Ray Kurzweil is a genius. One of the greatest hucksters of the age. Thats the only way I can explain how his nonsense gets so much press and has such a following. Now he has the cover of Time magazine, and an article called 2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal. It certainly couldnt be taken seriously anywhere else; once again, Kurzweil wiggles his fingers and mumbles a few catchphrases and upchucks a remarkable prediction, that in 35 years (a number dredged out of his compendium of biased estimates), Man (one, a few, many? How? He doesnt know) will finally achieve immortality (seems to me youd need to wait a few years beyond that goal to know if it was true). Now weve even got a name for the Kurzweil delusion: Singularitarianism.
Theres room inside Singularitarianism for considerable diversity of opinion about what the Singularity means and when and how it will or wont happen. But Singularitarians share a worldview. They think in terms of deep time, they believe in the power of technology to shape history, they have little interest in the conventional wisdom about anything, and they cannot believe youre walking around living your life and watching TV as if the artificial-intelligence revolution were not about to erupt and change absolutely everything. They have no fear of sounding ridiculous; your ordinary citizens distaste for apparently absurd ideas is just an example of irrational bias, and Singularitarians have no truck with irrationality. When you enter their mind-space you pass through an extreme gradient in worldview, a hard ontological shear that separates Singularitarians from the common run of humanity. Expect turbulence.
Wow. Sounds just like the Raelians, or Hercolubians, or Scientologists, or any of the modern New Age pseudosciences that appropriate a bit of jargon and blow it up into a huge mythology. Nice hyperbole there, though. Too bad the whole movement is empty of evidence.
One of the things I do really despise about the Kurzweil approach is their dishonest management of critics, and Kurzweil is the master. He loves to tell everyone whats wrong with his critics, but he doesnt actually address the criticisms.
Take the question of whether computers can replicate the biochemical complexity of an organic brain. Kurzweil yields no ground there whatsoever. He does not see any fundamental difference between flesh and silicon that would prevent the latter from thinking. He defies biologists to come up with a neurological mechanism that could not be modeled or at least matched in power and flexibility by software running on a computer. He refuses to fall on his knees before the mystery of the human brain. Generally speaking, he says, the core of a disagreement Ill have with a critic is, theyll say, Oh, Kurzweil is underestimating the complexity of reverse-engineering of the human brain or the complexity of biology. But I dont believe Im underestimating the challenge. I think theyre underestimating the power of exponential growth.
This is wrong. For instance, I think reverse-engineering the general principles of a human brain might well be doable in a few or several decades, and I do suspect that well be able to do things in ten years, 20 years, a century that I cant even imagine. I dont find Kurzweil silly because Im blind to the power of exponential growth, but because:
Kurzweil hasnt demonstrated that there is exponential growth at play here. Ive read his absurd book, and his data is phony and fudged to fit his conclusion. He cheerfully makes stuff up or drops data that goes against his desires to invent these ridiculous charts.
Im not claiming he underestimates the complexity of the brain, Im saying he doesnt understand biology, period. Handwaving is not enough if hes going to make fairly specific claims of immortality in 35 years, there had better be some understanding of the path that will be taken.
There is a vast difference between grasping a principle and implementing the specifics. If we understand how the brain works, if we can create a computer simulation that replicates and improves upon the function of our brain, that does not in any way imply that my identity and experiences can be translated into the digital realm. Again, Kurzweil doesnt have even a hint of a path that can be taken to do that, so he has no basis for making the prediction.
Smooth curves that climb upward into infinity can exist in mathematics (although Kurzweils predictions dont live in state of rigor that would justify calling them mathematical), but they dont work in the real world. There are limits. Weve been building better and more powerful power plants for aircraft for a century, but they havent gotten to a size and efficiency to allow me to fly off with a personal jetpack. I have no reason to expect that they will, either.
While I dont doubt that science will advance rapidly, I also expect that the directions it takes will be unpredictable. Kurzweil confuses engineering, where you build something to fit a predetermined set of specifications, with science, in which you follow the evidence wherever it leads. Look at the so-called war on cancer: it isnt won, no one expects that it will be, but what it has accomplished is to provide limited success in improving health and quality of life, extending survival times, and developing new tools for earlier diagnosis thats reality, and understanding reality is achieved incrementally, not by sudden surges in technology independent of human effort. It also generates unexpected spinoffs in deeper knowledge about cell cycles, signaling, gene regulation, etc. The problems get more interesting and diverse, and its awfully silly of one non-biologist in 2011 to try to predict what surprises will pop out.
Kurzweil is a typical technocrat with limited breadth of knowledge. Imagine what happens IF we actually converge on some kind of immortality. Who gets it? If its restricted, what makes Kurzweil think he, and not Senator Dumbbum who controls federal spending on health, or Tycoon Greedo the trillionaire, gets it? How would the world react if such a capability were available, and they (or their dying mother, or their sick child) dont have access? What if its cheap and easy, and everyone gets it? Kurzweil is talking about a technology that would almost certainly destroy every human society on the planet, and he treats it as blithely as the prospect of getting new options for his cell phone. In case he hadnt noticed, human sociology and politics shows no sign of being on an exponential trend towards greater wisdom. Yeah, expect turbulence.
Hes guilty of a very weird form of reductionism that considers a human life can be reduced to patterns in a computer. I have no stock in spiritualism or dualism, but we are very much a product of our crude and messy biology we percieve the world through imprecise chemical reactions, our brains send signals by shuffling ions in salt water, our attitudes and reactions are shaped by chemicals secreted by glands in our guts. Replicating the lightning while ignoring the clouds and rain and pressure changes will not give you a copy of the storm. It will give you something different, which would be interesting still, but its not the same.
