The Singularity

[ExtremelyAmerican]

What does this mean? My pocket calculator has more "power, speed, and utility" than me when it comes to arithmetic. Are you claiming that there is a special realm of computing restricted to biology and/or the human brain? What is the evidence for this?

Yes. It's called conceptualization. Read "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology."

In regards to what you view as an anachronistic generalization about neuroscience: I'd like to know what you think is a more accurate description of the modern field. I'd also like you to explain how these findings correlate with anything being done in AI or computer hardware. For instance, how do IP packets being routed to my network have anything to do with the human brain? More importantly, what do any of the latest advances in AI (usually intricate systems of identifying perceptual data within given parameters) have to do with the focus of modern neuroscience on curing and healing brains?

To my knowledge, AI scientists and neuroscientists don't work together; why would they need to? Computers are designed to supplement our ability to hold perceptual data; check out the idea of "Crow Epistemology." What besides this have you demonstrated is possible? What exists besides memory databanks with simple (or intricate) filing systems? Besides all that, what sign do you have that people in the field of AI (or neuroscience) have any idea of what the human mind can do and how it can do it?

Basically all I have seen from this conversation and the Vinge essay is extrapolation from what already exists into an imaginary, science-fiction-like world.

[edited typo]

Edited January 3, 2007 by ExtremelyAmerican

[DavidV]

Conceptualizing is certainly something that no current software program can do. But you said that "human mind is beyond the power, speed, and utility of any computer." How do you know that? It's conceivable that computers in the future could conceptualize. They might be optical, quantum or biological - we don't have any evidence to suggest that one platform is superior to any other.

If you accept causality and classical physics, then a computer should be able to simulate a brain in its entirety, so any modern computer should be able to run a simulation of the brain. (Albeit much slower than the real thing.)

There are already many supercomputers than exceed the brain in terms of raw processing capacity. The only question is whether we can write software that can conceptualize. This is certainly not a sure thing, but there is no reason to assume that it is impossible.

(Even if it is impossible, it has little bearing on the singularity idea. Human consciousness can be enhanced by biological means even if digital ones are not possible.)

Also, terms like "power, speed, and utility" are meaningless without a context. As I explained, very simple devices easily beat human consciousness in terms of "power, speed, and utility" when it comes to certain functions. The functions that computers are not capable of are not "inferior" to human ones - the comparison is simply not valid. It's like saying that my vacuum is better in "power, speed, and utility" at cleaning carpets than my toaster.

To my knowledge, AI scientists and neuroscientists don't work together; why would they need to?

These fields are so closely tied today, that scientists are practically required to be experts in both fields.

For examples of applications, see

IBM is creating a supercomputer simulation of the brain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_Neuroscience

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-computer_interface

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_engineering

What besides this have you demonstrated is possible?

Actually you claimed that AI is impossible, so the burden of proof is on you. I already pointed out some reasons why it might be possible.

What exists besides memory data-banks with simple (or intricate) filing systems?

Well, for example, the vehicles that won the DARPA challenge last year have AI software that learns from its mistakes to learn how to "see" obstacles and drive without human guidance. Evolutionary algorithms use digital DNA to evolve their designs to better meet business requirements - such as picking the best stocks. Some viruses use polymorphic code to evade scanners, which use heuristics to detect new viruses not in their definition files. Spammers scramble their ads to evade anti-spam software which tries to decipher jumbled images to detect spam words dynamically created based on Bayesian rules from user feedback. This post was spell-checked using suggestions from a vocabulary dynamically created from users misspellings on Google. That's a little more advanced than a "filing system."

Besides all that, what sign do you have that people in the field of AI (or neuroscience) have any idea of what the human mind can do and how it can do it?

Simulating a human brain is a good idea that they an an inkling of that the human mind can do.

Basically all I have seen from this conversation and the Vinge essay is extrapolation from what already exists into an imaginary, science-fiction-like world.

An extrapolation of current trends is exactly what it is. That doesn't make it any less valid. Yesterday's science fiction is today's reality.

