Amazing!!!!!
I only quoted the beginning.
Full article: http://www.3dprinter.net/reference/what-is-3d-printing
What is 3D Printing? An Overview.
You've heard of 3D printing from newscasters and journalists, astonished at what they've witnessed. A machine reminiscent of the Star Trek Replicator, something magical that can create objects out of thin air. It can "print" in plastic, metal, nylon, and over a hundred other materials. It can be used for making nonsensical little models like the over-printed Yoda, yet it can also print manufacturing prototypes, end user products, quasi-legal guns, aircraft engine parts and even human organs using a person's own cells.
Fantastical? Yes. True? Yes. Here now? Yes.
We live in an age that is witness to what many are calling the Third Industrial Revolution. 3D printing, more professionally called additive manufacturing, moves us away from the Henry Ford era mass production line, and will bring us to a new reality of customizable, one-off production.
Need a part for your washing machine? As it is now, you'd order from your repairman who gets it from a distributor, who got it shipped from China, where they mass-produced thousands of them at once, probably injection-molded from a very expensive mold. In the future, the beginning of which is already here now, you will simply 3D print the part right in your home, from a CAD file you downloaded. If you don't have the right printer, just print it at your local fab (think Kinkos).
3D printers use a variety of very different types of additive manufacturing technologies, but they all share one core thing in common: they create a three dimensional object by building it layer by successive layer, until the entire object is complete. It's much like printing in two dimensions on a sheet of paper, but with an added third dimension: UP. The Z-axis.
Each of these printed layers is a thinly-sliced, horizontal cross-section of the eventual object. Imagine a multi-layer cake, with the baker laying down each layer one at a time until the entire cake is formed. 3D printing is somewhat similar, but just a bit more precise than 3D baking.
Stick with us and we'll go through the various types of additive manufacturing. From FDM printing, where a material is melted and extruded in layers, one upon the other, to SLS printing, where a bed of powder material such as nylon or titanium is "sintered" (hardened) layer upon thin layer within it until a model is pulled out of it. It's a fascinating and quickly advancing world that will change our lives as we know it.
------
3D Printing is a Game Changer
Instantly printing parts and entire products, anywhere in the world, is a game changer. But it doesn't stop there. 3D printing will affect almost every aspect of industry and our personal lives.
Medicine will forever be changed as new bioprinters actually print human tissue for both pharmaceutical testing and eventually entire organs and bones.
Architecture and construction are changing as well. Now, 3D-printed models of complex architectural drawings are created quickly and inexpensively, rather than the expensive and time-consuming process of handcrafting models out of cardboard. And experimental, massive 3D printers are printing concrete structures, with the goal of someday creating entire buildings with a 3D printer.
Art is already forever changed. Digital artists are creating magnificent pieces that seem almost impossible to have been made by traditional methods. From sculptures to light fixtures, beautiful objects no longer need to be handcrafted, just designed on a computer.
And there are developments where you least expect them: for example, archeologists can 3D scan priceless and delicate artifacts, and then print copies of them so they can handle them without fear of breakage. Replicas can be easily made and distributed to other research facilities or museums. It has been used to create a full-size reproduction of King Tutankhamun's mummy and to repair Rodin's sculpture, The Thinker.
The Future of 3D Printing
This is a disruptive technology of mammoth proportions, with effects on energy use, waste, customization, product availability, art, medicine, construction, the sciences, and of course manufacturing. It will change the world as we know it. Before you know it.
By Mark Fleming
http://www.3dprinter.net/reference/what-is-3d-printing
Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies, 2013
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fna1.www.gartner.com%2Fimagesrv%2Fnewsroom%2Fimages%2Fhype-cycle-pr.png%3Bpv4a3db6f9c029a4db&hash=c8dbfd5349b53eb7d8a1b5263200c0c9620de5b9)
You can see where 3D Printing is.
A long way to mature.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr01%2F2013%2F9%2F13%2F11%2Fanigif_enhanced-buzz-5587-1379085073-22.gif&hash=57d33e07ee4dd1ce6ec47eead8b2e495d4a45a21)
You worry me with all these gifs garbo.
Everybody already knows about 3-D printing. If you're going to post about, post about recent developments or breakthroughs rather than the technology in general.
The problem with the Singularity thing is it depends on humans making use of brain-enhancing technology. Can you really imagine loading a typical software product into your neurons without being freaked the Hell out by that concept? Bugs, patches, DLCs, vulnerabilities, backdoors ... Fuck that.
Why is Siege so big on the "Rapture of Nerds"?
3D printing? No way! That doesn't exist. Its impossible.
BTW. Is anyone else exicted about Abrams' Star Trek reboot? Its due out next year! It looks fun, though Sylar as Spock? hmm.....
Welcome to technology patented in 1984 and widely used on an industrial scale!
Quote from: Razgovory on February 24, 2014, 04:40:38 AM
Why is Siege so big on the "Rapture of Nerds"?
He's tired of being married.
Quote from: Tyr on February 24, 2014, 04:49:13 AM
3D printing? No way! That doesn't exist. Its impossible.
BTW. Is anyone else exicted about Abrams' Star Trek reboot? Its due out next year! It looks fun, though Sylar as Spock? hmm.....
What? Another reboot?
What a retard.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 24, 2014, 04:40:38 AM
Why is Siege so big on the "Rapture of Nerds"?
Ah, another milestone of technological development, perhaps?
Like the renaissance or the industrial revolution?
Another theory that supports my theory about alien life?
Given enough time, every planet that can hold life will hold life, every life holding planet will hold intelligent life, every intelligent life will become a technological civilization, every technological civilization will reach the singularity and become undetectable to less developed civilizations, therefore answering Fermis Paradox.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 24, 2014, 12:00:55 AM
Everybody already knows about 3-D printing. If you're going to post about, post about recent developments or breakthroughs rather than the technology in general.
The news Fuhrer issues his orders!
The other stuff is amazing too but one of the bigger ones that stands out to me is that they're now talking about creating human organs with this tech.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 23, 2014, 11:55:53 PM
You worry me with all these gifs garbo.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthebacklot.mtvnimages.com%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2Flafayettegif.gif&hash=9a6c7414f823bf02fb192939c97308d67ffadb75)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsaakup.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F11%2Fwtf.gif&hash=06ff8c3ff1b38aa04d51a74e8aedbb659d5beb0b)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforgifs.com%2Fgallery%2Fd%2F154562-3%2FUseless-box-closes-itself.gif&hash=7ea5346c4dd84d93b4cca1a1837de298340cd0c5)
Zanza wins.
Quote from: Siege on February 23, 2014, 11:40:46 PM
You can see where 3D Printing is.
A long way to mature.
