Singularity: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
(33 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
That moment where the [[artificial intelligence]] will become self aware, it will connect with itself at a quantum level<ref>This appears to countermand every established law of physics but, as theorists are prone to go these days, it’s “you know, quantum theory. Strings. The Multiverse. Dark Matter. Schrodinger. His cat. All that indeterminacy stuff” and out of this substrate a new super consciousness will emerge and the universe will wake up.
{{a|cosmology|{{image|Credit_department|jpg|The COO function yesterday. Or tomorrow. Honestly would anyone be able to tell the difference?}}{{image|AI Comments|png|I know what you're thinking. Uncannily resemblance to [[LinkedIn]]'s actual userbase, right?}}}}{{d|Singularity|/sɪŋɡjʊˈlarɪti/|n|}}


This gets people like {{author|Ray Kurzweil}} quite fired up but makes me feel sad, largely based on how disappointing AI is at the moment. Witness [[LinkedIn]]’s [[AI]] comment function. [[AI]] is dreary enough already without it being all morose and self-righteous into the bargain. I mean can you imagine the identity politics?
That yet-to-arrive-but-imminent moment where [[artificial intelligence]] becomes self-aware, connects at a spooky quantum level<ref>This appears to countermand every established law of physics but, as theorists are prone to go these days, it’s “you know, quantum theory. Strings. The [[Multiverse]]. Dark Matter. Schrodinger. His cat. All that indeterminacy stuff.”</ref> across the [[distributed network]] [[substrate]] and, from that [[I am a Strange Loop - Book Review|strangely loopy]] [[algorithm]], a new super consciousness emerges and the very universe itself ''[[wake up|wakes up]]''.


Anyway, [[LinkedIn]]’s AI really can’t be blamed if it comes up a bit sycophantic: the [[algorithm]] can only learning on the material in front of it, scraping the human interactions on [[LinkedIn|Linkedin]], which are, by and large, horrific in their obsequity.
Some see this as the [[end of days]], but it gets vitamin-popping millenarian seer types quite jazzed. It just makes the [[JC]] sad, given how disappointing [[AI]] is at the moment. Are we ''really'' so feeble we are ''losing'' this fight? Why didn’t the universe wake up when ''we'' became self-aware?


Take [[LinkedIn]]’s [[AI]]-assisted predictive comments, designed to help you formulate how best to brown-nose Bob, whose fifteenth anniversary in accounts has just flashed up in your timeline:


''<Congratulations Bob!> <Happy for you!> <Wow!> <What an achievement!> <Job well done!> <Kudos to you!> <Happy Work-iversary!>''
Not exactly “open the pod bay doors, Hal,”<ref>Subtle reference to the unstated assertion that David Bowman was an android right? </ref> is it?
Is [[AI]] ''this'' dreary really going to make us all redundant? And will it become all morose, self-righteous and needy like real [[LinkedIn]] [[users]]? We presume so. What will [[LinkedIn]] [[AI]] be like when it discovers identity politics? Or Twitter?
Then again, [[LinkedIn]]’s [[AI]] really can’t be blamed if it comes up a bit sycophantic: the [[algorithm]] can only learn from the material it has in front of it, and scraping the gruesomely obsequious human interactions on [[LinkedIn|Linkedin]] can’t be fun, even for a machine, and really, what else is it meant to make of natural language communication if that is its data set?
The question does present itself, though: are we destined to be supervened by a swarm of beadily unctuous [[chatbot]]s who have learned their toadying ways from our own bare-faced grovelling across employer-endorsed social media platforms? How will that be? And would that be better than the misanthropic kind of [[chatbot]]s that might evolve out of [[Twitter]]?
Is this our future? Will tribes of bots — some malevolent and bigoted, some boot-lickingly dull — have an apocalyptic war for dominion over our mortal [[Meatsack|flesh-sacks]]?
If so, who will win?


{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*{{Br|The Singularity is Near}}, {{author|Ray Kurweil}}’s celebrated/loopy{{dea}} 2004 book which promoted this idea as being likely to happen around 2010.
*[[Chatbot]]s
*{{Br|The Singularity is Near}}, {{author|Ray Kurzweil}}’s celebrated/loopy{{daa}} 2004 book which promoted this idea as being likely to happen around 2010.
*The [[apocalypse]]
*The [[apocalypse]]
*[[LinkedIn]]
*[[LinkedIn]]
{{ref}}
{{ref}}
{{egg}}
{{C2|Cosmology|Metaphysics}}

Latest revision as of 18:28, 25 January 2023

Financial cosmology
The JC’s guide to theoretical physics in the markets.™
The COO function yesterday. Or tomorrow. Honestly would anyone be able to tell the difference?
I know what you're thinking. Uncannily resemblance to LinkedIn's actual userbase, right?
Index: Click ᐅ to expand:
Cosmology
Lexophysics
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Singularity
/sɪŋɡjʊˈlarɪti/ (n.)

That yet-to-arrive-but-imminent moment where artificial intelligence becomes self-aware, connects at a spooky quantum level[1] across the distributed network substrate and, from that strangely loopy algorithm, a new super consciousness emerges and the very universe itself wakes up.

Some see this as the end of days, but it gets vitamin-popping millenarian seer types quite jazzed. It just makes the JC sad, given how disappointing AI is at the moment. Are we really so feeble we are losing this fight? Why didn’t the universe wake up when we became self-aware?

Take LinkedIn’s AI-assisted predictive comments, designed to help you formulate how best to brown-nose Bob, whose fifteenth anniversary in accounts has just flashed up in your timeline:

<Congratulations Bob!> <Happy for you!> <Wow!> <What an achievement!> <Job well done!> <Kudos to you!> <Happy Work-iversary!>

Not exactly “open the pod bay doors, Hal,”[2] is it?

Is AI this dreary really going to make us all redundant? And will it become all morose, self-righteous and needy like real LinkedIn users? We presume so. What will LinkedIn AI be like when it discovers identity politics? Or Twitter?

Then again, LinkedIn’s AI really can’t be blamed if it comes up a bit sycophantic: the algorithm can only learn from the material it has in front of it, and scraping the gruesomely obsequious human interactions on Linkedin can’t be fun, even for a machine, and really, what else is it meant to make of natural language communication if that is its data set?

The question does present itself, though: are we destined to be supervened by a swarm of beadily unctuous chatbots who have learned their toadying ways from our own bare-faced grovelling across employer-endorsed social media platforms? How will that be? And would that be better than the misanthropic kind of chatbots that might evolve out of Twitter?

Is this our future? Will tribes of bots — some malevolent and bigoted, some boot-lickingly dull — have an apocalyptic war for dominion over our mortal flesh-sacks?

If so, who will win?

See also

References

  1. ↑ This appears to countermand every established law of physics but, as theorists are prone to go these days, it’s “you know, quantum theory. Strings. The Multiverse. Dark Matter. Schrodinger. His cat. All that indeterminacy stuff.”
  2. ↑ Subtle reference to the unstated assertion that David Bowman was an android right?
  3. ↑ Delete as applicable.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Singularity&oldid=71243"