Edited January 4, 2007 by GreedyCapitalist
grammar

[DavidV]

The latest issue of IEEE is dedicated to the Singularity.

It has a useful Who's Who of all the big names in the pro and con camps. I'm not entirely convinced by the pro-Singularity position yet, but I'm certain that the positions of the featured opponents are bogus - they are Luddites and hippie philosophers.

[ruveyn ben yosef]

I'm wondering that after hundreds of years of trying to create an artifical intelligence just like a human being, scientists will throw back the curtain and show us a human baby born from a human being.

Pay no attention to that baby behind the curtain! --- The Wizard of Oz

[volco]

I'm wondering that after hundreds of years of trying to create an artifical intelligence just like a human being, scientists will throw back the curtain and show us a human baby born from a human being. smile.gif

That's a ripp off of Bradbury's Fahrenheit 911

The latest issue of IEEE is dedicated to the Singularity.

It has a useful Who's Who of all the big names in the pro and con camps. I'm not entirely convinced by the pro-Singularity position yet, but I'm certain that the positions of the featured opponents are bogus - they are Luddites and hippie philosophers.

How are you not convinced? I'm not defying you, I'm curious.

I've observed that ever since the industrial revolution, every "social movement", be it socialism, nazism, or the Vatican, could only be defnied as Luddite (at least before I read A.R. and started calling them mystics).

The only problem would be extropy for extropy's sake.

In this context, and I'm sorry that I can't put this into better words yet, I think that Objectivism, a philosophy that retains human individuality, could be the ONLY way to profit and survive exponential technological growth.

Why?

Altruism would hold that, not now the planet, but the universe, is more important than the human race and its component individuals, and would hold extropy sacred in itw own "right".

While Luddites often use technology in detriment of us all (they would be the million hands pushing the botton)

Objectivism stands that a lipstick is no more important IN ITSELF than a microscope, i.e. that worth is relative to the individual.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

That's a ripp off of Bradbury's Fahrenheit 911

You either mean Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911, or Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. If the latter, I don't see how the singulary ties in to that *particular* bit of fiction, which was set in a world where there were no computers (mentioned anyway)--but that's secondary to the point which was that there were no books.

[volco]

You either mean Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911, or Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. If the latter, I don't see how the singulary ties in to that *particular* bit of fiction, which was set in a world where there were no computers (mentioned anyway)--but that's secondary to the point which was that there were no books.

What a horrible lapsus. I just pointed out the similarity of finding a real baby in a "too artificial" future, with finding a real book in a too digital future but I must confess I read that book way too long ago.

[ruveyn ben yosef]

What does this mean? My pocket calculator has more "power, speed, and utility" than me when it comes to arithmetic. Are you claiming that there is a special realm of computing restricted to biology and/or the human brain? What is the evidence for this?

Cardiac pacemaker. A computer controlled device for regulating arrhythmias of the heart. Also there is a computer controlled insulin pump that monitors blood sugar level and releases insulin when required in proper dosage. Not as good as the pancreas but it beats periodic injection of insulin by hand. I think there are now digital cochlear implants.

ruveyn

[israel]

What does this mean? My pocket calculator has more "power, speed, and utility" than me when it comes to arithmetic. Are you claiming that there is a special realm of computing restricted to biology and/or the human brain? What is the evidence for this?

weather or not we have the ability to, i think we should not create an a.i.

if we did, then we should not give it rights, and enable someway to destroy it at will.

think about it. if we were to create an artificially intelligent being, than not only would it be aware of its own existence, it would be aware of the follies of life.

it would understand that being that its consciousness is made up of nothing but electrical connections, it does not need to fear death. and as weve already started on technologies that allow machines to create themselves, it would never worry about decay.

In essence we would create a being that not only will never die mentally, but also never die physically (as it could infinitely rebuild itself and download its consciousness into new forms)

eventually it would come to the point where begin a machine it has no need for pleasures or pain, and will simply need something to do.

that thing to do?

take over the world.

[Jake]

weather or not we have the ability to, i think we should not create an a.i.

that thing to do? take over the world.

Oh no! Dun dun dun, du Dunh. Dun dun dun, du Dunh.