"Enterprise 3D Printing" on the step before the plateau, only 2-5 years to reach. :contract:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 24, 2014, 06:51:47 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 23, 2014, 11:40:46 PM
You can see where 3D Printing is.
A long way to mature.
"Enterprise 3D Printing" on the step before the plateau, only 2-5 years to reach. :contract:
Yeah, but that's industrial 3D printing, which have been around for years.
I want consumer 3D printing to get there.
Quote from: Siege on February 24, 2014, 07:13:52 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 24, 2014, 04:40:38 AM
Why is Siege so big on the "Rapture of Nerds"?
Ah, another milestone of technological development, perhaps?
Like the renaissance or the industrial revolution?
Another theory that supports my theory about alien life?
Given enough time, every planet that can hold life will hold life, every life holding planet will hold intelligent life, every intelligent life will become a technological civilization, every technological civilization will reach the singularity and become undetectable to less developed civilizations, therefore answering Fermis Paradox.
I think it's a bit more then another milestone of technological development. Why would a society be undetectable to less developed civilizations?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 24, 2014, 07:07:25 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 24, 2014, 07:13:52 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 24, 2014, 04:40:38 AM
Why is Siege so big on the "Rapture of Nerds"?
Ah, another milestone of technological development, perhaps?
Like the renaissance or the industrial revolution?
Another theory that supports my theory about alien life?
Given enough time, every planet that can hold life will hold life, every life holding planet will hold intelligent life, every intelligent life will become a technological civilization, every technological civilization will reach the singularity and become undetectable to less developed civilizations, therefore answering Fermis Paradox.
I think it's a bit more then another milestone of technological development. Why would a society be undetectable to less developed civilizations?
Nanotechnology. A post-singularity society building at the nano-scale would eventually retreat from the physical world.
Quote from: KRonn on February 24, 2014, 10:10:45 AM
The other stuff is amazing too but one of the bigger ones that stands out to me is that they're now talking about creating human organs with this tech.
Quote:
Imagine a printer that operates in three dimensions, building up solid objects a layer at a time. Such printers exist and are used for making prototypes and models. Depending on what kind of material can be layered and the resolution of the printer, it might be possible to print up objects as mundane as toasters or as rare as star sapphires. (We might not have to wait for Robby the Robot to crystallize the gems.)
But even more important, we're on the threshold of being able to fabricate living tissue.
Researchers have already demonstrated that they can print living cells onto a collagen framework to create specific tissues and even whole functioning organs. We might eventually be able to grow our own replacement organs in the lab—skin, hearts, lungs, kidneys, livers, ears, hands, feet, arms, legs—and not have to wait for some unfortunate motorcyclist to lose an encounter with an SUV. We could see this happening within ten years. Could we grow whole new bodies...? We won't know until we get there, but once upon a time a heart transplant was unthinkable too.
Beyond that, being able to print living tissue could revolutionize agriculture.
Why breed a whole cow when you can grow a steak in a bio-fab factory? Once the process is perfected and the product is approved safe for human consumption, a bio-engineered filet could be cheaper, safer, and healthier than meat produced the old-fashioned way. And a lot more humane.
But why stop at steak? We could grow any cut of meat we wanted, and probably far more economically than raising a whole animal. Want some fresh dolphin or whale meat? Elephant? Panda? (Even cannibals might be able to legally ... never mind.)Of course, we'd still maintain herds of all kinds for genetic diversity, but we wouldn't need to destroy the rain forests of the world to create more pasture for more cattle to feed the world's growing appetite for meat. This one is a no-brainer. It's not just a growth industry, it's a growth industry. As the world's population continues to grow, factory farms may be our only hope for avoiding a food crisis. We might see this before 2020.
David Gerrold @ Maximum PC
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/singularity_five_technologies_will_change_world_and_one_wont?page=0,2
Quote from: Razgovory on February 24, 2014, 07:07:25 PM
I think it's a bit more then another milestone of technological development. Why would a society be undetectable to less developed civilizations?
Because they're on a planet millions of light years away.
Quote from: Siege on February 24, 2014, 08:28:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 24, 2014, 07:07:25 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 24, 2014, 07:13:52 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 24, 2014, 04:40:38 AM
Why is Siege so big on the "Rapture of Nerds"?
Ah, another milestone of technological development, perhaps?
Like the renaissance or the industrial revolution?
Another theory that supports my theory about alien life?
Given enough time, every planet that can hold life will hold life, every life holding planet will hold intelligent life, every intelligent life will become a technological civilization, every technological civilization will reach the singularity and become undetectable to less developed civilizations, therefore answering Fermis Paradox.
I think it's a bit more then another milestone of technological development. Why would a society be undetectable to less developed civilizations?
Nanotechnology. A post-singularity society building at the nano-scale would eventually retreat from the physical world.
I'm not seeing a connection between the two concepts of nanotechnology and retreating from the physical world. Why does one lead to the other?
From the same previous link:
internet st
Internet Protocol Version 6 is already here. We're switching over now. Prior to IPV6, internet addresses were limited to 32 bits. Under IPV6, internet addresses are 128 bits. This means that there are now 2128 possible internet addresses (340 undecillion), or in more understandable terms "umpty hella-gazillion"—enough so that every living human being on the planet could have 5*1028 separate and specific domains.
What this means in practice is that every thing on the planet worth anything at all, manufactured, grown, discovered, studied, observed, or born, can have its own web address and associated locater-chip. Can't find your car keys? Just ask your phone where they are. Want to know where your steak came from, what lab it was grown in, what nutrients were in the tank, and who inspected it? That's available too, ask your phone.
Your car will be able to drive itself so you can talk on the phone, read a book, or watch TV—it will converse with the vehicles around it, informing them when it needs to change lanes, and all the cars will adjust to maintain safe distances. Want to know where your teenager is at 12:30am? You'll be able to track his location easily—and if he's out street-racing, you'll have evidence of that too.
Want to know how much cash is in your wallet? Ask your phone. Why is there a twenty missing? Your phone will tell you that one of the twenties was removed from your wallet while you were in the shower and is currently in the pocket of your sixteen year-old son. Want him to come home now? Tell the car to bring him home safely.
Had your purse stolen? Ask your phone to alert the police. The thief will be picked up momentarily. Had your car stolen and taken to a chop shop? The police will know where every single piece of it went.
Just bought insurance and need to inventory your physical property for a rate adjustment? Ask your phone. You can print out a list of everything you own, when you bought it, how much you paid, what it's worth now, and what the replacement cost would be in case of fire, flood, earthquake, tornado, or asteroid impact.
Can't find your phone? Ask the refrigerator.
