"AI's Will Save Us All": Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Response to Edge.org's 2015 Annual Question

On 04/08/2015 02:29 PM, James Redford wrote:
Frank Tipler, "AI's Will Save Us All", a response in the Edge.org
(Edge Foundation, Inc.) 2015 Annual Question "2015: What Do You Think
About Machines that Think?", Jan. 1, 2015,
http://edge.org/response-detail/26107 ,
https://wayback.archive.org/web/2015...e-detail/26107
, http://webcitation.org/6XOiSorhw , http://archive.today/NB2OY ,
http://megalodon.jp/2015-0330-0438-2...e-detail/26107 .

--------------------

2015: WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT MACHINES THAT THINK?


Frank Tipler

Professor of Mathematical Physics, Tulane University; Coauthor, The
Anthropic Cosmological Principle; Author, The Physics of Christianity


AI's Will Save Us All

[...]

Professor Nick Bostrom, Director, Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts
of Future Technologies,
asked groups of experts on AI when Human Level Machine Intelligence
would first be achieved.

Over all the groups, the 50%-50% dividing point in predictions
varied from 2040 to 2050.

Over all the groups, the 90% "by year X or before"
to 10% "Not By year X or before"
dividing point varied from 2070 to 2093.

I think by Human Level Machine Intelligence or HLMI, it's
meant machines at the level at least of the "best humans";
that's pretty much the way it was with chess, (Kasparov- Deep Blue, 1997).

Then, they're saying they would have AI machine mathematicians
comparable to Alexander Grothendieck, Andrew Wiles
by 2050 (50%+ or more agree) , respetively
by 2093 (90%+ or more agree).

Among the Singularity entusiasts is Ray Kurzweil.

I'm not sure, but it seems to me like wild guesses...

The more advanced the kind of intelligence, the less people
understand it...

On Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jupxhH9mE-g#t=2565 .

David Bernier



--
pub 4096R/41C769D6 2014-11-04
uid David Bernier (doubledeckerpot5)

Dne 10/04/2015 v 08:12 Jan Panteltje napsal(a):
On a sunny day (Fri, 10 Apr 2015 07:17:41 +0200) it happened Poutnik
wrote in :

As they know it.

BTW you did not say anything.

I did not say anything.

I know that by now, no need to repeat that.
Bye.

Manipulation with what was posted
convinces you as a liar.

Bye.

--
Poutnik the Wanderer

On a sunny day (Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:54:28 -0400) it happened Shmuel (Seymour
J.) Metz wrote in
:

In , on 04/10/2015
at 12:52 PM, Jan Panteltje said:

Just remember that mathematics or math is just a small subset,
executed in a few neurons, of the human neural net.

Nonsense.

It is the truth as is.

It may hurt somebodies ego, but sobeit.


MythTV? Not me, and probably not related.

No.
I think those Linux tv site guys are called Metzler, my error.

On a sunny day (Sat, 11 Apr 2015 07:59:43 +0200) it happened Poutnik
wrote in :

Dne 10/04/2015 v 08:12 Jan Panteltje napsal(a):
On a sunny day (Fri, 10 Apr 2015 07:17:41 +0200) it happened Poutnik
wrote in :

As they know it.

BTW you did not say anything.

I did not say anything.

Poutnik the Wanderer

That makes 3, or 11
:-)

On a sunny day (Fri, 10 Apr 2015 17:22:36 -0400) it happened David Bernier
wrote in :

Professor Nick Bostrom, Director, Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts
of Future Technologies,
asked groups of experts on AI when Human Level Machine Intelligence
would first be achieved.

Over all the groups, the 50%-50% dividing point in predictions
varied from 2040 to 2050.

Over all the groups, the 90% "by year X or before"
to 10% "Not By year X or before"
dividing point varied from 2070 to 2093.

You know, I do not believe in demo-crazy..

Look at what it does to
'merrica.

Dne 11/04/2015 v 08:08 Jan Panteltje napsal(a):
On a sunny day (Sat, 11 Apr 2015 07:59:43 +0200) it happened Poutnik
wrote in :

Dne 10/04/2015 v 08:12 Jan Panteltje napsal(a):
On a sunny day (Fri, 10 Apr 2015 07:17:41 +0200) it happened Poutnik
wrote in :

As they know it.

BTW you did not say anything.

I did not say anything.

Poutnik the Wanderer

That makes 3, or 11
:-)


This is done usually by teenagers. Be a man.

Half truth is sophisticated form of a lie,
so you are a sophisticated liar.

--
Poutnik the Wanderer

On a sunny day (Sat, 11 Apr 2015 08:49:35 +0200) it happened Poutnik
wrote in :

Dne 11/04/2015 v 08:08 Jan Panteltje napsal(a):
On a sunny day (Sat, 11 Apr 2015 07:59:43 +0200) it happened Poutnik
wrote in :

Dne 10/04/2015 v 08:12 Jan Panteltje napsal(a):
On a sunny day (Fri, 10 Apr 2015 07:17:41 +0200) it happened Poutnik
wrote in :

As they know it.