[Q.E.D.]

You say that our computers cannot exceed the human mind? What happens when build computers OUT of human minds or out of biological neurons or what happens when we construct brains out of synthetic neurons with the same properties. To say that there is something magical about human consciousness is to speak in terms of mysticism and faith. I'm not sure if anyone here's grasped the real issue concerning artificial intelligence, we're OUTSIDE THE SYSTEMS which we're discussing.

From inside our minds, we feel profoundly influenced by emotions, but those emotions are only electro-chemical signals being broadcast by different parts of our brains seeking positive feedback. On paper, we look just as 'non-real' as any sophisticated machine. The difference between our brains and the computer technology most of us are acquainted with is that our brains are both the hardware AND the software of human consciousness. No one opens us up to move around transistors <=> our brains aren't solid state devices. However, if you're interested in studying the human brain from a computer scientists perspective you might want to look into evolutionary programming algorithms.

AI is only a matter of time.

[CptSunbeam]

Sorry to drift off topic, but I'd like to say how ashamed I am of my response dated 26th December 2006, which is quite a while ago now. I'm actually a rather strict atheist now, having become one roughly around march 2007. At the time I was a typical literalist christian, and my arrogant comment reminds me of the sludge which I now have to deal with from others. I feel particularly bad about the emoticon I put at the end. In fact, my most fierce and arrogant online opponent over the past two years uses the same damned icon at the end of every post he makes, and I resent him for it.

Perhaps the lesson here is that no matter how intensely a person puts across their view, they may change their mind in the near future. Please excuse the diversion, enjoy your conversation. Actually I still love technology topics so I'll enjoy it too.

[Jake_Ellison]

You say that our computers cannot exceed the human mind? What happens when build computers OUT of human minds or out of biological neurons or what happens when we construct brains out of synthetic neurons with the same properties.

I have no idea. Neither do you, in fact you have presented no evidence that it is even possible, let alone that it will happen.

To say that there is something magical about human consciousness is to speak in terms of mysticism and faith.

And hre you are, th first to say it in this thread (no one said consciousness is magical), and then double magically assign it to whoever you're unnamed counterpart is in this argument, magically switching him out for a gentleman made of straw.

From inside our minds, we feel profoundly influenced by emotions, but those emotions are only electro-chemical signals being broadcast by different parts of our brains seeking positive feedback.

Please. That doesn't even mean anything (the part about brainparts "seeking" things as if this were a fairy tale describing a magical journey, and the "feedback" was the elusive fair lady, is a damn metaphor you never even attempt to explain), let alone describe what emotions are. You have no ieda what emotions "only" are. The brain is nowhere near an open book we know everything there is to know about.

On paper, we look just as 'non-real' as any sophisticated machine.

What paper? You have not presented us with that elusive paper that contains the supposed mechanisms that explain every detail of my consciousness, because you don't have it. It doesn't exist.

The difference between our brains and the computer technology most of us are acquainted with is that our brains are both the hardware AND the software of human consciousness.

Bold statement, Why don't you copy/paste the code of that "software" you know exists here? Or is this the first unexplainable software in human history?

No one opens us up to move around transistors <=> our brains aren't solid state devices. However, if you're interested in studying the human brain from a computer scientists perspective you might want to look into evolutionary programming algorithms.

Nothing you have said in this post relates in any way to evolutionary algorithms. I'm already aware of them, so just dropping the name, without even attempting to explain, leaves me to reply in similar fashion: Why don't you check out Objectivism? It proves you wrong.

AI is only a matter of time.

That's a prediction of a future that hasn't happened yet. All predictions of the future are strictly the product of fantasy, not rational thought. I know for a fact that you have no idea whatsoever if AI will happen or not.

Now, if you would've said that AI is not impossible, that it might happen in the future, I would agree. I think I tried to explain why in this thread a while back.

[Jake_Ellison]

Sorry to drift off topic, but I'd like to say how ashamed I am of my response dated 26th December 2006, which is quite a while ago now. I'm actually a rather strict atheist now, having become one roughly around march 2007.