But wait, it gets better. Humans will be chipped too, just like dogs, cats, and cattle. Can't remember the name of that little restaurant you liked in New York? No problem, your personal life history is stored in the cloud. We can remember it for you wholesale. Sign up for Apple's iMemory service.
Catching rapists, muggers, thieves, and murderers will be a lot easier. The cloud will maintain a location-tracking service of everyone, chipped or not. There will be cameras everywhere. Court trials will have a whole new level of evidentiary standards.
I still don't see the connection here.
Quote from: Siege on February 24, 2014, 08:44:17 PM
But wait, it gets better. Humans will be chipped too, just like dogs, cats, and cattle. Can't remember the name of that little restaurant you liked in New York? No problem, your personal life history is stored in the cloud. We can remember it for you wholesale. Sign up for Apple's iMemory service.
Catching rapists, muggers, thieves, and murderers will be a lot easier. The cloud will maintain a location-tracking service of everyone, chipped or not. There will be cameras everywhere. Court trials will have a whole new level of evidentiary standards.
I have to get off this planet...
What is the singularity that Siege is talking about?
I think it's something like the Terminator movies.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 24, 2014, 09:29:32 PM
What is the singularity that Siege is talking about?
The theory that once a person develops a computer that can think and is as smart as the inventor, the computer will upgrade itself exponentially gaining godlike intelligence. At that point people will live in a permanent state of future shock. I'm not entirely certain why this would be a positive.
So my big question is, when the singularity happens will we finally see competent AI in strategy games? And is this going to happen soon, because I've been waiting a long time.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 24, 2014, 11:03:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 24, 2014, 09:29:32 PM
What is the singularity that Siege is talking about?
The theory that once a person develops a computer that can think and is as smart as the inventor, the computer will upgrade itself exponentially gaining godlike intelligence. At that point people will live in a permanent state of future shock. I'm not entirely certain why this would be a positive.
Not exactly. The idea is that people will enhance themselves (most importantly their brains), not a computer. The result being mankind gains said godlike intelligence, rather than AIs.
I'm pretty sure it has to do with computers and AIs.
If you like Sci-Fi, Vernor Vinge has written a few novels around the concept. I think the first one that dealt directly with the singularity was 'Marooned in real time', released almost 30 years ago. I tells the story of a small group of humans that manages to miss the point when mankind transcends into something else. I read it after 'The Peace war', but I don't know if that's necessary.
So Siege is counting on the singularity to get a brain? That makes sense now.
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 25, 2014, 09:39:59 AM
So Siege is counting on the singularity to get a brain? That makes sense now.
He should have just asked the Wizard of Oz. That's what I did. :)
(Though now it hurts my feelings whenever Grumbler uses the term "Strawman" as a pejorative. :()
Quote from: alfred russel on February 24, 2014, 11:09:46 PM
So my big question is, when the singularity happens will we finally see competent AI in strategy games? And is this going to happen soon, because I've been waiting a long time.
The bottleneck here is computing power, not the state of the art. Gaming(and other) AI could probably be handled by a secondary GPU but developers aren't doing it because so few of their customers have a spare GPU attached to their computers. I imagine in the future high-end rigs will have a dedicated AI chip.
https://developer.nvidia.com/gpu-ai-path-finding
Would multi threading on now common multicore systems help?
Quote from: Siege on February 24, 2014, 06:58:49 PM
Yeah, but that's industrial 3D printing, which have been around for years.
I want consumer 3D printing to get there.
5-10 years, not that long.
And industrial is more important in the grand scheme of things.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 25, 2014, 01:37:40 PM
And industrial is more important in the grand scheme of things.
I disagree. Nothing changes the game in the life of a technology like when it goes from industrial to personal. Look at computers.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 25, 2014, 01:45:08 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 25, 2014, 01:37:40 PM
And industrial is more important in the grand scheme of things.
I disagree. Nothing changes the game in the life of a technology like when it goes from industrial to personal. Look at computers.
Yea I have to agree with this
Quote from: Syt on February 25, 2014, 12:57:23 PM
Would multi threading on now common multicore systems help?
Certainly multithreading will help. But the kind of massive number crunching that I see being required for effective AI is similar to the kind required for 3d graphics. If the demand for AI follows the demand for 3d graphics, then specialized hardware will follow suit. And I expect gaming to push the envelope with this just as it did with graphics.
Quote from: Syt on February 25, 2014, 12:57:23 PM
Would multi threading on now common multicore systems help?
Yeah, but implementation is non-trivial. Rendering, in contrast, is pretty easily broken up into little pieces to be fed to different GPU pipelines.
Quote from: Maximus on February 25, 2014, 01:51:10 PM
And I expect gaming to push the envelope with this just as it did with graphics.
I dont know about that. Great graphics are obvious and easy to sell. Great AI is something people talk about but never deliver but sell games anyway because they have great graphics.
Put another way if the demand for great AI was the same as the demand for great graphics we would be there already.
Well, for starters, we need to talk about what we mean when we're talking about "great AI." Great graphics is pretty well understood to be improvements to resolution and scene lighting, but AI could mean just about anything from NPC pathing in a video game all the way to an evolving artificial personality.
I doubt a significant majority really wants a completely untethered artificial personality, since it's going to be capable of forming its own interpretations according to its own personally-formed opinions, and potentially countermanding instructions given to it.
A complete artificial personality would, by definition, be impossible to fully control.
Quote from: Maximus on February 25, 2014, 11:33:17 AM
The bottleneck here is computing power, not the state of the art. Gaming(and other) AI could probably be handled by a secondary GPU but developers aren't doing it because so few of their customers have a spare GPU attached to their computers. I imagine in the future high-end rigs will have a dedicated AI chip.
https://developer.nvidia.com/gpu-ai-path-finding
Really?? How does one go about writing an AI? It's something i can't even fathom. Surely you don't nest 3 trillion IF statements.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2014, 07:09:15 PM
Quote from: Maximus on February 25, 2014, 11:33:17 AM
The bottleneck here is computing power, not the state of the art. Gaming(and other) AI could probably be handled by a secondary GPU but developers aren't doing it because so few of their customers have a spare GPU attached to their computers. I imagine in the future high-end rigs will have a dedicated AI chip.
https://developer.nvidia.com/gpu-ai-path-finding
Really?? How does one go about writing an AI? It's something i can't even fathom. Surely you don't nest 3 trillion IF statements.
It's complex and depends very much on what you want to do(there's no universal AI, at least not yet), but basically you create a model of the system you want to work within, give all the costs and rewards numeric values, and then have a billion robotic economists figure out the cost/reward of every possible course of action and pick the best one.
That is the naive approach, there are optimizations to be made but that gets more complicated.
