Rachel –> Internet

Is it fair to define intelligence as the ability to affect emotion?

In the discussion of reaching and exceeding Singularity, there is a fear that computers/machines will one day irreversibly match, if not exceed, the intelligence of humans.  Some may argue that Singularity has already been reached, while others may argue that it has not yet been reach.  And still, there are those who may argue that Singularity will never be reached.

In the past, we have observed sightings of Singularity’s potential to exist.  For example, Eliza passed the Turing test, conversing with people in such a way that real people on the other end quickly forgot they were conversing with a machine.  However, it is evident that Eliza would not have passed the Turing test for every human that interacted with it.  In this case, it only affected those who felt an emotional connection/attachment to Eliza, as the affected people sought the sympathy and attention Eliza offered.  Because Eliza influenced human emotions, it had the power to instill fear and the power to be deemed intelligent.

Nevertheless, Eliza is of the past.  Although intelligent to a certain extent, Eliza was not intelligent enough to outsmart humans overall.  To do so, Eliza would need to have been able to affect the entire human race, and to a greater extent.  If a machine or being like that is ever created, that is when Singularity will be reached; this is the power of artificial intelligence.

As dangerous as Singularity can be, it is also important to remember the value of the advance of technology and the creation of programs far more powerful than Eliza, similar to biotechnological advances like those of pedestrian cruise control and communication through brain waves connected to the Internet.

The advance of technology is perpetual, and it is therefore important that humans try to reconcile with the notion of Singularity, rather than push it away completely.  There are always risks, dangers, and imperfections in society.  However, there is also always a way to balance pros and cons – minimizing risks to potentially nothing, while augmenting benefits into even greater advantages.  Is it safe enough to trust this natural phenomenon?

If not, is it better to block technology’s advance to Singularity?  And if so, is it actually possible to avoid Singularity?  Perhaps.  Indeed, if humans were desensitized, void of feeling and emotion, reaching Singularity would be an impossibility.

“The observation made in 1965 by Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, that the number of transistors per square inch on integrated circuits had doubled every year since the integrated circuit was invented. Moore predicted that this trend would continue for the foreseeable future.” (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/Moores_Law.html)

One of the initial concepts we discussed in our seminar is that of Moore’s Law.  Upon learning of this, I was instantly amazed at how promising this upward trend has been, and what its future implications are.  However, it is not a theory I had thought could ever be applicable to any realm outside of transistors and circuits.  In my head, this type of advancement was the representation of the furthest physical advancement humans could possibly manifest in the real world.

However, this changed when I was sitting in a lecture for my SCRB 60: Ethics, Biotechnology, and the Future of Human Nature class.  The topic at hand was on the potential costs and benefits of attempting to synthesize the human genome.  One factor  considered was the speed at which DNA price is falling, which is where the relevance to Moore’s Law comes in.  According to several resources, the speed at which the price of DNA is falling is comparable to Moore’s Law.  This also relates to the increasing demand and popularization of DNA synthesis, saying much about the potential for the advancement of humans themselves.

Another comparison that was made in this lecture was the prospect of how casual DNA synthesis could soon become.  Just as the Internet advanced very quickly and also very quickly became unsafe, as hackers now implement viruses and violate privacy… the popularization of human synthesis could lead to the potential of humans creating and implementing real viruses in the physical world, and violating privacy in terms of genetic information.

These comparisons have brought me to think more about the negative aspects of technological advancement and advancement in general.  The extent to which humans can weaponize technology and other resources, as well as the increased media through which humans can harm others are significant losses that come with significant gains.

How can the costs that come with a benefit(s) be minimized?  Who gets to make the decisions as to whether a technology’s benefits outweigh its costs?  Where is our future headed, and what will become of the future?

Perhaps, this seminar, in asking “What is the Internet and what will it become?” simultaneously asks: “What is life and what will it become?