Kurzweil shows other signs of kookery. Two hundred pills a day? Weekly intravenous transfusions? Drinking alkalized water because hes afraid of acidosis? The man is an intelligent engineer, but hes also an obsessive crackpot.
Oh, well. Ill make my own predictions. Magazines will continue to praise Kurzweils techno-religion in sporadic bursts, and followers will continue to gullibly accept what he says because it is what they wish would happen. Kurzweil will die while brain-uploading and immortality are still vague dreams; he will be frozen in liquid nitrogen, which will so thoroughly disrupt his cells that even if we discover how to cure whatever kills him, there will be no hope of recovering the mind and personality of Kurzweil from the scrambled chaos of his dead brain. 2045 will come, and those of us who are alive to see it, will look back and realize it is very, very different from what life was like in 2011, and also very different from what we expected life to be like. At some point, I expect artificial intelligences to be part of our culture, if we persist; theyll work in radically different ways than human brains, and they will revolutionize society, but I have no way of guessing how. Ray Kurzweil will be forgotten, mostly, but records of the existence of a strange shaman of the circuitry from the late 20th and early 21st century will be tucked away in whatever the future databases are like, and people and machines will sometimes stumble across them and laugh or zotigrate and say, How quaint and amusing!, or whatever the equivalent in the frangitwidian language of the trans-entity circumsolar ansible network might be.
And thatll be kinda cool. I wish I could live to see it.
Here is the original post:
- Singularitarianism - Wikipedia - May 31st, 2019
- Singularitarianism - Wikipedia - May 28th, 2019
- Singularitarianism - Wikipedia - April 20th, 2019
- New World Order Explained - The New World Order ... - April 20th, 2019
- Singularitarianism - Wikipedia - April 14th, 2019
- True AI is both logically possible and utterly implausible ... - April 14th, 2019
- New World Order Explained - The New World Order ... - April 14th, 2019
- Singularitarianism - Wikipedia - April 11th, 2019
- True AI is both logically possible and utterly implausible ... - April 11th, 2019
- Singularitarianism - Wikipedia - April 1st, 2019
- Singularitarianism.com - April 1st, 2019
- Singularitarianism | Article about Singularitarianism by ... - April 1st, 2019
- Singularitarianism Research Papers - Academia.edu - April 1st, 2019
- Singularitarianism - Wikipedia - March 22nd, 2019
- Singularitarianism - Wikipedia - February 26th, 2019
- Singularitarianism - H+Pedia - hpluspedia.org - February 26th, 2019
- Singularitarianism - Wikipedia - February 25th, 2019
- Singularitarianism - H+Pedia - hpluspedia.org - February 25th, 2019
- Singularitarianism - Wikipedia - December 31st, 2018
- Singularitarianism - Wikipedia - December 19th, 2018
- Singularitarianism | Transhumanism Wiki | FANDOM powered ... - December 19th, 2018
- Singularitarianism.com - December 19th, 2018
- Singularitarianism - Wikipedia - November 4th, 2018
- Singularitarianism - Wikipedia - October 7th, 2018
- Singularitarianism Research Papers - Academia.edu - October 7th, 2018
- Technological singularity - Wikipedia - August 20th, 2018
- Technological singularity - Wikipedia - August 18th, 2018
- Singularitarianism.com - August 6th, 2018
- Technological singularity - Wikipedia - July 15th, 2018
- Technological singularity - Wikipedia - June 2nd, 2018
- Technological singularity - Wikipedia - May 26th, 2018
- Technological singularity - Wikipedia - May 21st, 2018
- Technological singularity - Wikipedia - May 15th, 2018
- Singularitarianism - Wikipedia - May 13th, 2018
- Singularitarianism r/Singularitarianism - reddit - May 6th, 2018
- Technological singularity - Wikipedia - May 4th, 2018
- Technological singularity - Wikipedia - May 3rd, 2018
- Technological singularity - Wikipedia - May 1st, 2018
- Technological singularity - Wikipedia - April 24th, 2018
- Technological singularity - Wikipedia - April 22nd, 2018
- Singularitarianism - Wikipedia - March 27th, 2018
- Singularitarianism.com - March 27th, 2018
- Singularitarianism - Home | Facebook - March 27th, 2018
- Technological singularity - Wikipedia - March 26th, 2018
- Technological singularity - Wikipedia - March 19th, 2018
- Technological singularity - Wikipedia - March 16th, 2018
- Technological singularity - Wikipedia - March 15th, 2018
- Singularitarianism.com - February 6th, 2018
- Singularitarianism? - Pharyngula - February 6th, 2018
- Technological singularity - Wikipedia - August 22nd, 2017
- Technological singularity - Wikipedia - August 21st, 2017
- Singularitarianism - Lesswrongwiki - August 4th, 2017
- Singularitarianism | Transhumanism Wiki | Fandom powered ... - June 13th, 2017
- Singularitarianism r/Singularitarianism - reddit - June 7th, 2017
- Technological utopianism - Wikipedia - March 7th, 2017
- Sterling Crispin: Begin at the End - ArtSlant - February 28th, 2017
- Singularitarianism.com - January 21st, 2017
- Singularitarianism | Prometheism.net - January 7th, 2017
- Singularitarianism | Article about Singularitarianism by ... - January 7th, 2017
- Singularitarianism - Wikipedia - December 8th, 2016