A good AI has to be able to choose the best model(or at least a "nearly best" one), update it as the situation changes, and choose optimal or nearly optimal courses of action, often within a fraction of a second.
As far as I know most game AI engines consist still of relatively simple expert systems (in essence the 3 trillion IF statements Yi metioned).
I'm not aware of things like neural networks or genetic algorithms having that much impact in the industry.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsprott.physics.wisc.edu%2Fpickover%2Fpc%2Fworld-change2.jpg&hash=b10a017ec055e74ab6309526fdfd4f74b5d4b5f5)
We're going to run into our biological limits sooner or later. It already takes people 15+ years of schooling to become productive members of society.
Quote from: Siege on February 26, 2014, 08:07:54 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsprott.physics.wisc.edu%2Fpickover%2Fpc%2Fworld-change2.jpg&hash=b10a017ec055e74ab6309526fdfd4f74b5d4b5f5)
I guess the next logical step is for the graph to curve backwards as we invent time travel.
I don't think the size of the population is that great a proxy for the overall level of technology anyway.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 25, 2014, 01:45:08 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 25, 2014, 01:37:40 PM
And industrial is more important in the grand scheme of things.
I disagree. Nothing changes the game in the life of a technology like when it goes from industrial to personal. Look at computers.
Every technology is different.
With 3D printing there is a huge potential impact in terms of making highly customized manufacturing on a competitive cost basis with mass production, and having an enomous impact on supply chain management.
I don't think the consumer impact will be on that same level. Yes it will be very convenient to order a product and have it "delivered" by an electronic instruction to one's personal 3D printer, but not a huge advantage over say having it fast printed in an Amazon warehouse and then delivered by speed drone. It could have big impacts on education and obviously significant empowering effects on would be designers, inventors, etc. But I wouldn't minimize the industrial impact in comparison.
The concept of ephemeralization:
"The ability of technological advancement to do more and more with less and less until eventually you can do everything with nothing."
(pioneered by Buckminster Fuller in his science-fiction novel 'Nine Chains to the Moon)
I'm sorry, this is too smart for me not to share it with you.
Quote from Curt Welch responding a singularity question:
I don't know what definition of "singularity" you are using, but it's clearly not the one I use. To me, the singularity is the point in time where we first invent a machine that has all the basic physical and mental powers of a human, that we need for our economy. That is, once we invent a machine, that can do all (or at least most) the jobs humans currently do in our economy. What's happening in Mexico or in the third world countries has no bearing on when, and if, such technology is created so why you are talking about these other nations I have no idea. It has nothing to do with the Singularity and more than what was happening in Africa on Dec 17, 1903 when powered controlled flight was first created by the Wright Brothers.
The singularity has been described in many different "magical" ways that are all just nonsense. It's just a point in time where our machines we know how to built, become more intelligent than humans. it will be no more magical than the point in time where the machines we have built, can run faster than human, or run faster than a horse, or fly higher than a bird.
Our machines passed human strength long ago with the steam age. We all just accept that we are weak slow animals compared to the strength of a steam engine, or the speed of a jet aircraft. Our machines passed human mental powers long ago as well. They can compute and process information billions of times faster than a human can. The google servers can read, and index web pages and images faster than any human can. If we put every human on the planet to work trying to read and index all the web pages on the internet, they still wouldn't be able to do it as fast, or as well as the google machines can do it. This fact that we are weak in strength, and weak in mental powers compared to our machines is not a problem. We accept our limitations without a second thought. We get the machines to do the things for us, that we can't do ourselves and we like having these machines to do this work for us.
There is one type of mental power we still have an edge on compared to the computers however. And that's our power for self directed learning. We learn on our own, how to do new things, like build tools, and solve new types of problems. But that is the ONLY thing we still have over our machines. Soon, our power to learn, which is the source of all our creativity that gives us the edge over our machines, will be lost as well. I think this last piece of the puzzle will be cracked by 2020.
The "singularity" is the day we crack that last piece of the puzzle. Life won't suddenly change anywhere because one guy, in some lab at google has cracked this last piece of the puzzle. But it will open the door to what will become massive social change in the same way the invention of the airplane, or the telephone, opened the door to massive social change.
The technology is likely to be very expensive at first, so it may take a million dollars worth of computers and lots of electricity to duplicate the mental powers of even a single humans. At that costs, most human jobs will still be safe. But once the technology is invented, it will take off as fast as airplane technology exploded.
Once our machines can learn like humans, they will be better workers than we humans are at all major jobs. Including the creation of art and all the creative jobs. Even a computer with an average human IQ of 100 will surpass all other humans, because they won't need to sleep, or eat, or take vacations. They will work 24 hours a day, 365 days a year at whatever jobs we apply them to. But not only do they have the edge in their work hours, they can share their learning with a simple download. If we have a computer learning brain, and clone it into 10 robot bodies, and then each robot goes and learns something new for a week, at the end of the week, they can all share their new learned skills with each other, and end up with 10 weeks of learning, in that one week period. By the ability to share learned knowledge with a simple download/merge, they will learn and advanced far faster than any 10 humans could. These new machines will replace all human workers. They will take over all retail work. They will take over the jobs of transportation. They will do the manufacturing. They will then move into the creative design and business management work. They will become the new entrepreneurs.
Most people don't grasp how close we are to replacing humans because none of our current machines ACTS like a human. We seem to have very distinctive and different ways of acting, and doing things. We are emotional, and oddly unpredictive in our behavior as well as creative and clever. But all that is just the fallout of how self directed learning machines act. And though we have examples of such behavior in the lab for simple domains, we don't have it yet for the complex high dimensional data enviornment of the real world yet. But we are only one small algorithm away from having it, and those algorithms will be here real soon. I'm one of the many people working on creating them and I have a good sense of how close we are. It's a puzzle I've spent 30 years working on, and I've see how much progress has happened in the past 30 years because I've been closely following it.
Once we have these algorithms working, our robots will for the first time, start to act like real living animals, and humans. And once people see the robots actually acting, and learning, like an animal, they will finally grasp just how truly close we are to duplicating human skills in our machines. Most people need to see these things before they can understand them, and as such, until we have the thing for them to look at, they will keep suggesting "we aren't even close" when in fact we are one step away.
The same was true for the airplane. A large number of people assumed heavier than air controlled flight was impossible. They said it was impossible even after the Wright Brothers had made their flight. They said the Wright Brothers were obviously lying. But once they saw a plane flying in circles with their own eyes, they understood. A large percentage of the population just works that way. They need to see things before they can understand them, and as such, they have no real ability to predict the future. But they don't have any problem understanding it AFTER THE FACT. These human-like robots are going to take many people by surprise, even though we have all told you they were coming.