You should be proud of your achievement, not ashamed of your past, especially (but not only) if you became religious as a child.

This is easier to say than do, but the past you already corrected should not be what guides your emotions, but the latest relevant act (the change) should instead. And the change you're describing is quite an achievement.

[Bastian Hayek]

I became a huge fan of Ray Kurzweil and think his forecasts are based on facts. And I see a lot of Objectivists that think he is right. However, I was challenged and am not currently able to repudiate the claim by friend of mine on Facebook that following statement by Kurzweil is nothing but determinism.

I would say that it is not determinism but rather making forecasts on the basis of facts and patterns that are visible right now. What do you think?

"An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense "intuitive linear" view. So we won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century -- it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate). The "returns," such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase ... Read Moreexponentially. There's even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity -- technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light." - Ray Kurzweil

Determinism?

[Jake_Ellison]

I would say that it is not determinism but rather making forecasts on the basis of facts and patterns that are visible right now. What do you think?

I don't understand why it would be determinism. I think he leaves it up to human choices whether we actually reach this new state of technological advancement he doesn't really describe. I don't think that has any merit, determinism is not the craft of predicting / trying to predict the future based on scientific or philosophical principles.

I've heard singularity called mysticism, on the other hand, even on this forum. That I did understand, even if I don't necessarily agree. I'd love whoever agrees with that statement to explain what specifically in Kurzweil's book is mysticism.

Unlike religionists or socialists, he freely admits to not knowing what this new stage called singularity is. I think some of its "symptoms" he predicts are speculation too, and I'm not the believer Kurzweil claims to be, in all his predictions, but speculation based on trends is one thing, mysticism is another.

[kainscalia]

In essence we would create a being that not only will never die mentally, but also never die physically (as it could infinitely rebuild itself and download its consciousness into new forms)

eventually it would come to the point where begin a machine it has no need for pleasures or pain, and will simply need something to do.

that thing to do?

take over the world.

Need a pole for that jump to conclusion you just performed? Besides, why something so resource-inefficient as taking over the world? An artificial intelligence might decide something ELSE is worth doing... like, say, cooking all of Julia Child's recipes in 365 days. Over and over. Forever.

[DavidV]

Conceptualizing is certainly something that no current software program can do.

Two years later, things are not so certain: http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/multimed...-asimo-learning

[Paul Lemke]

I became a huge fan of Ray Kurzweil and think his forecasts are based on facts. And I see a lot of Objectivists that think he is right. However, I was challenged and am not currently able to repudiate the claim by friend of mine on Facebook that following statement by Kurzweil is nothing but determinism.

I would say that it is not determinism but rather making forecasts on the basis of facts and patterns that are visible right now. What do you think?

"An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense "intuitive linear" view. So we won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century -- it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate). The "returns," such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase ... Read Moreexponentially. There's even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity -- technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light." - Ray Kurzweil

Determinism?

Determinism as defined by the lexicon: "Determinism is the theory that everything that happens in the universe—including every thought, feeling, and action of man—is necessitated by previous factors, so that nothing could ever have happened differently from the way it did, and everything in the future is already pre-set and inevitable. Every aspect of man’s life and character, on this view, is merely a product of factors that are ultimately outside his control. Objectivism rejects this theory."

I have certainly heard Kurzweil claim the "singularity is inevitable" and he claims that technology is a natural part of evolution. As just a small portion of proof look at the Kurzweil supplied graphs on the wikipedia and you will find evolution symbolism on top corner of the graphs( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Paradigm...Frr15Events.svg ) or howabout this: "Most forecasts of the future seem to ignore the revolutionary impact of the Singularity in our human destiny: the inevitable emergence of computers that match and ultimately vastly exceed the capabilities of the human brain, a development that will be no less important than the evolution of human intelligence itself some thousands of centuries ago. " Note inevitable and the context in which it is used as well as "destiny."

