godchaser

:)


I agree Toobz.. the sky's not falling.

-Course for any reading with interest; considering Moore's Law as meaningful argument's just one of many good indicators, that there's a great deal of reasonable and misinformed fears of coming technological impact? It's my thinking checks and balances'll forever remain the order of the day? -Progress can't significantly overwhelm a society in any manner of regard? -Commercial viability is more than adequate restraint? My meaning's if there's no market for tech. application, nobody is gonna waste time and money building it.

Which was Kurzweils' original interest of forecasting technological pace incidentally. Good timing is everything, and particularly costly if addressed poorly in the tech. business. His 'futurist' label and appeal is accurate enough though Eeviac, Jude -but this guy's only interested in where the rubber meets the road. Actually he's given to extremely conservative views, with respect of AGI-Artificial General Intelligence. Which is the GreatGrandDaddy of tech. advance. Conservative, to the tune of there being better than a dozen projects right now, from all over the world in the starting gate.

"The last tool mankind will ever need", as Minsky put it, if i recall right. Ray suggests that (modeling), the brain's necessary to achieve 'Human Equivalent' conscious machines, and this won't happen till the late twenties. Yet apparently all that's necessary is adequate programming and development of an (evolving), consciousness, or AGI?

Pockets of interest that ignore the tremendous amounts of money being spent today on AGI R&D specifically, and just by example of the tech. development dollars being spent across the board. -These interests that would allie themselves in stagnate and irrelevant interpretation of Moore's Law, as appreciable ceiling in tech. progression. As did Michio there. -Must by point of fact, in sight of abundant development spending, be considered pseudo? Money talks. :) Commercial appeal's king and the simple interest of spending development funds, and no amount of distraction in considering what's 'futurist' appeal is going to change this. Jurvetson's article, or any on point of the reality, of the (transitional status) of a 'Moore's Law' reference, rings true of real-world commercial-viability in pending technological threshold.

Although that doesn't mean for'a second that these development projects are fixated of building 'conscious' machines. Undoubtedly most are centered of establishing task orientation not unlike IBM's BigBlue and DeepBlue, that's obviously a whole lot smarter than a 'retarded cockroach', however accurate the statement in general 'Human Equivalency' terms. :) We got to be mindful of (societal fears) when we hear what must be well-informed individuals that posture in 'pseudo', and skew context like Michio Kaku did there. Then leave out the good part of Moore's Law, and make a literal mantra of repeating that it'll fizzle in twenty years during the interview timeslot.

HAAAAA- Political spintops got nothin' on these guys, however their interests may be perceived?

That's to say we're steadily, and with increasing speed and efficency, approaching what's a far cry from the world changes the Industrial Revolution brought about. Offsetting fears that may well genuinely effect the pace of tech. development must be part and parcel of tech. spokespersons seeming marching orders? Stem cell research has been held up to some degree by fundamentalist concerns; and still is, yet the science has likely advanced in ways it might otherwise have not been obliged? In any event, the scientific/engineering process is benefiting and being kept honest by some measure?

As it is, sooner's better. Vulgano's thinking is sure right.


C