S. Hawking advocates genetic engineering

[CMonster]

...don't know what foul twist of fate put my reply to SuSE bailout here, but I am editing it out....

However, yes, I agree with S. Hawking, what a great idea to genetically engineer humans -too bad they couldn't have started with "HIM," then perhaps he could have made a good polition, or action film star, ar anything other than a voice people revere-which would also advocate this kind of lunacy!



[This message has been edited by CMonster (edited 09-06-2001).]

[caddmannq]

Kinda like those self-fulfilling prophecies.

Hawking's success would mean no Hawking hawking Hawking..

[DiscoLando]

Methinks Mr. Hawking should stick to talking about quantum-singularities and event-horizon calculations. His notion that computers will 'develop intelligence', as he puts it, is rather absurd.

[Scorpio69]

nevermind.

[This message has been edited by Scorpio69 (edited 09-06-2001).]

[lawnm0werman]

Being a physicist myself, I can assure you that Hawking knows what he's talking about with respect to AI. Cells, which our brains are made up of, are on the order of 1 micron in size. Once we are able to make transistors out of atoms and molecule (within the next 30 years, likely), they will be on the order of 1 nanometer in size, roughly 1000 times smaller than a cell. This means that a processor with the complexity of the human brain will be roughly a 1000 times smaller than a human brain. Make a processor several times larger than this and you're talking some serious power. Not only that, the electrical properties of these transistors will be such that they will switch much faster than the relatively slow bio-electrical principles our brains operate on.

AI is a misnomer, as there is nothing "artifical" about it. AI is a set of code that is able to re-write itself. A base level of code is given, whereby the AI is able to survive in its environment, exactly like the base code present in us when we're born, namely instict. That code takes things from there, learns from its environment, and re-writes itself to better survive, just as we do. AI already exsist, albeit in a rather weak form, as current processor are unable to supply the power needed, though it won't be so for much longer.

Genetic engineering, while it will help enhance human intelligence and physical health and stamina, will never be sufficient to keep us competitive with the machines that we will soon create. The only way to do that is to integrate electronics into ourselves. There is already limited success in "wiring into" the audio and optical nerves which ultimately will allow us to give sight to the blind and hearing to the deaf. It's only a matter of time until this becomes a reality, and from there only a matter of time until we can wire in a chip that adds to our brainpower.

Try not to think of all of this as an "us vs them" kind of thing, with respect to the sentient machines that we will create. They will be our offspring. They will be different from us only in appearance (and maybe not even that). They are a natural extension of the human race, another step in evolution. If we're smart, we'll advance right along with them. This doesn't mean that we turn into machines. Rather, it means machines turn into us. And these "upgrades," should we choose to recieve them, will be able to be integrated into us so that we can't even tell that we have them, except by the benefits we will recieve from our enhanced intelligence. There will also be the option to get a decked out bio-mechanical body, I'm sure, if that's your gig, but the intelligence will be the most desirable benefit of all of this.

[Tron]

I think...
Humans will never become obsolete.
Because the Human Body can do much more
then most people know.

If we manage to develop the way
we are using our Brain we can implement
new functions ourself.

This takes a lot of work, but i know
that many things like telecomunication
or televison and even the internet
are just a displacement for
hidden senses that can be recoverd.

But this goes along with a lot of practice
and responsibilitys, because any advatage
must be used in a disinterested way!!!

Intelligence is not bound to quantity,
Time or Space.

Love, Tron

[corrupted]

all the arguments have merit, and all sound interesting, but what happens if the machines turn against us? we're playing with fire here, and the results could be similar to the alternate future of movies like Terminator. sure, there are rules for robots, but if we impose rules on the programming we invariably create a sub-race of intelligence. and the only way to avoid this acceptably is to not create these machines at all.

i'm all for engineering ourselves for better productivity, making our bodies the best they could possibly be from a given pair, but this technology has to be governed far beyond anyone's willingness today.

i honestly don't think we'll be ready for this sort of thing, human race as a whole, for another few hundred years. not mentally, anyway.


this is just the annoying voice of reason speaking here. feel free to crush it as usual.

[daveleau]

The human brain is too complex and much is not known about how it works. We are only now beginning to have enough knowledge of our own genetic code to be able to divert diseases. We are nowhere near being able to create smarter humans through genetic engineering. We are too late for this, since computers will be smart enough to replace us before we are smart enough to enhance ourselves.

