You seem to have a doomsday attitude, so I don't think you are likely to be in touch with the reality of what will transpire:
I don't think we will reach stage #6. The Singularity will hit us first. We are just the breading ground for the machines to take over. They will take over the totalitarian mechanisms set in place in stage #5.
Btw, I have refuted the Singularity in the past. It will never happen.
I don't want to debate it again right now, which is why I didn't respond to the above comment in that thread.
Just put it this way, total orders have never existed in our universe. So the probability of total doomsday is 0.
For machines to become more important than humans from an evolutionary standpoint (which is all that matters actually in terms of species extinction), then they must become alive and that means they must have a bell curve of attributes and have failure. Because without failure, there isn't existence of life (the past and future will collapse into undifferentiated without friction and imperfection).
Infinite entropy can't exist. Kurzweil is a smart idiot.
As I told you, it is not about *stopping* you. I used to think that, but they won't try to stop you. At all. Unless you piss them off, and then they will simply OBSERVE you, and come after you. I'm only talking about market manipulation, giving favours (inside knowledge) to their allies, and pumping value out of you (make you buy high, and sell low).
Let's don't get into an ego battle here where to admit being wrong is to lose one's manhood.
Market manipulation doesn't stop Bitcoin from being used as the onramp that I described is its critical function in this revolution.
I think that the singularity is unavoidable. Simply because the random algorithm of evolution is less efficient in improving systems than intelligent design.
Re-read my post. I added the text necessary to make you see your stance in implausible. That is if you understand what I have been writing else where about why the speed-of-light must be quantifiable. I am not going to re-explain all that in this thread. We are going off-topic.
For machines to become more important than humans from an evolutionary standpoint (which is all that matters actually in terms of species extinction), then they must become alive and that means they must have a bell curve of attributes and have failure. Because without failure, there isn't existence of life (the past and future will collapse into undifferentiated without friction and imperfection).
Of course, and there's nothing inherently impossible to that. On the contrary. What makes you think that machines won't "come alive", have bell curve distributed attributes and have failure (I'd say that if there's one thing they already have, is exactly that !) ?
So then you can't predict the future of human interaction with machines. Absolutism doomsday predictions requires a total ordering perspective, which can't exist.
For example, humans may incorporate the machines into themselves. We become partially Cyborgs.
We're just an intermediate species. Machines are better.
Better must be quantified with the unknown future. Resiliency is better. It can't be predicted. Learn about Taleb's antifragility.
Since when did you become the omniscient God who has a total order perspective on the universe?
For example, humans may incorporate the machines into themselves. We become partially Cyborgs.
I would call that "the machines took over". If the thing that you incorporate is smarter than your human brain is, then that thing is "the boss" and you are just its biological support. If you incorporate an exo-skeleton, then that exo-skeleton augments your abilities as a human. If you incorporate an electronic brain that tells your body how to act, then YOU are the bio-skeleton of that electronic brain, no ?
Replace 'better' with 'smarter' in my prior post, and also refer to my essay,
Information is Alive! on why every human brain is unique and that is where creativity and adaptability is actually derived. When TSHTF, creativity bails out the species. Creativity and adaptability doesn't derive from faster deterministic processing. It derives from entropy. Replication is low entropy.
My point is that this exact ability will be, one day, done better by a machine. The day that machines become more creative than humans is the day I'm talking about.
Why would machines have more entropy? Replication and acquiring knowledge faster is not an increase in entropy.
A human brain is nothing else but a piece of physics, a data processor. There's no reason that a silicon version of it cannot be better at everything that a human brain can do, including creativity.
You didn't even comprehend my point about entropy then. Try again to read the Information is Alive! essay and think more carefully about it.
It is our interaction biologically with our environment over long periods of evolution that has given us the extremely high entropy that we can't transfer to machines (because it would require the machines be each one of us because none of us can totally comprehend the entire network of all of us). That entropy is buried not only in our genes but in our living biology (which includes the billions of variants of living personalities, cultures, etc). The robots could process information faster, but that gives them no inherent evolutionary advantage in terms of resilient creativity and adaptation due to the historical accumulation of entropy in the species.
This is why it is much more likely that the advantages of machines become incorporated into our species.
Machines can easily have bigger entropy sources than biological entities. Biological entities derive their evolutionary source of entropy from random mutations. I don't know what the entropy flux is, but it is monstrously low. Maybe a few bits per year for a whole species. The other entropy source is the random recombination of DNA during sexual reproduction. If it is a megabyte per procreation, it is a lot.
The genes are not the largest store of entropy in our species. The encoding our entropy is in the living network of the species. Our network is alive also, analogous to the brain of ants is the collective brain of the colony. Our entropy is on the magnitude of some exponential or perhaps factorial of a billion (will need to think this out a bit when I have more time).
