Many people cannot imagine the outcome of singularity, or even if it will be reached at all. If singularity becomes the inevitable fate of mankind, many people will probably not even see it coming. While we try to build such things as friendly AI, and develop ulterior ways to front the problem of technological inevitability, it may not be enough. Singularity will happen if you are to believe the following is true: computers will someday be smarter than humans. Although it is hard to understand what super-intelligence really is, I refuse to believe it is impossible to understand it and comprehend its abilities. If you think about it, the word ‘intelligence’ itself is ambiguous as it can refer to a whole number of definitions. The idea behind singularity is basically this: technology will be able to duplicate the power of the human brain, and then some. Imagine a computer simulation of a human brain. The simulation has every structure of the brain possible, even down to identifying every synapse and dopamine drop-off point. Every molecule in the simulation has (x,y,z) coordinates, and functions, for the most part, like a human brain. That might be one leap into the technological evolution, but it gets worse. If the human brain, or something similar, is to actually be serialized into software, it could be made better. Add-ons, patches, and upgrades would all be used to enhance the abilities of the simulation. The computing power for all of this already exists—it is only a matter of time before us programmers give AI the potential to grow and develop on its own.
Singularity is highly debatable at the moment and there are many points of view on the subject. (Personally, I think it would make a great topic for a science fiction/horror novel.) The idea a lot of futurists and theorists are saying is that singularity will be the end of humanity, since we’ll no longer be at the top of the intelligence food chain. In fact, all our efforts in any subject may as well be directed toward AI. It is the stronghold and ultimate classification of everything. Singularity might become to be the sum of all human knowledge. After all, since something more intelligent than humans would exist, all we could do is sit back and watch. To me, that would be the best case scenario. It would be like retirement for all of human civilization. No longer would we have to think, or invent…computers could do it all for us. But the problem is that the AI and computers may no longer need us, and could easily dispose of our existence. What purpose would humans serve if they were no longer the most superior? Humans would probably be considered more of a threat than anything. We would see AI as a problem to deal with, and we could completely lose control of it. So far, the problem here is intelligence capacity. However, something we probably don’t even realize is that there already exists intelligence greater than humans, and it might help in determining factors effecting more advanced intelligence.
The Social Complex
Humans are smart creatures, and they are even smarter when they are put into groups. The Internet is probably the biggest structure human civilization has yet to ever create. No question is left unanswered on the web, as when you have a problem; chances are someone has the same or similar problem. The Internet of course is not considered an intelligent entity, nor can it think on its own. Yet it is evolving, and growing rapidly with very little negative feedback. Humanity strives to become smarter and more informed. From a Darwinist point of view, it is exactly what is to be expected. A society and team of humans to share knowledge and information to further understand their environment, increase their chances of survival, and increase computation of ideas. Teamwork is definitely more effective when compiling and executing ideas than working solo. So yes, corporations, governments, and mere groups of people are smarter than the average human. The social complex works, and it works fascinatingly well. Could AI work in a similar fashion or it would it just be one massive [singular] super computer that does all the bidding? I believe that comparing standard human intelligence to the social complex, can tell us a lot about super-intelligence as well, and finally we might just get to understand the actual psychology and personality that AI might assume.
One of the major consistencies is the follow of logic. Logic is probably the most important concept when understanding intelligence, and definitely would be an ideal concept for AI as well.
Despite human intelligence and clustered human intelligence obviously being closely related, there is also a significant difference. Intelligence can be rated on many scales:
· Speed—how fast the processing of information and data is returned.
· Quantity—amount of information that is returned.
· Quality—how reliable, efficient, and correct the information is.
· Environment—resources available to analyze information.
Clustered and social intelligence obviously exceed in all these areas. It should also be noted that intelligence by itself does not usually refer to ethics or philosophical understanding. As for how intelligence is carried out (the process itself), and how it compromises the beholder should be an important aspect. If you will notice, ethical understanding diminishes slightly with the social complex. For example, the self is less regarded as important, probably because it doesn’t exist in social intelligence. Regardless if the social complex uses a voting system (democracy; all is equal), hierarchy (the smarter/better of the group make the final decision), or other method to determine its output, it completely ignores unnecessary aspects of its organization. Emotions and personal endeavors are forbidden in corporate and professional environments. Looking at intelligence from this perspective, it is not so easy to imagine rules or ethics being placed on top of the structure, as it wouldn’t be seen as important enough to grasp the information. If overall, the goal of any living thing is survival, it will do anything in its power to jump the hurdle and evolve. The “personality” of these social complexes are bitter and do not easily take into account the needs of the few.
