Re: [FRIAM] Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic
Steve Smith wrote at 05/16/2013 04:40 PM: What I'm talking about is the (as yet to be identified in quality?) human experience of accelerated technology. [...] The (much) softer version involves who do we become as we assimilate or become assimilated by these new technologies?. Interesting. I still think we're talking about the same thing. But I'm wrong _all_ the time. ;-) I truly believe that we have always been in the midst of what you're calling accelerated technology. It's no different now than it was 10 millenia ago or 10 millenia from now. This is where I think we disagree. You (seem to) believe that now is somehow fundamentally different from previous eras. I base my belief on my personal experience and skepticism toward competing hypotheses. It's the same argument I give for my claim that idealism is delusion, that actions speak louder than words, and that good mathematicians will be Platonic, by definition. You've heard the argument before. I don't discount the possibility of machine intelligence or even ultimately the possibility of download/upload of the human mind but it does seem highly problematic and the issues not as easily swept under as the Kurzweilian Singularians would imply. *I* am not holding *my* breath waiting. And I expect that even if it comes about, the early nanoseconds will look pretty Frankensteinianly Nightmarish by any standard and the later picoseconds will be completely unrecognizeable to mere humans such as myself. In this regard, I may be more idealistic than you. I'm convicted by the conclusion that mind can't exist without the body ... without the inextricable _embedding_, holarchically enmeshed with the environment. So, although I believe artificial/machine intelligence is likely, it won't be logically abstracted inside a purely syntactic machine. A logical consequence of my conviction is that there won't be (CAN'T be) a Frankensteinianly Nightmarish transition of any kind. The transition will be banal, experienced in the same way a person experiences growth from a zygote to a middle-aged, pear-shaped, fart machine. (How did I get here? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1wg1DNHbNU) -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom. -- E.O. Wilson FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic
Glen, Steve, Glen's latest retort on this thread (see below) gave me this thought: It would be interesting if you guys could offer an (admittedly oversimplified) analytical model of your best guesses on what the productivity function and the acceleration function (2nd derivative of the production function) of technology over time would be. Such a model, though simplistic, would force some careful thinking. For example, if you believe that the production of technology over time (p) is linear, or p = mt, then the acceleration would be 0. If you think p is strict exponential, or p = e**t (as Steve might), then the acceleration would be e**t. If you think it is cyclical (periodic) (say, p = sin(t)), then the growth rate is cyclical, e.g. p = -sin(t). (Maybe Glen thinks something like that.) Of course, the productivity function is actually none of these but probably some analytic series, or whatever. Anyway, this kind of thinking could at least be subjected to past history and be a more quantifiable conversation promoter. Just an idea. Grant On 5/17/13 10:20 AM, glen e. p. ropella wrote: Steve Smith wrote at 05/16/2013 04:40 PM: What I'm talking about is the (as yet to be identified in quality?) human experience of accelerated technology. [...] The (much) softer version involves who do we become as we assimilate or become assimilated by these new technologies?. Interesting. I still think we're talking about the same thing. But I'm wrong _all_ the time. ;-) I truly believe that we have always been in the midst of what you're calling accelerated technology. It's no different now than it was 10 millenia ago or 10 millenia from now. This is where I think we disagree. You (seem to) believe that now is somehow fundamentally different from previous eras. I base my belief on my personal experience and skepticism toward competing hypotheses. It's the same argument I give for my claim that idealism is delusion, that actions speak louder than words, and that good mathematicians will be Platonic, by definition. You've heard the argument before. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic
Great idea!
I actually think an accurate approximation would involve an
impredicative hierarchical model. I don't think one can isolate
technology from the humans that create it.
But absent the time to put that together, I'll go with something like:
{ 1/(1+e^-(h-h_o)), h near h_o
p(h) = {
{ 1/(1+e^(h+h_f)), h h_o
where h is the population of humans and h_o is some
tech-accelerating-maximum population of humans. h_o becomes some sort
of optimal clique size. h_f is some sort of failure size larger than h_o.
Grant Holland wrote at 05/17/2013 11:51 AM:
Glen's latest retort on this thread (see below) gave me this thought: It
would be interesting if you guys could offer an (admittedly
oversimplified) analytical model of your best guesses on what the
productivity function and the acceleration function (2nd derivative of
the production function) of technology over time would be. Such a
model, though simplistic, would force some careful thinking.
For example, if you believe that the production of technology over time
(p) is linear, or p = mt, then the acceleration would be 0. If you think
p is strict exponential, or p = e**t (as Steve might), then the
acceleration would be e**t. If you think it is cyclical (periodic) (say,
p = sin(t)), then the growth rate is cyclical, e.g. p = -sin(t). (Maybe
Glen thinks something like that.) Of course, the productivity function
is actually none of these but probably some analytic series, or whatever.
Anyway, this kind of thinking could at least be subjected to past
history and be a more quantifiable conversation promoter.