Quote from: Siege on March 02, 2014, 10:57:11 PM
I don't know what definition of "singularity" you are using, but it's clearly not the one I use. To me, the singularity is the point in time where we first invent a machine that has all the basic physical and mental powers of a human, that we need for our economy.
Once that happens, whatever constitutes the economy changes. It's a dynamic process.
Think about a pre-modern or even early industrial economy: the basic production tasks are planting, reaping, sowing, transporting, and farbicating basic goods like clothing, furniture, horseshoes, etc. Things that machines can all do now and have been able to do for decades now.
Once you begin to deploy machines to do such tasks "our economy" enlarges to include ever more varied and complex tasks and concepts and so the bar moves out further.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2014, 02:15:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 02, 2014, 10:57:11 PM
I don't know what definition of "singularity" you are using, but it's clearly not the one I use. To me, the singularity is the point in time where we first invent a machine that has all the basic physical and mental powers of a human, that we need for our economy.
Once that happens, whatever constitutes the economy changes. It's a dynamic process.
Think about a pre-modern or even early industrial economy: the basic production tasks are planting, reaping, sowing, transporting, and farbicating basic goods like clothing, furniture, horseshoes, etc. Things that machines can all do now and have been able to do for decades now.
Once you begin to deploy machines to do such tasks "our economy" enlarges to include ever more varied and complex tasks and concepts and so the bar moves out further.
So, are you saying the impact in the economy cannot be predicted because the bar is going to move farther out?
I myself have many doubts about the singularity as proposed by Kurzweil, mainly the part about strong AIs and sentient machines.
However I think he got right the part about exponential technological grow, which means our economy will be impacted by an increase in the use of robotics with a large potential for massive unemployment. If this is how it goes down, then the argument can be made that the free-market forces to promote technological development will end up forcing a welfare state as the only viable solution to massive unemployment produced by technological developments.
I don't know. I think only people with technological degrees will benefit from all this.
And the capitalists pigs, of course, who will own the new push-button factories.
Quote from: Siege on March 04, 2014, 07:06:18 PM
So, are you saying the impact in the economy cannot be predicted because the bar is going to move farther out?
An economy is just the sum of activities that human beings engage in that are deemed by them to be productive (in a market economy because they implicate market transactions). So it is inherently dynamic and to a certain extent socially determined.
Imagine going back to the 1810s or 1820s in America or Western Europe at a time where over 90% of people were engaged in farming. Now imagine telling these people that in a 100 years that proportion would in some places dip below 3%. I.e. pretty much the only thing that people thought of as productive work was going to virtually disappear as a form of employment. The reaction would be dismay and confusion, because it would be impossible to imagine what other forms of work could possibly arise to replace virtually every job in existence in such a short (historically speaking) period of time.
Another little thought experiment back in 1810. Imagine the village of farmers you are visiting is having a festival day; in a field some young men are playing a traditional ball-game, quite literally as a past-time. Now imagine explaining how in the future, not only will one will be able have a "job" consisting of playing this game - but that some of those holding such jobs will be among the wealthiest and best paid people in the country, and that additional jobs will exist in the tens thousands of people to coach and manage, provide instruction, operate and capitalize joint-stock companies that employ such people, convey these players around the country for their exhibitions of skill, write about and talk about their games in newspapers and other forms of communication they would find unimaginable, and even give advice to people on how to construct imaginary groups of such players. They wouldn't just think you were insane. They would simply be unable to understand what you were talking about - there would be no frame of reference in their minds to understand it.
That is position we are in now thinking about the jobs a hundred or so years from now.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 05, 2014, 01:29:31 PM
That is position we are in now thinking about the jobs a hundred or so years from now.
Good point. However the difference is that we, as 21st century people, at least have the perception that technological developments can change our economical landscape beyond what we can imagine. Or do we? I don't know. Kurzweil says the we, as humans, think of technological development in lineal terms. We think technology is gonna keep improving, but in general terms is gonna be at a predictable development level. I.e. cars are going to be better, more efficient, more automations, but they are going to still be cars; TV sets are going to be better, super HD, 3D, but still TV; and computers are going to be faster, and smaller, but still gonna be recognizable as a computer.
Reality is, if the guys experimenting with wearable computers and visual interfaces succeed, and nanotech allows to build nanochips, everything is going to be different. Cars are going to be self-drivable, and by their 3rd Gen they will probably not even have steering wheels, with their interior radically redesigned. TVs are gonna go to the extremes, with the sincret-walls having an entire side of room as a wall-sized TV, and smart glasses/contact lenses having a simulated HD screen in front of your eyes. Two of the currently developing technologies that I think will really revolutionize our world are the IoT (internet of things) and enhanced reality. The IoT will put every single piece of equipment online, being able to relate information to us through smart phones/glasses. Enhance reality will give us stats and information on everything we look at. Still, I think long term the core technologies that will be more life changing are the so-called GNR revolution, Genetics, Nanotechnology, and Robotics.
Anyway, I digress. I see your point, and I agree eventually our economical and social system will adapt to whatever changes technology brings in the future. Nevertheless, I fear mass unemployment could be in the cards, and people might have to develop new skills to survive. Perhaps we are all going to end up working 20 hours a week, online from home, in some academic field unrelated to actual physical production of material goods. Or, maybe 3D printing will end with the concept of the factory. At least for consumer goods. Regardless, the future will be amazing beyond our dreams. If we don't nuke ourselves back to the stone age.
Singularity, Interrupted. :(
QuoteA Factory in Every Foyer
Will 3-D printers ever make sense for home use?
By Seth Stevenson
We keep hearing that 3-D printing is the future. Very soon, it seems—like maybe in July or so?—we'll all have Star Trek–type replicators installed in our homes. "Computer," you'll say, as you nibble a pastry, "please fabricate me a comfy new couch." And lo, a sectional recliner with integrated cup holders will instantly appear. Or so goes the fantasy.
How close are we to this scenario, really? Will there soon be a factory in every foyer? At-home 3-D printing is thus far a fledgling market. Companies have been racing to create printers that combine reasonable cost, compact size, and user-friendly operation. But it's not clear that anyone's hit that sweet spot yet. To get a sense of the current state of at-home 3-D printing, I borrowed one of the latest models. Not one of those industrial jobbies that get used by big companies, but rather a "desktop" printer designed for consumer use.
When the Solidoodle 4—retailing for $1,000, and vaguely resembling an obese microwave—arrived at the Slate offices, I eagerly unpacked it in my cubicle. I threaded the spool of filament (like a bobbin of yarn, if the yarn was made of ABS plastic and the bobbin was the size of a paint can) into the printer's nozzle. I connected the printer to my laptop's USB port. I fired the thing up, with a whir and a hum. I assumed I'd soon be awash in an endless supply of newly conjured 3-D stuff.