Technology does not just happen it is not an inevitable result, anyone who actually builds something knows the effort required to improve existing technology. To imagine that it is some long chain of inevitable events is ridiculous and extremely insulting to anyone who does develop technology. What I really think the singularity theory overlooks is the effect of government on technology. I know I have heard that he is a proponent for the free market but his defense of it is as weak as the GOP party's defense.

I suggest that any AI designed by a human will be like most of the AI in video games these days. It will be an idiot savant in a narrow niche but utterly retarded at dealing with abstracts across a broad "reality wide spectrum" for a long time yet. I am not saying it is impossible but I believe man can do better than exponential or linear. He is unlimited in his capacity to reason and find ways of explaining and replicating his environment. Transhumanists should have a higher respect for what is human.

(And yes I know Kurzweil has developed "some" technology like the Kurzweil Reading Machine but I am not sure how much of his technology was successful in the market. Anyone with more info on this? Oh I have also read "Age of Spiritual Machines" and I have started the "Singularity is Near" but I think it is just a rewrite with a little more data on top.)

[Jake_Ellison]

Most forecasts of the future seem to ignore the revolutionary impact of the Singularity in our human destiny: the inevitable emergence of computers that match and ultimately vastly exceed the capabilities of the human brain, a development that will be no less important than the evolution of human intelligence itself some thousands of centuries ago. " Note inevitable and the context in which it is used as well as "destiny."

From the definition: "Every aspect of man’s life and character, on this view, is merely a product of factors that are ultimately outside his control."

A few words about one specific aspect of man's life, which may very well just be careless wording by Kurzweil (because he shows very little concern for most aspects of philosophy), is not enough proof that he thinks every aspect of man's life is outside his control.

And Kurzweil's lack of concern for clarifying his philosophical stances does not make him a determinist. In fact, he could still integrate a lot of scientific knowledge without too much concern for philosophy, it just leaves room for errors.

I suggest that any AI designed by a human will be like most of the AI in video games these days. It will be an idiot savant in a narrow niche but utterly retarded at dealing with abstracts across a broad "reality wide spectrum" for a long time yet. I am not saying it is impossible but I believe man can do better than exponential or linear. He is unlimited in his capacity to reason and find ways of explaining and replicating his environment. Transhumanists should have a higher respect for what is human.

Both linear and exponential functions are unlimited. What limit does f(x)=x or f(x)=x^2 have? And there's no bigger growth than exponential. Any growth, no matter how great, can be represented by an exponential function. (God I hope I'm right on this last one, I would hate to look silly. But I'm pretty sure, even though I don't have time to look into it now-please, someone confirm or deny this.)

I also think your claim that AI won't go past current video games in the next few years is noty just baseless, but dead wrong. There already is AI that's better than current video games.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Sabre]

The thread on immortality through technology got me thinking. So I ended up doing a little internet research on Ray Kurzwiel. It seems that him and his like believe in a period in time when technology will be so powerful that predicting it would be completely useless. They call this time period "The Singularity". They claim that after this humans and robots will completely merge and transform the entire univererse into an intelligent being. The general consensus is that this "singularity" will happen within the next 25 years. Is there any credence to this hypothesis? It sounds as if these people are just like the Christians in prophesizing a utopian future (accept for the god killing all unbelievers part). What does Objectivism have to say about rational thinking computers? Would they have rights? What about a computer that was once a human but 'downloaded' their personality into it?

I think it's not possible because the AI people are building need to be programmed. How do they program themselves exactly? I mean, their very core codes needs to be written and inputted and all that. How would a computer began to grasp what it needs to program.

Which touches the main issue -- that humans haven't really understood how human thought works. So we can't say that our own creations will somehow get it before we do, if they are a product of our imaginations -- or rather the people making and programming them.

That's my introductory statement haven't not read the thread, though.

[Gavagai]

I haven't read the whole thread, sorry if this point was already mentioned. But I'm sceptical about AI because human intelligence is a product of human desire to live. Only our desire to live gives meaning to our thinking and gives us a stimulus to learn about the world. Only our strive for survival makes the difference between truth and falsehood important for a man. Reason is a tool in our struggle for survival. One who doesn't want to survive doesn't need reason.