Just an idea.
--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com
Liberty is the only thing you can't have unless you give it to others.
-- William Allen White
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic
Glen,
That's very good! And it captures the kind of hypolinearity that you I
think you have been suggesting.
Looks like to me that your p(h) function's sensitivity to human
population size is well-considered. If I understand your parameter
constants h_o and h_f correctly, then I believe the exponent of e in
both of your cases is a positive integer. I believe this means that your
p(h) is monotonically decreasing in both cases.
So, the next thing is to consider the acceleration of p(h) - its second
derivative. This means that we are interested in its convexity. I
suspect that it is always convex for positive h. If so, then its
acceleration is always positive. Of course, a more analytical approach
to taking these derivatives is called for.
So, assuming that the population h is always increasing with time -
probably a reasonable case, then p(t) is also convex. This implies, if I
am correct, that your production function is always accelerating. Is
this correct?
Do these considerations reflect your thinking about technology growth?
On 5/17/13 2:35 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
Great idea!
I actually think an accurate approximation would involve an
impredicative hierarchical model. I don't think one can isolate
technology from the humans that create it.
But absent the time to put that together, I'll go with something like:
{ 1/(1+e^-(h-h_o)), h near h_o
p(h) = {
{ 1/(1+e^(h+h_f)), h h_o
where h is the population of humans and h_o is some
tech-accelerating-maximum population of humans. h_o becomes some sort
of optimal clique size. h_f is some sort of failure size larger than h_o.
Grant Holland wrote at 05/17/2013 11:51 AM:
Glen's latest retort on this thread (see below) gave me this thought: It
would be interesting if you guys could offer an (admittedly
oversimplified) analytical model of your best guesses on what the
productivity function and the acceleration function (2nd derivative of
the production function) of technology over time would be. Such a
model, though simplistic, would force some careful thinking.
For example, if you believe that the production of technology over time
(p) is linear, or p = mt, then the acceleration would be 0. If you think
p is strict exponential, or p = e**t (as Steve might), then the
acceleration would be e**t. If you think it is cyclical (periodic) (say,
p = sin(t)), then the growth rate is cyclical, e.g. p = -sin(t). (Maybe
Glen thinks something like that.) Of course, the productivity function
is actually none of these but probably some analytic series, or whatever.
Anyway, this kind of thinking could at least be subjected to past
history and be a more quantifiable conversation promoter.
Just an idea.
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic
[Edit: ninja'd by Glen Grant since I got distracted by explaining the Zooniverse https://www.zooniverse.org/ to my science teacher] I think the distinction between singularists and technologists more generally is how their function curves; the singularity being a cultural asymptote, requiring a quicker function than just the maybe-exponential Moore's Law, or even something like a factorial. The contributing factor to the increasing of the increasing of the slope seems to be said by singularists to be strong AI, as machines can start to design (improve) and build themselves. We are not there yet but surprisingly close, as we discussed with the Open Google. What Just Happened? discussion. There also seems to be, especially in popular perceptions of singularists (or if you think they are more evangelical, Singularitarians with a capital S), an aspect of body modification, and beyond that identity modification, and beyond that mind/hivemind modification. Apropos is this article by rich entrepreneur (founder of HowStuffWorks.com, which I learned about from a book they published that I read as a kid, *How Much Does the Earth Weigh?*) Marshall Brain which seems very singularist but does not call itself so (it was published in 2005, the same year *the Singularity is Near* came out, the book that made the singularity a household word although Kurzweil et al had been talking about it for quite a while): The Day You Discard Your Bodyhttp://marshallbrain.com/discard1.htm And the obligatory XKCD reference: Protip: Annoy Ray Kurzweil by always referring to it as the 'Cybersingularity'. http://xkcd.com/1084/ And this parody of intellectual discussion of the matter by Aaron Diaz: A Thinking Ape’s Critique of Trans-Simianismhttp://dresdencodak.com/2009/05/15/a-thinking-apes-critique-of-trans-simianism-repost/ -Arlo James Barnes FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic
Damn it Grant. Why do responses to you not go to the list by default? ;-)
Grant Holland wrote at 05/17/2013 02:41 PM:
Looks like to me that your p(h) function's sensitivity to human
population size is well-considered. If I understand your parameter
constants h_o and h_f correctly, then I believe the exponent of e in
both of your cases is a positive integer. I believe this means that your
p(h) is monotonically decreasing in both cases.
Not quite. The first one is a normal S curve. The second mode is
inverted. I don't know if I can add attachments. So, try this:
first mode:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427eolc4anlkqf
second mode:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427elo9c75852c
So, together, the bimodal function should look like a mesa.
So, the next thing is to consider the acceleration of p(h) - its second
derivative. This means that we are interested in its convexity. I
suspect that it is always convex for positive h. If so, then its
acceleration is always positive. Of course, a more analytical approach
to taking these derivatives is called for.