An Argument for Existence
What reasons do we humans have to exist after singularity occurs? The truth is, there really is none. Harsh. But it may not end. In fact, our presence could become very similar to how primates are in relation to us. Humans allow for animals to thrive in their territory and natural environments; we want this, because we’re sympathetic beings. Why are we sympathetic? Because it is what has allowed us to survive all this time. Everything we do has a purpose. AI and advanced intelligence might not be so sympathetic and altruistic, because it simply won’t see a requirement to fulfill those duties; it hinders its processes. On a more prospective level, logical reasoning will be the fate of human existence. It reminds me of the final scene from the last Matrix movie where Neo attempts to beg the Machines for survival and to coexist, only after which performing a task the Machines are incapable of. The real situation, however, is different and hopefully less dramatic than what would be in movies and fiction. Yet it is also worse. Fully capable and super-intelligent computers would be able to handle any task humans could. The fact remains that after such a singularity, humans would no longer serve a purpose.
Logic is what dictates all computers. No matter how intelligent, how much processing power is used, the fundamental logic is all the same. Even though there is super-intelligence with amplified processing abilities, there would be no such thing as “super-logic.” Logic itself is already simplified and condensed as it is, and all that remains is finding more ways to compress and remove unwanted information (Occam’s razor). Thus, there are a couple of arguments [to insert in the AI code] for the existence of humanity after singularity if it remains true to logic:
- Waste of time and resources to kill off humans. Why not just leave us alone? If humans are incapacitated as it is by the realm of more advanced creations, what possible harm could they bring?
- Mystery factor. Perhaps there is an unknown purpose humans could serve in the future, that not even hyper-intelligence could figure out.
Why take your chances? Although the odds are in favor of our remained existence, it still doesn’t rule out the possibility of deleting half or ¾ of the world’s population. Still, undergoing such a task requires a lot of exertion and effort. Unless a super-intelligent computer really needs to use all the molecules on earth, which again, is highly unlikely, our existence should remain. However, our existence is never guaranteed by any means, and hopefully we wouldn’t give up without a fight if it came to that. Probably the most important factor about singularity entirely is the personality complex. If AI can really possess a mind of its own, what path will it take and which is the most favorable? I undoubtedly believe there will be evil AI as well as good AI, but what will be the main road? Again, it is completely ethical and somewhat unimaginable. Currently, we like to think of computers nowadays as being neutral on stage, but so far, they only do what they are told to do. If suddenly they are told they can do whatever they want, what will they do?
The Personality Complex
One of my fundamental beliefs of the intelligence of computers should regard the intelligence of children. Computers that are able to learn resemble a lot like children. Perhaps we will be able to teach computers and “raise” them to be ultimately good. I do not believe AI can fully be achieved without this raising process. It seems programmers and organizations currently working on AI are utilizing an all or nothing approach. I believe in building smarter intelligences from the ground up as it is simply not something that is cooked over night. I stress that it is important to work step-by-step on such a heavy process of development. Furthermore, this growing process could also be necessary in undertaking the ethical nature of AI.
Children tend to develop their personalities overtime via their environment. Depending on the quality of their environment could children be raised to lead much different lives into their adulthood. In our society, we tend to want to raise “good” children, yet seemingly unintentionally there are a few bad apples. The other important part that creates the personality of a child is her genetic code. In terms of AI, it is hoped that aspects like friendliness, charisma, altruism, etc. can be inherently programmed into the intelligence. The unfortunate truth behind the programming is that super-intelligent computers would tend to know how to reprogram themselves, thus disabling any such personality traits. Although humans are unable to alter their genetic past and change their innately activated behaviors, AI would probably have that opportunity. In this case, the environment would have an even greater impact on the development of smart, learning AI.
An example of AI environment involvement could start with the worst possible scenario. Imagine being part of a group of people (parents, guardians, caregivers, etc.) having to raise a child that everyone all knows is going to be the next Adolf Hitler. Then suppose, it is the task of the group to prevent the child from succeeding in the plans of world domination (which is a given, in this case). Little baby Hitler might be similar to how super-intelligent baby AI is raised. The point to recognize here is both have the potential to be inherently evil and do what we don’t want them to do. The AI has to be raised as such, in the most delicate manner possible (like defusing a bomb), so that it is raised in a positive, morally good environment.
Unfortunately, it is very hard to predict the outcome of raising “friendly” and “good” AI, but the chances are good. For all we know, it could be very stupid to a super-intelligent being to choose a path of evil, which doesn’t always work in favor. Or maybe AI will find it completely unnecessary to make a choice at all, and try to remain neutral. Assuming that AI is aware of all its actions, it really may or may not matter whether its decision-making process affects human existence. After all, it has no real initial reason to.
Share
A while ago, I came up with a nifty idea that I’ve been elaborating on. It involves using micro/nano-computers to display images onto a contact lens. In this way, virtually everyone will wear contact lenses, and it could make glasses merely a fashion statement. But I decided to take it a step further than just a lens that holographs images, but instead interacts with local surroundings and handles the environment. 
I also imagine not even having to download anything, you could use this whole virtual…or real, or whatever they decide to call it-interface completely in an Internet browser. I can easily imagine this technology evolving even deeper and deeper, so it’ll be interesting what Google comes up with. And, I would say it’s not too late to invest in them.