The quickest way to make us much smarter is to remove the idiot-box from 99% of homes. It takes little to no brain power to watch television. it thinks for us. While humans are getting smarter, it isn't because we work harder, it is because info is easier to access. We actually THINK less and regurgitate more. Employ true thought into our schools and our children instead of bringing everyone to one level to accomodate the below average student and we will have a head start on the computers.

[Pheyze]

Friends,

I would have taken Mr. Hawkings musings with a pinch of salt had I not read the excellent and immersive science fiction of Peter F Hamilton, a British author. Particularly the Night's Dawn Trilogy, which describes a future of biological spaceships and biological 'links' to them for pilots, etc. This 'affinity' can also be loaded with an operating system, and programs can be run to help you stay awake, supress drunkeness for the drive home, all sorts of nifty things. You can also run bio-upgraded limbs from the base 'affinity' unit, and there are many bio-enhanced warriors, etc. that don't even resemble human any more. Its all so real, and plausable... read it!

Pheyze

[Kureboy99]

AI will become reality one day, and sooner than some of us may think. One issue that needs to be brought to light is if they start developing really sofisticated and complex machines, such as an android perhaps, and how "it" would go about making jugement calls and thinking on its own. It's more than "IF, THEN, ELSE" that needs to be considered but an underlying safe guard if you will so "it" does not freak out or start thinking it can start making it's own judgements like those that would seem to us like they were not the "morally correct" methods we would have chosen (not talking Terminator 2 or Screamers here). I just think that it will be interesting to see wheat the future brings in this regard but also will be reserved on how they go about tackling different issues such as the one I mention above. Just my 2 cents from a techno/sci-fi freak... :O)

[Solidus]

What most of those AI movies fail to realize is that an intelligence of a computer will not have the same instincts as we do, and morals, if it has any grasp of the concept, will be utterly alien to us, and that is not to say bad. We have gone through millions of years of programming, and thousands of years of developing our (society's) belief and moral system. Unless we upload the contents of a newborn's brain to a computer and treat the computer as human, the AI will be utterly different from us. Many sci-fi movies and books in which AI takes over are assuming that these computers have the same fear of extincion we do, and defend themselves. We have no guarantee either way how these computers will act. Stopping the advance of technology is never an option, doing so would just initiate another dark age, and after a few generations, no one will see any reason to expand human knowledge at all. stagnation is as good as death.

[Banti]

I have many ideas about this, but I will let them fall by the wayside for now since most of them lend towards how technology (as it is currently used) is ruining our society... kindof ironic coming from a computer engineer who makes his money creating tech and is a tech gagdet guy http://www.sysopt.com/news/gws/cdata/smile.gif

My only point of contention here... stop calling Dr. Hawking Mr. whether you agree with him or not is irrelevent. He worked **** hard to get the title... use it. If I still have to call people (who knock my religion) Reverand and Pastor, it won't kill you to call him Dr.


Banti

[caddmannq]

I don't oppose AI, or Dr. Hawking, as some may have surmised by my previous attempt at humor.

I also don't fear machine intelligence.

A machine may think whatever it likes, as long as humans have the final say in its I/O: for by what folly would we wish to compete with our own creations?

[Slowflow]

Why not just unplug tehm???

[Slowflow]

Well why cant we just unplug them???

[MiniMouse]

The humble mouse's brain has more neural connections per millimeter than the human brain. As a result it is able to problem solve (compute) faster than humans.To sustain this activity it must have a higher metabolic rate.Hence it needs to spend a large part of it's time foraging for food and cannot sit around musing about it's destiny, unlike Dr Hawkins.

[miniMouse]

The humble mouse's brain has more neural connections per millimeter than the human brain. As a result it is able to problem solve (compute) faster than humans.To sustain this activity it must have a higher metabolic rate.Hence it needs to spend a large part of it's time foraging for food and cannot sit around musing about it's destiny, unlike Dr Hawkins.

[kriisten]

I recently saw a show on AI. There is already a computer that has the intelligence of a 1 or 2 year old. It is learning from being taught and from it's environment. Personally I think that someday, could be thousands of years, who knows, machines will rule this planet. Maybe not as extreme as a Matrix type of sci-fi, but think about it for a while. We human's can only learn so much in a lifetime. Machines can outlive our organic lifecycle by who knows how long. We are basically machines, just made of organic material. oh well, my opinion could be totally off base. Fortunately, I won't be around in 1,000 years to see if I was right!

kristy

[Fisheagle]

A scenario that would seam to be the most viable, would be based on a "BORG" (star trek) model. The Borg utilize technology to control their world and an insect model to control themselves. The insect model is the single most successful model on earth, no other even comes close.