{ (e^(h+h_o))/(e^(h+h_o)+1)^2
d/dh = {
{ -(e^(h+h_o))/(e^(h+h_o)+1)^2
(The sign on h_o doesn't really matter, I suppose.) So, the curvature is
positive for the first mode and negative for the second. The 2nd
derivative will have the same sign as the 1st derivative, I think, which
means the convexity flips at h_o.
So, assuming that the population h is always increasing with time -
probably a reasonable case, then p(t) is also convex. This implies, if I
am correct, that your production function is always accelerating. Is
this correct?
Given the above, no. It goes through a high acceleration period near
h_o, but much less h h_o and switches to mode 2 at h h_o.
Do these considerations reflect your thinking about technology growth?
Well, as I said before, I don't think it's accurate. But I do think my
mesa function might generally capture what people like Steve
_perceive_. I actually think that technology doesn't grow any faster or
slower on any variable. But I can see how one might _think_ it does.
E.g. with Geoff West's concept of more innovation in higher densities.
On 5/17/13 2:35 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
But absent the time to put that together, I'll go with something like:
{ 1/(1+e^-(h-h_o)), h near h_o
p(h) = {
{ 1/(1+e^(h+h_f)), h h_o
where h is the population of humans and h_o is some
tech-accelerating-maximum population of humans. h_o becomes some sort
of optimal clique size. h_f is some sort of failure size larger
than h_o.
--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com
We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom. -- E.O. Wilson
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
[FRIAM] digital divide closing?
The long made short is looking at a summer and fall period without school- I am interested to know if there are organizations that might need help who are in the business of closing that thing called the digital divide- so here I am pinging the smart folks at FRIAM: Hello smart folks at FRIAM anyone have some ideas where on earth I might get started on my evil plan to close the digital divide in and around santa fe? FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic
Glen,
Thanks for that. That makes your p(h) function very much more
interesting than what I had surmised. Depending on the value of h,
acceleration can be either positive or negative - as can be inferred
from your derivatives. So both cases get covered. Does Steve's position
also get included under the right conditions?
Grant
On 5/17/13 4:16 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
Damn it Grant. Why do responses to you not go to the list by default? ;-)
Grant Holland wrote at 05/17/2013 02:41 PM:
Looks like to me that your p(h) function's sensitivity to human
population size is well-considered. If I understand your parameter
constants h_o and h_f correctly, then I believe the exponent of e in
both of your cases is a positive integer. I believe this means that your
p(h) is monotonically decreasing in both cases.
Not quite. The first one is a normal S curve. The second mode is
inverted. I don't know if I can add attachments. So, try this:
first mode:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427eolc4anlkqf
second mode:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427elo9c75852c
So, together, the bimodal function should look like a mesa.
So, the next thing is to consider the acceleration of p(h) - its second
derivative. This means that we are interested in its convexity. I
suspect that it is always convex for positive h. If so, then its
acceleration is always positive. Of course, a more analytical approach
to taking these derivatives is called for.
{ (e^(h+h_o))/(e^(h+h_o)+1)^2
d/dh = {
{ -(e^(h+h_o))/(e^(h+h_o)+1)^2
(The sign on h_o doesn't really matter, I suppose.) So, the curvature is
positive for the first mode and negative for the second. The 2nd
derivative will have the same sign as the 1st derivative, I think, which
means the convexity flips at h_o.
So, assuming that the population h is always increasing with time -
probably a reasonable case, then p(t) is also convex. This implies, if I
am correct, that your production function is always accelerating. Is
this correct?
Given the above, no. It goes through a high acceleration period near
h_o, but much less h h_o and switches to mode 2 at h h_o.
Do these considerations reflect your thinking about technology growth?
Well, as I said before, I don't think it's accurate. But I do think my
mesa function might generally capture what people like Steve
_perceive_. I actually think that technology doesn't grow any faster or
slower on any variable. But I can see how one might _think_ it does.
E.g. with Geoff West's concept of more innovation in higher densities.
On 5/17/13 2:35 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
But absent the time to put that together, I'll go with something like:
{ 1/(1+e^-(h-h_o)), h near h_o
p(h) = {
{ 1/(1+e^(h+h_f)), h h_o
where h is the population of humans and h_o is some
tech-accelerating-maximum population of humans. h_o becomes some sort
of optimal clique size. h_f is some sort of failure size larger
than h_o.
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic
Grant Holland wrote at 05/17/2013 03:28 PM: Does Steve's position also get included under the right conditions? I think so. If the first mode were sharp enough 1/(1+e^(-t*(h-h_o))), where t 1 (t for threshold), then when h is just below h_o, the perceived acceleration of tech would seem very high, only to begin slowing after we crossed h_o. For example, if Steve were kidnapped and sold into slavery in India or Indonesia, to him h h_o. But at the near optimal population density for him where he is, he sees it accelerating. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trust either of them. -- P. J. O'Rourke FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