But the moment I attempted to print my first object, I realized that this device isn't really designed for the average, moderately tech-savvy consumer. It's made for people who possess either A) infinite patience, B) a preternatural attention to detail, or, preferably, C) a post-graduate degree in mechanical engineering. For example, the program you download to your computer so you can control the printer is full of buttons labeled with phrases like "Go Dump Area" and "Flow Multiply" and "Kill Slicer" and—somehow both reassuring and worrisome at the same time—"Emergency Stop."
This last function made me acutely aware that a powerful machine was perched upon my desk. A machine capable of generating furious heat and spitting out molten plastic—which, given my lack of expertise, could easily splash about the room and end up melting co-workers' eyes. At this point, I decided it might be prudent to call Solidoodle tech support.
Within moments, an extremely helpful fellow named Joel was on the line, walking me through the setup process. He instructed me to heat the extruder (or as I'd been calling it, the nozzle) to 215 degrees. Then he had me click over to Thingiverse.com and download a simple design for a bottle opener. Confusingly, he asked if I happened to have a can of hairspray on hand. "Maybe like Aquanet?" he suggested. "The kind of stuff you might use to keep a mohawk in place?" I inquired of a nearby colleague, but she was not in possession of any hair care products. Luckily, this turned out to be noncrucial. Joel explained that the hairspray becomes necessary only if the object you're printing is sliding around on the printer bed—some Aquanet, applied to the bed, helps stick things in place.
Winging it without any styling aerosols, I sent the bottle-opener program from my laptop to the printer, clicked "Run," and watched with glee as the Solidoodle sprung to life. The nozzle darted to and fro, extruding a thin stream of plastic with what appeared to be solemn purpose. I bid goodbye to Joel and hung up, confident I'd figured this thing out. And I watched as layer after layer of carefully laid filament slowly formed ... an amorphous, incoherent plastic blob.
OK, a less than total success. But I wasn't deterred. And I refused to call Joel again. I began to play around, moving the extruder on its x- and y-axis with a click of my mouse. I turned the heat back on and coaxed it up to 215 degrees. Then I noticed that my filament was snapped, and I had to rethread it. But a small piece was stuck inside the nozzle. I called Joel again.
"Do you have a sequential set of Allen wrenches?" he asked. "Preferably in metric? I'm pretty sure it's a 1.5mm screw but you might want to have an assortment." I turned to my colleague again, but she was no more help with Allen wrenches than she'd been with the hairspray. "OK," said Joel, "you can try to melt it out. Heat it to a really high temperature but try not to damage the machine or hurt yourself."
Using a pair of extra-long tweezers that came with the printer, I was able to half-melt, half-yank the filament out, rethread it, and try again. Once more, the printer cheerily jumped into action. This time I'd set the bed too low, so the plastic drooped from the nozzle with no platform to land on. Instead of a bottle opener, I ended up with a scraggly bird's nest.
Now absolutely determined to print some sort of recognizable object, I raised up the bed, heated the nozzle, and downloaded a program that builds a tiny robot figurine. This time, everything seemed to work correctly. A pair of little robot legs took shape. And then the printer just halted, for no discernible reason, leaving a sad, half-formed robot body, almost poignant in its abandonment—with a singed spot where the hot nozzle stayed in one place for too long. I call it Robot, Interrupted:
I spent some time attempting to suss out where I went wrong. But after a while, I gave up. I mean, let's say I got the printer working again. Best case scenario, I've melted no one's eyes and I've got a new robot figurine. Woohoo. I don't need or want a robot figurine. And $1,000 for the printer plus $43 for each spool of filament is a hefty price to pay for a functionless, semidecorative piece of plastic I could buy for like 23 cents.
What's more, the printer was loud enough that office colleagues were beginning to complain about the racket. It was emitting a smell not unlike that of burning hair. And it was taking forever to print out these objects that weren't quite objects.
All of which points to some fundamental problems with the current state of desktop 3-D printing. Right now, even if you can tolerate the printer's noise and stink and interminable wait time, there's basically nothing you can make that you actually want or that is cost effective. It's all trinkets and gewgaws. The most popular patterns at Thingiverse are pen holders and elephant figurines and flimsy, unattractive iPhone cases.
OK, perhaps you can print that one little missing Ikea part you need to hold your dresser together. But only if filament plastic is a hearty enough material to do the trick. (You're not going to smelt steel at home. Your living room isn't Magnitogorsk.) Will an Ikea-type scenario come into play often enough to justify the substantial cost of the printer and the spools? I doubt it.
Some folks might enjoy making various DIY widgets at home, as a hobby, iterating their own designs and creating new products. Bully for them. I liken these early adopters to the kind of people who were on ham radios in 1923.
Until there's a killer app for the desktop 3-D printer, though, I can't see any reason for the average person to buy one. And I can't yet imagine what this killer app would be. What could you manufacture at home in a manner that's cheaper and more efficient than could be done in a giant factory? I'm open to ideas. If "customizable, personal designs" is part of your answer, remember that those designs will be limited to plastic, and that any use of wood or metal or suede will require additional procurement and assemblage, which means speed and convenience are out the window. There were very sound reasons behind society's transition to centralized manufacturing.
Consider: Once upon a time, people purchased sewing patterns (like a program from Thingiverse) and yards of fabric (like filament) and they made their own clothes. I wasn't alive back then, but I'm pretty sure the process sucked. It took lots of time and effort and the clothes were often amateurishly constructed. Sure, consumer sewing machines got better, and made things faster and easier and more professional looking. But nowadays, save for DIY fashion enthusiasts and grandmas with lots of time on their hands, people aren't buying many at-home sewing machines. They're a novelty item with little practical purpose. Most people would much rather just get their clothes from a store—already assembled by people employing industrial-level efficiency and a wide variety of materials.
I could be wrong. Perhaps today's 3-D printers are akin to the cellphones of 1987. Over time, we'll graduate from the Motorola DynaTac 8000X to the iPhone 5s—smaller, faster, more capable, and, eventually, indispensable. But I'll bet you a pile of extruded plastic goo that I'm right.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/03/solidoodle_4_testing_the_home_3_d_printer.html
Quote from: alfred russel on March 10, 2014, 07:35:35 PM
Singularity, Interrupted. :(
QuoteA Factory in Every Foyer
Will 3-D printers ever make sense for home use?
By Seth Stevenson
We keep hearing that 3-D printing is the future. Very soon, it seems—like maybe in July or so?—we'll all have Star Trek–type replicators installed in our homes. "Computer," you'll say, as you nibble a pastry, "please fabricate me a comfy new couch." And lo, a sectional recliner with integrated cup holders will instantly appear. Or so goes the fantasy.
