>He describes his new theory of how the neocortex (the thinking part of the brain) works: as a self-organizing hierarchical system of pattern recognizers.
So is this On Intelligence 2?
I'm glad he's figured out how the brain works. He's going to need it to solve the turing test in less than 17 years:
http://longbets.org/1/
On a serious note, if you're going to have a "Videos" page on your new book's website, you need to have more than 2 videos (3 and 6 years old). If your argument is that technology is progressing at an exponential rate (which I find stupid, but let's take it at face value), then two videos from several years ago are probably worthless by now.
It can't just be pattern recognizers at every level of the hierarchy of abstraction/organization anyway. I mean, eventually, after I process inputs and come to understandings of them, I also produce patterns, sequence them, compare them, prune them, and occasionally produce them as outputs. Unless that phrase "of pattern recognizers" is supposed to be labeling only the lowest level of building blocks that go into the self-organizing hierarchical system, in which case, it is much like saying a jet-engine is just atoms arraigned somehow... not a very complete explanation.
Also, self-organized? I know the way he meant it. But it irks me, considering all the structured inputs that a child gets, training material for the programming of neural connections, different at various stages of mental development, tailored toward particular chosen outcomes using centuries to eons of human experience on building minds in young brain matter. A modern person's mind is also quite constructed by, if one is lucky, one's good parents/family and cultural environment.
I know, I know, I'm picking on a promo-speak blurb, there no doubt better ways for me to have spent this time.
Every time I hear about the inevitability of the singularity, all I can think about is what a precariously balanced collection of hacks actual computer programs are at their core, and how far off that is from true intelligence. Am I just pessimistic or are we a complete paradigm shift or two away of even getting close to true AI?
I share your pessimism. I think attempts to make a mind in code are a modern attempt at alchemy, and just as doomed.
My sticking point is consciousness. I don't think it's an illusion; I think it's both real and essential to intelligence. And we have no idea what it's made out of. We can break it. We can characterize the hardware conditions under which it works. But build it? No, that's completely beyond us, and I think it will be for many centuries. We don't even know where to properly start.
I had a pet rat, once. I think it was conscious, in a very small way. It visibly related itself to the world. When they can convincingly simulate that level of alertness and presence, when they can build a machine that appears at least as conscious as my pet rat did -- when they produce the tiniest amount of genuine gold -- I'll concede the singularity may be on the horizon. Until then, I'm a skeptic.
I think we are close to having the software engineering ability to create the infrastructure needed to support a self-improving optimization process. The feats of software engineering in the last decade or so seem like strong evidence that we can develop the tools to support mathematical models and methods at a large scale, when we really understand the problem.
What I don't think we are close to understanding is how to actually make practical self-improving optimization processes and especially ones that are actually beneficial, rather than detrimental, for humanity. I feel like we are just getting started on this. If progress is going to be made at the rate that Kurzweil has predicted it is going to take more than just faster processors and better supporting software infrastructure.
Thats my point though-- it seems like there are too many unknown unknowns here to make any sort of predictions. We're still several massive leaps removed from where we would need to be in order to really get started.
I would argue that evolution overall often looks like a "precariously balanced collection of hacks". So, it would be irrational to expect evolution's solution to the problem of intelligence to be any different.
Evolution may seem like a "precariously balanced collection of hacks" but it takes a long time. As an analogy, the singularity is so far off because our current computing power is essentially invertebrate multi-celled organisms. Computers still need a backbone, get out of the oceans, and breathe air - and this is long before they can store a human existence.
Kurzweil seems to think it's close out of hope. I think he's just insanely afraid of dying.
While I look forward to reading this book, I recommend interested people balance it somewhat with one of the books by Uttal. Neural Theories of Mind and The New Phrenology are both good reads that raise theoretical and practical hurdles to reverse engineering brains.
Obvious differences aside, there's something about the presentation of this (e.g., "the secret of human thought revealed") that reminds me of Deepak Chopra.
Well, Kurzweil did write a book called Age of the Spiritual Machines. And he does think he's going to be able to live forever and essentially reconstruct his dead father. And he does take 150 (previously 250) supplements and 10 glasses of alkaline water per day. And he did write a nutrition book about avoiding fat, particularly butter, organ meats, and eggs.
So I'd say there's more than a passing resemblance to the master of woo himself.
>And he does think he's going to be able to live forever and essentially reconstruct his dead father. And he does take 150 (previously 250) supplements and 10 glasses of alkaline water per day. And he did write a nutrition book about avoiding fat, particularly butter, organ meats, and eggs.
Yes, and Michael Jackson avoided germs at all costs, and slept in oxygen tanks. I wonder how that worked out...
So everybody agrees, except for the people who don't, who must therefore also be cranks (or something else equally dismissive).
I don't care how "settled" the science is on any subject; it doesn't necessitate diluting the discourse. I'm no climate science denier, but I'm still willing to listen to an opposing argument on that topic or any other without resorting to ad hominem. If you don't have something of value to add, please close the browser tab and get back to work.
It's willingness to deviate from prior mental models and frames of reference that can yield unexpected breakthroughs. Quantum physics also used to seem crazy (actually, it still does).
Equating Kurzweil with Nostradamus is highly exaggerative (I don't recall the latter employing any mathematical models), but I would listen to anything Nostradamus-related based on the arguments and evidence, not the name.
The real issue is that HN strives for a higher standard of discussion, and ad hominems fall below that standard whether or not they are true. Snarky name-calling should stay on reddit.
I keep trying to read the singularity is near. It just feels like a a drag so it gets put down. So much repetition and irrelevance, diversions etc. I hope his writing has improved.
So is this On Intelligence 2?
I'm glad he's figured out how the brain works. He's going to need it to solve the turing test in less than 17 years: http://longbets.org/1/
On a serious note, if you're going to have a "Videos" page on your new book's website, you need to have more than 2 videos (3 and 6 years old). If your argument is that technology is progressing at an exponential rate (which I find stupid, but let's take it at face value), then two videos from several years ago are probably worthless by now.