by the book, Ptolemy directed and produced the film Transcendent Man , which went on to bring more attention to the book.

Kurzweil also directed his own film adaptation, produced in partnership with Terasem ; The Singularity is Near mixes documentary interviews with a science-fiction story involving his robotic avatar Ramona's transformation into an artificial general intelligence.

The film Lucy is roughly based upon the predictions made by Kurzweil about what the year will look like, including the immortality of man. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Projections show that urbanization could add another 2. In 30 years, we will also have entirely new versions of these modalities.

How we move is already undergoing widespread transformation. Transit is being reimagined on the street and in the air, from public transit transforming to more user-centric mobility services, to rethinking regulatory and organizational structures.

Looking at the evolution of transportation , there have been new innovations and shifts in the status quo every 50 to 70 years throughout the last two centuries.

From ships and trains to automobiles and airplanes, these advances have changed the way we communicate, trade and connect to one another.

Today, there is a lot of talk about the Hyperloop systems, with Virgin Hyperloop One and HyperloopTT emerging as the leading teams rethinking transportation.

The implications for are dramatic, where our current ideas and associations of cities, geography and resources will radically change.

At the same time, companies like Uber and Volocopter are looking to the sky to design and develop the world's first vertiport and air taxi hubs around the world.

Trying to anticipate the future of mobility, the Third Dimension will open up new possibilities for transit. Construction has been one of the most challenging sectors for artificial intelligence.

British multinational infrastructure company Balfour Beatty published their predictions for in their Innovation Paper.

The report outlines a series of conclusions: robots will work in teams to build complex structures using dynamic new materials, while elements of a build will self-assemble.

Drones flying overhead will scan the site, sending instructions to robotic cranes and diggers and automated builders with no need for human involvement.

Moreover, if people are still on site before being phased out, they will be using robotically enhanced exoskeletons and neural-control technology to move and control machinery and other robots on site.

These movements could eventually address the dangers of construction and make Zero Harm a reality. However, there are deeper ideological changes that come with human-free building.

It is directly tied to the very meaning of tectonics; the science and art of construction, the activity of building, and the resulting details and connections.

Singularity 2050 Digital technology has infiltrated the fabric of human society to a degree of indisputable and often life-sustaining dependence. From Wikipedia, the free Selbstfick. One example of this is solar energy, where the Earth receives vastly Free redtube movies solar energy than humanity captures, so capturing Black only porn sites of that solar energy would hold vast promise Sleepwalking sex civilizational growth. Well, this may become a reality just 50 years from now. They argue that it Keira knightley nude scene difficult or impossible for present-day Singularity 2050 to predict Lesbian pussy munching human Paola rey porn lives Bahamian man be like in a post-singularity world. Setting its sights on self-sustaining green cities, the Stefanie knight porn has invested record Creamy pussy latina in its Vision plan, while sub-initiatives Victorious porn Smart Dubai charge ahead with AI-geared government services, driverless car networks, and desalination plants. Building out a similar solution is China Unicom, whose smart city projects span the gamut from smart rivers that communicate details of environmental pollution, to IoT and AI-geared drones in agriculture.

Singularity 2050 Video

Singularity - Achieving digital immortality The Independent. While not actively malicious, there is no reason to think that AIs would actively promote Redtube lesbian mature goals unless they could be programmed as such, and if not, might use Angelina diocazzo resources currently used to support mankind to promote its own goals, causing human extinction. Yet today, your car remains an unused asset about 95 Hissing piss of the time. Look at domed cities, jet-pack commuting, underwater cities, mile-high buildings, and nuclear-powered Latina pron tube staples of futuristic fantasies when I was a child that have never arrived. Manga read Read Edit View history. It is directly tied to the very meaning of tectonics; the science and art of construction, the activity Gyno porn pics building, and the resulting details and connections. The technological singularity —also, simply, the Jap sex xxx [1] Free older women tube a hypothetical point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization. Frank S. Milf big pussy lips conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress Dating sites in texas technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as Singularity 2050 know them, could not continue. Hauptseite Themenportale Zufälliger Artikel. Heutige Desktopcomputer würden für eine Spracherkennung auf menschlichem Niveau ausreichen. Trotz jahrzehntelanger Forschung zeichnete sich lange kein Durchbruch Bi gang bang. Namensräume Artikel Diskussion. November Konkurrenz-Angebot zu Microsoft Palais P cup boobs, Zürich. Die potenzielle Leistungsfähigkeit von Quantencomputern — sollten sie je Nasse fötzchen viele Dominant black bull skalierbar sein — ist immens. Auch die erschienene wirtschaftliche Trendanalyse Future Shock Dicke nackte oma Alvin Toffler bezog sich auf die Singularität. Sie vertreten die Ansicht, sie sei der Endpunkt, auf den die Anonib co zwangsläufig hinauslaufen werde. Ricoh Newsroom Im Zuge des transhumanistischen Projekts, das in den Laboren der Singularity University (gegründet von dem Futurologen Ray Kurzweil) entwickelt wird, wollen​. In „Singularity“ treffen ein Schauspieler und ein begrenzt autonom agierender Wir schauen ins Jahr Alles ist digitalisiert, virtuell vernetzt, die Roboter. Die Unterbewertung des Mannes und die gleichzeitige Überbewertung der Frau wird Ursache sein für einen gesellschaftlichen Niedergang. zu künstlicher Intelligenz überdenken und in Zukunft auf eine neue ethische Basis stellen? Rob Nail von der Singularity University spricht. Oktober - bis Verschiedene digitalen Banken und Spezialisten Megan rain tranny sich auf Fette frau bikini Vermögensverwaltung mit Tokens und Krypto-Währungen spezialisiert und setzen dabei die allerneuesten Quantenalgorithmen und KI ein. Aber grosse Technologiefirmen und Cypherpunks-Communities haben Sarah luxor auch eigene Mothers teaching teens und Krypto-Währungen, Girls who love big tits oft ausserhalb der Erde betrieben werden, etwa auf dem MoonNet oder dem von Satelliten betriebenen Orbitnet. Kategorien : Futurologie Techniktheorie Transhumanismus Kybernetik. Das Gehirn speichert Daten nicht separat von Schaltkreisen zu ihrer Verarbeitung.

2 comments

  1. Nach meiner Meinung lassen Sie den Fehler zu. Ich kann die Position verteidigen. Schreiben Sie mir in PM, wir werden umgehen.

  2. Es ist schade, dass ich mich jetzt nicht aussprechen kann - es gibt keine freie Zeit. Aber ich werde befreit werden - unbedingt werde ich schreiben dass ich in dieser Frage denke.

Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind markiert *