Google as an Evolutionary Force
Two recent Google related items in the news.
Google and Nasa back new school for futurists
Google and Nasa are throwing their weight behind a new school for futurists in Silicon Valley to prepare scientists for an era when machines become cleverer than people.
The new institution, known as “Singularity University”, is to be headed by Ray Kurzweil, whose predictions about the
exponential pace of technological change have made him a controversial figure in technology circles.
Google and Nasa’s backing demonstrates the growing mainstream acceptance of Mr Kurzweil’s views, which include a claim that before the middle of this century artificial intelligence will outstrip human beings, ushering in a new era of civilisation.
To be housed at Nasa’s Ames Research Center, a stone’s-throw from the Googleplex, the Singularity University will offer courses on biotechnology, nano-technology and artificial intelligence.
The so-called “singularity” is a theorised period of rapid technological progress in the near future. Mr Kurzweil, an American inventor, popularised the term in his 2005 book “The Singularity is Near”.
Proponents say that during the singularity, machines will be able to improve themselves using artificial intelligence and that smarter-than-human computers will solve problems including energy scarcity, climate change and hunger.
Yet many critics call the singularity dangerous. Some worry that a malicious artificial intelligence might annihilate the human race….
As much as I am inclined to point to the shortcomings of social scientists and my fellow historians, this “Google U.” could use a few of them, plus a philosopher or two, artist and humanities types, just to create some cognitive divergence.
Drs. Fernette and Brock Eide – Google is Changing Your Brain
Neurons that fire together, wire together, so if you are reading this post, chances are you already have a Google brain. Opposing viewpoints about whether having a Google brain is a good thing or bad thing are discussed in Discover magazine’s Google is Making Us Smarter and Atlantic Monthly’s Is Google Making Us Stupid?.
….From a brain-based perspective, our bias is that expertise often comes at a cost. As more brain resources get devoted to particular tasks, others shrink and weaken.
First the PROS: Google learning…
Read the rest here.
The Eide Neurolearning Blog is a “must read” blog for me and ha been for some time. I’ve read their book as well.
Google has become a culture-shaping force and a global 800 lb gorilla of the infosphere. Tweaking their algorithims determines intellectual perceptions – what if Google chose to “mold” searches for long term, strategic, political outcomes? Or corporate self-interest?
Search dominance is kind of like determining who gets to use the alphabet circa 500 BC. Google’s founders have – wisely in my view – tried not to arouse the jealousy of nation-states or advertise too loudly the degree of soft power the company has acquired, pushing forward their impressive financial position as the easy, ” throw-away”, target for political darts from critics and positioning themselves in P.R. vis-a-vis Microsoft, another “villain” corporation in some quarters.
Very smart.
February 4th, 2009 at 8:19 am
I have a negative take on the Singularity U. The Google link is very interesting, thanks!
February 4th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
[…] Mark points to an FT article about “Singularity University” Google and Nasa are throwing their weight behind a new school for futurists in Silicon Valley to prepare scientists for an era when machines become cleverer than people. Of course, responsible programmers have already been addressing this issue for a while: […]
February 4th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
"The Singularity is the Rapture for geeks."
.
I forget who said that, but it is pretty good.
.
Can Moore’s law withstand the California tax code?
.
If there is a brownout because we will not build power plants due to NIMBYism, will that accidentally delete or corrupt the downloaded brains that Kurzweil says will make us immortal? "Crap, man, I tried to upload Aunt Gladys and she is talking in broken Esperanto and keeps repeating herself. Damn power failure … ."
.
"… smarter-than-human computers will solve problems including energy scarcity, climate change and hunger." The Friendly Flying Saucer People will have nothing left to do. They will become angry and EAT US instead.
.
Still, if you put a bunch of really smart people in a room, they might come up with something good. I wish them well.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Interesting post AE. For myself, I’m curious why Kurzweill implicitly believes we would not just genomically make ourselves smarter in an "arms race" with AI.
.
The first thing to do with AI is put all the AI computers in an array to begin solving previously intractable problems, which would include those related to safely augmenting the human species. We would then do so which would lead to new innovations and the maximizing of old ones in new ways.
.
I’m also skeptical about the capacity of future AI to engage in truly alinear, imaginative, thought but then I do not know much about the field. Those who do are welcome to sound off.
February 5th, 2009 at 10:28 am
I think his main argument is that by that stage the AI have left the digital cookie jar. In any event, the main problem with his reasoning is that he imposes qualitative change on Moore’s Law, which is only relates to quantitative measurements of processor size and computing power. Like you I’m not a computer scientist but more or less versed in the philosophy of mind elements of AI and human cognition, so I’m pretty skeptical as well about AI finally breaking free of the conundrums Searle talks about.
BTW, Zen, great job with Barnett interview on SWJ.
February 7th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
A suggestion for diversion and divergence from cognitive heft is the work on the logic of the soul by Wolfgang Giegerich, a psychologist who has done his almighty best to lift his field out of woo woo and ya ya and into modernity in all its non anthropocentric glory. A collection has been compiled in the second volume of his work that is specifically Technology and the Soul: from the Atomic Bomb to the WWW. It is much more refined and less arrogant than Kurzweil, having been sublated to the limits of his discipline. He has been on this for 30 years, round about. Effort to take it up and listen is worth the going thru its density. Puts much of singularity into perspective outside of our common egocentrism.