How close are we to this scenario, really? Will there soon be a factory in every foyer? At-home 3-D printing is thus far a fledgling market. Companies have been racing to create printers that combine reasonable cost, compact size, and user-friendly operation. But it's not clear that anyone's hit that sweet spot yet. To get a sense of the current state of at-home 3-D printing, I borrowed one of the latest models. Not one of those industrial jobbies that get used by big companies, but rather a "desktop" printer designed for consumer use.
When the Solidoodle 4—retailing for $1,000, and vaguely resembling an obese microwave—arrived at the Slate offices, I eagerly unpacked it in my cubicle. I threaded the spool of filament (like a bobbin of yarn, if the yarn was made of ABS plastic and the bobbin was the size of a paint can) into the printer's nozzle. I connected the printer to my laptop's USB port. I fired the thing up, with a whir and a hum. I assumed I'd soon be awash in an endless supply of newly conjured 3-D stuff.
But the moment I attempted to print my first object, I realized that this device isn't really designed for the average, moderately tech-savvy consumer. It's made for people who possess either A) infinite patience, B) a preternatural attention to detail, or, preferably, C) a post-graduate degree in mechanical engineering. For example, the program you download to your computer so you can control the printer is full of buttons labeled with phrases like "Go Dump Area" and "Flow Multiply" and "Kill Slicer" and—somehow both reassuring and worrisome at the same time—"Emergency Stop."
This last function made me acutely aware that a powerful machine was perched upon my desk. A machine capable of generating furious heat and spitting out molten plastic—which, given my lack of expertise, could easily splash about the room and end up melting co-workers' eyes. At this point, I decided it might be prudent to call Solidoodle tech support.
Within moments, an extremely helpful fellow named Joel was on the line, walking me through the setup process. He instructed me to heat the extruder (or as I'd been calling it, the nozzle) to 215 degrees. Then he had me click over to Thingiverse.com and download a simple design for a bottle opener. Confusingly, he asked if I happened to have a can of hairspray on hand. "Maybe like Aquanet?" he suggested. "The kind of stuff you might use to keep a mohawk in place?" I inquired of a nearby colleague, but she was not in possession of any hair care products. Luckily, this turned out to be noncrucial. Joel explained that the hairspray becomes necessary only if the object you're printing is sliding around on the printer bed—some Aquanet, applied to the bed, helps stick things in place.
Winging it without any styling aerosols, I sent the bottle-opener program from my laptop to the printer, clicked "Run," and watched with glee as the Solidoodle sprung to life. The nozzle darted to and fro, extruding a thin stream of plastic with what appeared to be solemn purpose. I bid goodbye to Joel and hung up, confident I'd figured this thing out. And I watched as layer after layer of carefully laid filament slowly formed ... an amorphous, incoherent plastic blob.
OK, a less than total success. But I wasn't deterred. And I refused to call Joel again. I began to play around, moving the extruder on its x- and y-axis with a click of my mouse. I turned the heat back on and coaxed it up to 215 degrees. Then I noticed that my filament was snapped, and I had to rethread it. But a small piece was stuck inside the nozzle. I called Joel again.
"Do you have a sequential set of Allen wrenches?" he asked. "Preferably in metric? I'm pretty sure it's a 1.5mm screw but you might want to have an assortment." I turned to my colleague again, but she was no more help with Allen wrenches than she'd been with the hairspray. "OK," said Joel, "you can try to melt it out. Heat it to a really high temperature but try not to damage the machine or hurt yourself."
Using a pair of extra-long tweezers that came with the printer, I was able to half-melt, half-yank the filament out, rethread it, and try again. Once more, the printer cheerily jumped into action. This time I'd set the bed too low, so the plastic drooped from the nozzle with no platform to land on. Instead of a bottle opener, I ended up with a scraggly bird's nest.
Now absolutely determined to print some sort of recognizable object, I raised up the bed, heated the nozzle, and downloaded a program that builds a tiny robot figurine. This time, everything seemed to work correctly. A pair of little robot legs took shape. And then the printer just halted, for no discernible reason, leaving a sad, half-formed robot body, almost poignant in its abandonment—with a singed spot where the hot nozzle stayed in one place for too long. I call it Robot, Interrupted:
I spent some time attempting to suss out where I went wrong. But after a while, I gave up. I mean, let's say I got the printer working again. Best case scenario, I've melted no one's eyes and I've got a new robot figurine. Woohoo. I don't need or want a robot figurine. And $1,000 for the printer plus $43 for each spool of filament is a hefty price to pay for a functionless, semidecorative piece of plastic I could buy for like 23 cents.
What's more, the printer was loud enough that office colleagues were beginning to complain about the racket. It was emitting a smell not unlike that of burning hair. And it was taking forever to print out these objects that weren't quite objects.
All of which points to some fundamental problems with the current state of desktop 3-D printing. Right now, even if you can tolerate the printer's noise and stink and interminable wait time, there's basically nothing you can make that you actually want or that is cost effective. It's all trinkets and gewgaws. The most popular patterns at Thingiverse are pen holders and elephant figurines and flimsy, unattractive iPhone cases.
OK, perhaps you can print that one little missing Ikea part you need to hold your dresser together. But only if filament plastic is a hearty enough material to do the trick. (You're not going to smelt steel at home. Your living room isn't Magnitogorsk.) Will an Ikea-type scenario come into play often enough to justify the substantial cost of the printer and the spools? I doubt it.
Some folks might enjoy making various DIY widgets at home, as a hobby, iterating their own designs and creating new products. Bully for them. I liken these early adopters to the kind of people who were on ham radios in 1923.
Until there's a killer app for the desktop 3-D printer, though, I can't see any reason for the average person to buy one. And I can't yet imagine what this killer app would be. What could you manufacture at home in a manner that's cheaper and more efficient than could be done in a giant factory? I'm open to ideas. If "customizable, personal designs" is part of your answer, remember that those designs will be limited to plastic, and that any use of wood or metal or suede will require additional procurement and assemblage, which means speed and convenience are out the window. There were very sound reasons behind society's transition to centralized manufacturing.
Consider: Once upon a time, people purchased sewing patterns (like a program from Thingiverse) and yards of fabric (like filament) and they made their own clothes. I wasn't alive back then, but I'm pretty sure the process sucked. It took lots of time and effort and the clothes were often amateurishly constructed. Sure, consumer sewing machines got better, and made things faster and easier and more professional looking. But nowadays, save for DIY fashion enthusiasts and grandmas with lots of time on their hands, people aren't buying many at-home sewing machines. They're a novelty item with little practical purpose. Most people would much rather just get their clothes from a store—already assembled by people employing industrial-level efficiency and a wide variety of materials.