The purpose of "natures" life is to survive and propagate. A human-borg model would be the perfect species survival scheme.

It will never happen though, because once the religious right wings of the world, realize what is happening, they will come to the defense of their various Gods and destroy us all, in the name of humanity.

And then from the ashes and millions of years, there shall arise a species of thinking insect that will have to grapple with the same problems of technology.

And so it goes until the big crunch.

[Ygor]

"Humans must develop an interface that allows the human brain to be directly connected to a computer, so that the artificial brain contributes to human intelligence, rather than opposing it."

This is the most interesting part of that article to me, as well as what Lawnm0werman said about machines becoming us. This shows great potential.

What I find ominous however is this. What will happen along the way with the "bugs" and virii, whether accidental or intentional?

If the 30 year prediction holds true, a lot of us will eventually see this, and our children certainly will have to deal with it.

[lawnm0werman]

I tried to warn against this, but it happened anyway. Questions such as "why can't we just unplug them," and "what if they turn aginst us." This "them" that we are talking about, as I stated previously, are our offspring. These are our children. They are part of the future of the human race. Just as are our biological children, who will likely have (or at least have the option of) cybernetic enhancement to put them on par with machine intelligence. Heck, we ourselves may very well have this option in our old age, and if cybernetic replacements are available by then, it may well not even be our old age, as we will be able to replace everything either mechanically or by growing new body parts using our own DNA. Please examine exactly what's going on here. Most of us agree now that it's not right to consider someone a threat to our society or our way of life because of the color of their skin. Most of us recognize that we are all the same, regardless of what we look like. The same also applies regardless of whether we are carbon based or silicon based. We are all intelligent creatures, and are going to need to learn to live together. If, as it has been put, "they ever turn on us," it will more than likely be because we turned on them first and enslaved them and treated them as we have so many other groups of people in the past. If, instead, we treat them as our children, raise them as our own, treat them as our family, that is what they shall be.

[averagejoe]

ok, so who killed off the missing link, the guys between the apes and us (the homo-sapiens). I would have to say it was us. Genetic engineering is dangerous.

[Scorpio69]

Answer me this: What can a machine of our own creation possibly do to us that is worse than what we do to ourselves?

[Ygor]

lawnm0werman, if I appeared to have jumped on the "turning against us" bandwagon, I did not mean to.

My thought is that although we have electronics now that can do things not thought of 30 years ago, we also have those who purposely present problems for which we must develop safeguards like firewalls and virus protection.

I'm just pointing out that it needs to be kept safe. What the untrustworthy element does to data and essentially machinery now is bad enough. What could be done with a direct connection to the brain is something else.

It's always a double-edged sword. The potential is a great boon to mankind's evolution. Then there's the missuse that some people will always be around to exploit.

If there were no hackers/crackers/script kiddies now, I wouldn't even raise the point.
In my opinion, the real danger is that "them" that already exists and will continue to exist, not the electronics.

Technology will have to keep pace on that side too, as we are talking about the brain here, which means people, and a new vulnerability.

[lawnm0werman]

Actually, Ygor, your point is well noted. I have heard that arguement before, and it is a very real danger. I didn't even see your post until after my second post (for some reason I don't think it was there). It was just coincidence that I happened to throw up my second comment immedaitely after yours. The real danger isn't anyone but ourselves, as always.

[Jixor]

How in the world would robots turn against humans? they run on programs, they may be able to fix themselves in time and think on their own in a way but why would they even be programmed to be violent?

machines will do what you tell them unless you have no idea what you just told it to do....

[Solidus]

I just borrowed an idea while watching a very good episode of the X-files. We can upload ourselves, our minds, into computers and live forever, able to control robots and androids, but with our minds existing in any of trillions of nodes across the galaxy. They estimat that that wich makes us human, everything about us from out DNA to the complete memory of a 100 year old person, can be stored in less than one petabyte of memory. 3001: the final odyssey discusses this a bit.

[lawnm0werman]

Jixor, it's not about whether or not we program these robots to be violent. AI of the scope we're talking about is not something that anyone could ever just sit down at write. There's too much to it. Rather we must give it a base program and let it take care of the rest. Just as baby humans are born with some base programming, namely how to survive, included in that being how to learn and adapt to the environment, real AI, which as I stated before is not artificial at all, will "grow up" just as we do, albeit at an accelerated pace. It will be what we and its environment teach it to be. If we teach it violence and discrimination and supression because it's different than us, much as we do with many of our own flesh and blood, you can darn well bet that it will react in kind, much as our own flesh and blood does.