Reason can't be even imagined as separated from the desire to live. All our concepts, all our thought process are organized around the imperative of life which gives them all meaning. It is impossible to explain why we decided to form a concept in this way and not in the other without appealing to its necessity for life. Reason and life are inseparable.

But life must arise before reason arises. The only rational answer one can give on the question "Why should I live?" is "For the life itself". But this answer makes sense only for those who have already experienced life. It is senseless for non-living.

Those who believe in the possibility of creation of an AI usually think that after reaching necessary complexety the machine will "wake up" and acquire reason, personality and the desire to live. But this is impossible. As life has no meaning which can be understood through reason (only through direct experience) intellegent machine will want to live no more than unintellegent. And no reason is needed and possible without the desire to live. Reason is a constant activity in which a machine has no stimulus to engage.

A machine has no values hence it can't have reason. To acquire values a machine must become living first. But it won't be a machine then.

Edit: grammar

Edited September 10, 2009 by Gavagai

[Jake_Ellison]

Reason can't be even imagined as separated from the desire to live.

Rational morality cannot be imagined separated from our desire to live. Reason can exist no matter what the problem that needs to be solved, whether it is the problem of survival, a life qua man, or designing the most efficient engine, just for the sake of it. It would not be moral for a man to start doing that, but a machine could definitely do it, using reason.

I can imagine reason just fine, in an entity that isn't trying to survive, but is instead just trying to solve some other problem. Here's what reason is:

Reason integrates man’s perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man’s knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. (Rand)

You offer no scientific proof that it is impossible to program a machine to form abstractions or conceptions, before it has desires.

You are wrong, it is not axiomatically impossible to imagine reason used by a machine.

Those who believe in the possibility of creation of an AI usually think that after reaching necessary complexety the machine will "wake up" and acquire reason, personality and the desire to live.

No, you're describing a movie (not sure which one, there's been so many). Scientists who are trying to create artificial intelligence don't expect it to magically wake up, they just want to make it learn. And, as far as I can tell, it is going great. (check out the link from GreedyCapitalist, on this page, for instance)

To acquire values a machine must become living first. But it won't be a machine then.

Fine. Artificial intelligence means man made intelligence, not machine intelligence. If it doesn't fit into your definition of machine, fine, don't call it a machine. But that doesn't prove it's impossible.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Paul Lemke]

I also think your claim that AI won't go past current video games in the next few years is noty just baseless, but dead wrong. There already is AI that's better than current video games.

I was speaking in general terms, I don't think you were purposely dropping my context so I think some clarification of my statement is necessary. Primarily look at the sentence after my AI video game statement. "It will be an idiot savant in a narrow niche but utterly retarded at dealing with abstracts across a broad "reality wide spectrum" for a long time yet."

Video game AI is pretty darn advanced these days. It is not simple AI. It can adapt to many varying game situations and can even build based on player skill. If you have seen this (http://www.poptech.org/popcasts/popcasts.aspx?lang=&viewcastid=33) video (time of interest 6:40 and specifically the picture at 8:06)you will know what I mean. Will Wright(video) is funny, genius and a great presenter as well.

As for the math function, when the x range is time, progress is limited, because one does not have control over the progression of time. I don't think you want to get into a mathematics rigorous definition of function and variables because I have a second bachelor's in applied math and I am pretty sure I am right there.

I also know what I am talking about in AI because my first bachelor's was in mechanical engineering with a focus on robotics. I don't have my transcript on my computer but I can send you one so that you at least have an idea of my knowledge of the subject.

I have wanted to be a robotics engineer since I was 10 watching transformers. I am interested in AI and what is and is not possible. I would also like to think that I have a pretty good knowledge of visual systems and visual algorithms because I, in college studied the subject. I might be a novice to a serious professional but I am far better than a layman. I am of this posting working on a power supply for robots which is one of the fields that Kurzweil seems to be out to lunch on because he defends solar power which has and will continue to be a government waste of time(but that should be discussed elsewhere maybe?).

[Paul Lemke]

By the way the reason that I read AOSM was because I was interested in AI and Nanotechnology in college.