True random number generators, based upon physical noise, can provide machines with entropy sources of tens of megabytes per second using a few transistors only. Machines outsmart us already concerning entropy sources.
When we speak about entropy in this context we differentiate noise from Shannon information. So your noise generator is not applicable.
And all processing that a brain can do is deterministic, or stochastic (which is nothing else but deterministic with a true random generator as input, Monte Carlo style). So there's nothing that a human brain can think off, that a machine cannot think off.
You are thinking about the system of the species by looking at one brain in isolation. That is very myopic. The value is in the diversity of the network.
It is our interaction biologically with our environment over long periods of evolution that has given us the extremely high entropy that we can't transfer to machines. That entropy is buried not only in our genes but in our living biology (which includes the billions of variants of living personalities, cultures, etc). The robots could process information faster, but that gives them no inherent evolutionary advantage in terms of resilient creativity and adaptation due to the historical accumulation of entropy in the species.
Our genetic record (which is essentially most of what remains from all that entropy) is a few GB. If you take into account on top of that, all epigenetic stuff and I'm being extremely large, lets say a factor of 1000 we end up with at most a few TB. It is much, much less than that, but I don't need to argue here.
I refuted that already. If you refuse to read and understand what has been written, then I have nothing more to say.
A few TB is ridiculously stupid. We won't even be able to store the monetary blockchain of the world in a few TB. The NSA needs huge datacenters just try to store all the information that humans spit out onto the Internet.
And you think we can put human entropy on a single harddisk. Dude what are you smoking.
Edit: your error is your are thinking the entropy of the human species distills down to some encoding at the physical level of the individual humans, but the network of the humans (the connections and interrelations) is also alive and the entropy of the entire system is
incalculable. We don't have the omniscience to perform that computation because it can only be determined with a total order (including on the future). Your doomsday perspective is analogous to "omniscient" leftists who think they can understand and control nature better than nature itself. It is a form of evil.
Btw, this is why the Internet was such a powerful innovation, because it unleashed the power of this species entropy as we are able to network much more efficiently and in wider scope. And this is going to change the world radically with decentralization technology. We are accelerating into the Knowledge Age and the Second Computer Revolution.
You are thinking about the system of the species by looking at one brain in isolation. That is very myopic. The value is in the diversity of the network.
You are comparing all of humanity to one machine. That is not fair. You should compare one human to one machine. Because then you should compare a network of billions of machines to humanity. If a single machine can outsmart a single human, then a network of a billion of those machines will outsmart a network of a billion of humans (also called humanity). Guess what ? That network of humans even needs the machine network to exist ; the machine network doesn't need the humans to interact.
I didn't want to start this debate, because I knew you would drag me into a long noisy debate and now as expected you are ignoring the points I have made. I have already refuted this line of argument.
Please revisit what I have already written and put your thinking cap on. You are not dumb. You have the IQ to understand, if you take off your blinders.
Comparing one human to one machine is not informational at all. That is your first fundamental logic error on this subject matter. Then work forward from there really thinking carefully about my other points.
Why would machines have more entropy? Replication and acquiring knowledge faster is not an increase in entropy.
...
It is our interaction biologically with our environment over long periods of evolution that has given us the extremely high entropy that we can't transfer to machines (because it would require the machines be each one of us because none of us can totally comprehend the entire network of all of us).
...
The genes are not the largest store of entropy in our species. The encoding our entropy is in the living network of the species. Our network is alive also, analogous to the brain of ants is the collective brain of the colony. Our entropy is on the magnitude of some exponential or perhaps factorial of a billion (will need to think this out a bit when I have more time).
...
You are thinking about the system of the species by looking at one brain in isolation. That is very myopic. The value is in the diversity of the network.
And you think we can put human entropy on a single harddisk. Dude what are you smoking.
Edit: your error is your are thinking the entropy of the human species distills down to some encoding at the physical level of the individual humans, but the network of the humans (the connections and interrelations) is also alive and the entropy of the entire system is incalculable. We don't have the omniscience to perform that computation...
Even if you wanted to compare an individual human's entropy to that of your best machine, the machine would still lose:
A 'reference man' (one who is 70 kilograms, 2030 years old and 1.7 metres tall) contains on average about 30 trillion human cells and 39 trillion bacteria, say Ron Milo and Ron Sender at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, and Shai Fuchs at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada.
And so now don't just consider the entropy of the DNA in those cells but attempt to calculate the entropy of the living network of interactions and interrelationships between those cells, which will be unique in every human body.
I hope you are starting to fathom why Kurzweil is either not a very sophisticated thinker and/or is a paid propagandist of JAD's Cathedral (i.e. the establishment elite), who employing fearmonging to mind control you (which they have done quite effectively). The Cathedral wants men to feel hopeless, useless, and abandon their manhood.
Please regurgitate the blue pill. I am handing you a red pill.