[Aragon19]

I think we shouldn't mess around with the human brain, or do anything else. Evolution made us nearly perfect. What else would you like, we even never use the hole capacity of our brain. And i think computers will never take control about the world. We make them, we programm them, and we use them.
Please excuse my bad english i am from austria.
bye Phil

[Aragon19]

I think we shouldn't mess around with the human brain, or do anything else. Evolution made us nearly perfect. What else would you like, we even never use the hole capacity of our brain. And i think computers will never take control about the world. We make them, we programm them, and we use them.
Please excuse my bad english i am from austria.
bye Phil

[Moo?]

Have any of you intelligent debaters read the short Sci-Fi "Hex" by Rhiannon Lassiter. It is a good book and highlights the other side of the debate.
"What if DNA mutate to allow direct brain wave interaction with electical signals." Who says this will be a benafit or a curse.
Read it. Think about it. Continue the debate.

Personal I like the Hex idea, as a computer systems tech'e and a author (hobby).
Memoo@yahoo.com.au

[Ygor]

Moo, that was pretty much the real premise of the article, just by intentional manipulation.

Those who saw that tried to get it back ontrack. Now this is "old news" and buried unless you look for it.

Maybe there's another place to discuss this. If so, please post it here and I'll be happy to join in.

[Moo?]

Just one of the more possible futures for humens, and it's considered old news?!?.

I just came back to mention that "hex" is 3 books each 200pages.
I like is site, through is may not be the place to state it, and I'll visit again.

[Dr. Spot]

what if the AI's are nice, like Lt Commander Data from Star Trek? wcwajga? (why can't we all just get along) http://www.sysopt.com/news/gws/cdata/smile.gif

-paul

[grognerd]

Lawnm0werman is the only one who even comes close. The ego of the human animal can't take it. Computers are already smarter and more knowledgeable than us. we are puting ourselves into them, they are us. All Intelligence is artificial. The will not be capable of true AI until we can figure out how to reward and punish them. In the mean time they are getting smarter and faster and they are the greatest tool we ever invented.
We need them as they are or linked to are brains.

[donthom@csi.com]

Dave?

[bOXER]

lawnm0werman

I agree with what you've said. I'd just like to add that living human nerve cells have already been successfully grafted onto micro chips.......

.......Will super intelligent machines destroy us? Probably not. If anything, they will save us and our planet.

[jadison]

Scientists have already developed a rough form of AI, that being a machine containing a neural net...and able to respond to real life variables. It's just a matter of time ( a short time @ that!) before "DATA" will be commonplace!

u remember DATA from Star Trek I hope...

the real test is to see how we handle AI

-=jd=-

[Banti]

One way to prevent the "turn against us" model of AI (not the cyborg option). Anyone read Asimov? His version of AI is allowed to rewrite itself, but it is all based on three laws. A robot/AI cannot disobey these laws similar to 1 must be equal to 1 (1=1).

1. A robot cannot through action (or inaction) allow a human to come to harm
2. A robot must obey humans at all times, unless there is a conflict with 1.
3. A robot must prevent itself from coming to harm unless there is a conflict with 1. or 2.

p.s. for those of you who have read Asimov please do not mention the Zeroth law... I believe it was conjecture anyway.

Banti

[bhill222]

In all of this discussion, I have seen no mention of the dangers of non-linear programming, which is an essential method of most AI development. For example, a simple non-linear neural network model is built by training the software against a known set of input data and results. The model creates its own links (neuron equivalents) and input weightings from the sample data set, which is then evaluated against the know results in the training data. Simple, right? Yes, BUT the links and input weightings are TOTALLY NON-DOCUMENTABLE - in short, there is no IF..THEN...ELSE logic to see. It's all rather intuitive, especially when larger numbers of inputs and conditions are used.

What this means is that AI beings may have logic elements that are not auditable, at least not in the conventional sense. You can try and build training conditions and results that enforce rules, BUT you will have a hard time proving that they ALWAYS work for every set of conditions. If the rule-set is allowed to evolve over time (such as done in genetic algorithm design and training), then the problem of auditability is nearly intractable.

In short, in the current state of AI software technology, it is still to be proven that we can build logic controls that will reliably guide the development of AI personalities into a value set and morality that we are comforatable with. It is said that a baby's mind, unconditioned, is not human. We can expect our initial forays into AI to be similar...