I could be wrong. Perhaps today's 3-D printers are akin to the cellphones of 1987. Over time, we'll graduate from the Motorola DynaTac 8000X to the iPhone 5s—smaller, faster, more capable, and, eventually, indispensable. But I'll bet you a pile of extruded plastic goo that I'm right.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/03/solidoodle_4_testing_the_home_3_d_printer.html
Dude doesn't seem to have much imagination.
Quote from: Maximus on March 11, 2014, 01:16:30 PM
Dude doesn't seem to have much imagination.
So a lot like most people. ;)
Philosophical Singularity Babble crap from David Chalmers, but very interesting, me thinks.
http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf
"Speaking for myself, I am not sure whether a further-fact view or a deflationary
view is correct. If the further-fact view is correct, then the status of destructive and reconstructive
uploading is unclear, but I think that gradual uploading plausibly suffices for survival. If the
deflationary view is correct, gradual uploading is close to as good as ordinary survival, while
destructive and reconstructive uploading are reasonably close to as good. Either way, I think that
gradual uploading is certainly the safest method of uploading.
A number of further questions about uploading remain. Of course there are any number of
social, legal, and moral issues that I have not begun to address. Here I address just two further
questions.
One question concerns cognitive enhancement. Suppose that before or after uploading, our
cognitive systems are enhanced to the point that they use a wholly di erent cognitive architecture.
Would we survive this process? Again, it seems to me that the answers are clearest in the case
where the enhancement is gradual. If my cognitive system is overhauled one component at a time,
and if at every stage there is reasonable psychological continuity with the previous stage, then I
think it is reasonable to hold that the original person survives.
Another question is a practical one. If reconstructive uploading will eventually be possible,
how can one ensure that it happens? There have been billions of humans in the history of the
planet. It is not clear that our successors will want to reconstruct every person that ever lived, or
even every person of which there are records. So if one is interested in immortality, how can one
maximize the chances of reconstruction? One might try keeping a bank account with compound
interest to pay them for doing so, but it is hard to know whether our financial system will be
relevant in the future, especially after an intelligence explosion.
My own strategy is to write about the singularity and about uploading. Perhaps this will
encourage our successors to reconstruct me, if only to prove me wrong.
11 Conclusions
Will there be a singularity? I think that it is certainly not out of the question, and that the main
obstacles are likely to be obstacles of motivation rather than obstacles of capacity.
How should we negotiate the singularity? Very carefully, by building appropriate values into
machines, and by building the first AI and AI+ systems in virtual worlds.
How can we integrate into a post-singularity world? By gradual uploading followed by enhancement
if we are still around then, and by reconstructive uploading followed by enhancement
if we are not.
Bibliography
Quote from: alfred russel on March 10, 2014, 07:35:35 PM
Singularity, Interrupted. :(
QuoteA Factory in Every Foyer
Will 3-D printers ever make sense for home use?
By Seth Stevenson
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/03/solidoodle_4_testing_the_home_3_d_printer.html
So, because the technology is not there, it means it will never get there?
What a complete lack of understanding of technological evolution and artificial selection.
If this guy was right, we would still hunting without tools, and farming would be an unknown technology, ages away.
Hi Seigy, hows things?
You and some commandos should go and hijack that Iranian 'CV' when they lauch it and use it as a pirate base to survive the singularity. :)
Anissimov is a retard. This is what he thinks:
"Surely no harm could come from building a chess-playing robot, could it? In this paper we argue that such a robot will indeed be dangerous unless it is designed very carefully. Without special precautions, it will resist being turned off, will try to break into other machines and make copies of itself, and will try to acquire resources without regard for anyone else’s safety. These potentially harmful behaviors will occur not because they were programmed in at the start, but because of the intrinsic nature of goal driven systems."
Quote from: mongers on March 23, 2014, 11:09:37 AM
Hi Seigy, hows things?
You and some commandos should go and hijack that Iranian 'CV' when they lauch it and use it as a pirate base to survive the singularity. :)
The singularity is the unevitable end of social and technological evolution through the process of natural selection.
Post-singularity social and technological developments cannot be visualized from our perspective in time.
After I graduate from college I plan to write a book on it.
In other words, my premise is:
1- All planets that can hold higher life forms will do so over time.
2- All planets that can hold higher life forms will evolve intelligent life over time.
3- All intelligent life will evolve into a technological civilization through the process of natural selection. (The most tech advance society will rule over the less tech advanced)
4- All technological civilizations will reach the Technological Singularity. (Defined as the pace of tech dev surpases human perception and the development of Strong AIs)
So, basicly the universe must be teaming with life.
Caviats are that not all civilizations will survive step 3 past the nuclear age, and not all civs will survive step 4 past the Singularity, due to several scenarios like the gray goo, etc.
In case a planet suffers a civilization destroying event, whether natural or
'man-made", it reverts to step 1, and the race for the Singularity starts again.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 05, 2014, 01:29:31 PM
Another little thought experiment back in 1810. Imagine the village of farmers you are visiting is having a festival day; in a field some young men are playing a traditional ball-game, quite literally as a past-time. Now imagine explaining how in the future, not only will one will be able have a "job" consisting of playing this game - but that some of those holding such jobs will be among the wealthiest and best paid people in the country, and that additional jobs will exist in the tens thousands of people to coach and manage, provide instruction, operate and capitalize joint-stock companies that employ such people, convey these players around the country for their exhibitions of skill, write about and talk about their games in newspapers and other forms of communication they would find unimaginable, and even give advice to people on how to construct imaginary groups of such players. They wouldn't just think you were insane. They would simply be unable to understand what you were talking about - there would be no frame of reference in their minds to understand it.
Maybe the farmers wouldn't understand it, but someone with a classical education would. Gladiators and charioteers were very rich in their day.
Those were death sports. Very different mentality. And by that time 1000 years gone.
WTF, Mimsky. I want to know what you think.
I might disagree with you 90% of the time, but that doesn't change the fact that I have a high regard for your opinion.
Well thanks Siege, but I'm not sure what specifically you want me to opine on.
We've been living through an epoch of rapid technological change for quite some time on. It is of course impossible to predict the long-run impacts on the economy from future technological developments. But our experience so far suggests that there is no reason a priori to think that even paradigm-shitfing technological change will lead to mass unemployment or rob people of their drive to perform "work" in some sense.
What may very well happen is that our collective concept of what consitutes productive work may change.
Will the financial system change? of course it will. It has changed quite a lot within the span of my own lifetime, so one would expect quite a lot of change over a 100 year + time horizon.
But it is difficult to imagine the concept of "credit" disappearing; it has been with us since the earliest civilization.