BTW you did not say anything.

I did not say anything.

Poutnik the Wanderer

That makes 3, or 11
:-)


This is done usually by teenagers. Be a man.

Half truth is sophisticated form of a lie,
so you are a sophisticated liar.

I set up a loop,
and you cannot find the exit?
See that hamster running.
I hope you did not stay up all night waiting for a reply while I was sleeping :-)
Anyways, you are now:
100

I will break the loop for you.
I generally appreciate your input (sci physics) as you are one of the very few there
who at least knows a bit what he is talking about.

But please do it that way here.

2 way split here
;-)

Dne 10/04/2015 v 14:52 Jan Panteltje napsal(a):
On a sunny day (Thu, 09 Apr 2015 19:05:59 -0400) it happened Shmuel (Seymour
J.) Metz wrote in
:

In , on 04/09/2015
at 09:46 AM, Jan Panteltje said:

BTW you did not say anything.

He was hinting that you confused Mathematics with Physics. He was
right.

No, I was addressing mathematics.
And mathemagicians specifically.

Rather you confuse mathematicians and theoretical physicists.

BTW, mathematicians are mathemagicians
only for those not understanding mathematics,
making unjustified claims about math.


--
Poutnik the Wanderer

On a sunny day (Sat, 11 Apr 2015 09:01:34 +0200) it happened Poutnik
wrote in :

Dne 10/04/2015 v 14:52 Jan Panteltje napsal(a):
On a sunny day (Thu, 09 Apr 2015 19:05:59 -0400) it happened Shmuel (Seymour
J.) Metz wrote in
:

In , on 04/09/2015
at 09:46 AM, Jan Panteltje said:

BTW you did not say anything.

He was hinting that you confused Mathematics with Physics. He was
right.

No, I was addressing mathematics.
And mathemagicians specifically.

Rather you confuse mathematicians and theoretical physicists.

Yes there is truth in that.
Problem is with theoretical physicists that they claim truth of their brain childs by (because of) mathematical proof.
That is (read back) why I wrote something like 'they use and extrapolate from incomplete equations that break down at the micro - and macro level'.



BTW, mathematicians are mathemagicians
only for those not understanding mathematics,

I generally respect mathemagicians and especially in electronics what my field is, most is math and I use math every day.
But that is not the only field I studied, and am studying.
I did 2 exams last year (and passed) (totally different field) and am working for 2 this year (an other totally different field)
its hard, but I like cross science, and if you are programming for something then you need to know what you are doing.
This thing I am doing now also includes celestial mechanics so math is all ye need so to speak.
We all have our 'gifts', I left some part for the very end to even read the stuff, was looking up to it,
and then did it just like that, and the other part gives me problems no end,
so will still take a while.

And applied math is different (reality check) from just number theory or whatever.


making unjustified claims about math.

Math, well, sometimes I think programming and math is just the same thing with a different language.
You can write stuff using octave or some other package, and it takes hours to execute,
then write the same thing in C and it executes in real time.
So when we talk about the application of math, i like to give the example of the robot catching the ball.
Ask a mathemagician to do it he will make equations that have vectors, forces, wind speed, air pressure, anything
that influences the ball on its way, servo control theory, what not,
and by the time it all is done the ball will have long touched the ground.
Now use a neural net (and yes you can describe a neural net (at least what we now think it is) 100% mathemagically (sorry mathematically),
but nevertheless the net will catch (we will) the ball, put the hands in the right position, _real time_.
Imagine audio video processing, object recognition all come into play.
So math for the sake of it great, but reality .....

So, in short, in physics, when you find the relation ship between two or more things, and are able to draw up an equation for
that limited case and observation time, it is dangerous to extrapolate minor and major ways.
Thats is where the wormholes and singularities come no end,
'normalisation' in QM etc, and always always wrong.

On 04/11/2015 02:09 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 10 Apr 2015 17:22:36 -0400) it happened David Bernier
wrote in :

Professor Nick Bostrom, Director, Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts
of Future Technologies,
asked groups of experts on AI when Human Level Machine Intelligence
would first be achieved.

Over all the groups, the 50%-50% dividing point in predictions
varied from 2040 to 2050.

Over all the groups, the 90% "by year X or before"
to 10% "Not By year X or before"
dividing point varied from 2070 to 2093.

You know, I do not believe in demo-crazy..

Look at what it does to
'merrica.



In my opinion, Ray Kurzweil gets a lot of press coverage.



--
pub 4096R/41C769D6 2014-11-04
uid David Bernier (doubledeckerpot5)