Are Humans Going to Speciate?

[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
Tithonus81 wrote:
Doug Adams wrote:
It’ll probably be robots instead of people, who will eventually take over and we’ll be the slaves.

As much as this sounds like a “nutjob conspiracy”, it could probably happen. All it would take is for AI/machines to be able to advance to the state where they are able to build themselves with ever adapting technology that they explore themselves (artificial evolution).

There is no way biological evolution could keep up. Just look at the improvements in computer processing power over the last two decades…

There is a difference between a powerful computer processor that can do a bazillion quadrillion calculations per second and one which has been programed to have logic, understand and manipulate the environment, make its own decisions, learn and remember, and have a basic “consciousness”.

It won’t happen yet. We barely have an understanding of how the human mind (or any other conscious mind) works.

What makes you think anyone will be able to create an artificial one?[/quote]

Artificial intelligence isn’t that out there, given the rate of advancement in the necessary fields, but the idea of takeover I think is a little overplayed. We assume that self-awareness equates to “just like us” in terms of behavior and outlook even though a self-aware computer wouldn’t have its entire outlook and set of instincts formed by millions of years of biological evolution and competition. Once you eliminate ambition born of reproductive drive from the mix, behavior changes substantially.

[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:

There is a difference between a powerful computer processor that can do a bazillion quadrillion calculations per second and one which has been programed to have logic, understand and manipulate the environment, make its own decisions, learn and remember, and have a basic “consciousness”.

It won’t happen yet. We barely have an understanding of how the human mind (or any other conscious mind) works.

What makes you think anyone will be able to create an artificial one?[/quote]

There is a difference between consciousness (subjective experience) and self awareness. I can’t imagine machines every becoming conscious, however I can easily see them becoming self aware some day.

I can also imagine a lot of the requirements necessary to where artificial evolution could be properly developed to be self-sustaining. I think if it does arise someone will duplicate a lot of the things we see in natural evolution. Namely:

  1. Extensive unit redundancy - Lots of AI replicating itself in new hardware that it builds for itself. Software and hardware evolve together.

  2. Specialize units - it makes sense for their to be a control hierarchy and for different units to serve different purposes.

  3. What survives, survives - If something experimental serves a purpose it will be preserved in new units. It would be necessary for a “clean up” function to be present to remove all non-functional advancements and old AI/hardware.

  4. Multiple levels of executive functioning - Multiple component AI for each unit. (Think: cells, tissue, animal, group.) Similar to a neural network of the human brain. (Ex. Separate AI for: Movement. Organizing other units. Delegating tasks to units (Social functioning). Developing new hardware. Developing new software. Flashing old AI with new code. Building new hardware. Determining threats. Weapons development. Power control. …and on and on for millions of obvious and not so obvious functions.) You get the picture…

None of that requires consciousness. What it does require is some very serious advancements in AI. However, the rate of technological change is extreme, so I don’t think it would take a ridiculous span of time to get to this. Certainly from this point it wouldn’t be a noticeable period of time on a geological scale of time. Of course, I’m assuming we don’t nuke ourselves into extinction first.

[quote]etaco wrote:
We assume that self-awareness equates to “just like us” in terms of behavior and outlook even though a self-aware computer wouldn’t have its entire outlook and set of instincts formed by millions of years of biological evolution and competition. Once you eliminate ambition born of reproductive drive from the mix, behavior changes substantially.[/quote]

This is a very good point.

We should be working on a race of sex slaves.

The threat to humanity from AI is very real. With intelligence and processing doubling every few years, it’s likely some type of self awareness will eventually occur. With all the networking and processing power in place, we could find ourselves at the mercy of this intelligence.

I think it may go down in a similar way as global warming. During the time we could do something about it, we will be debating wheather or not it’s even possible. By the time we have the answer it will be too late. Fortunately for us, we still have a few hundred years.

the way society is going we are selecting for physically attractive and intelligent people.

[quote]consumer wrote:
the way society is going we are selecting for physically attractive and intelligent people.[/quote]

I think we’re selecting for the exact opposite.

I see lots of ugly morons having “families” of 8 or more children, all with different ugly, moronic fathers.

The attractive, intelligent people are having families of 0-2 children.

Which could be why our Western Civilization is going the way it is.

Hmm…

– ElbowStrike

[quote]consumer wrote:
the way society is going we are selecting for physically attractive and intelligent people.

[/quote]

Actually ur wrong on that. Its like the song says (forgot the name):

“Only Stupid People are Breeding”
-They start at like 14y.o, and keep going every 1 to 2 years and end up with 4-6 kids. Then once the girl gets ugly, the guy knocks up 2 other girls and even know. Later the guy has to pay child support for 1 of those, the otherone ends up in a foster home.

-The so called “smart and attractive”, especially women, don’t want kids because “its gets in the way of her career” and what not. Also, they usually end up having 1 kid or 2 max. The sad thing, even Men are thinking this way.

–This is a bigger problem in Western Europe, and Japan.

I read an article on this a while back.

[quote]NeoSpartan wrote:
Actually ur wrong on that. Its like the song says (forgot the name):

“Only Stupid People are Breeding” [/quote]

Harvey Danger. Flag Pole Sitta.

[quote]XnoahX wrote:
I read an article on this a while back.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm[/quote]

Interesting, and I could see some kind of split occurring, but, Dr. Curry needs to read the thread on here about evolution. He appears to be lacking on some basic points of evolution.

[quote]XnoahX wrote:
I read an article on this a while back.

BBC NEWS | UK | Human species 'may split in two' [/quote]

Sweet.

Clean my shoes you ugly hobbit!

That’s because he is a politics/economics DR, not an evolutionary scientist.

According to a “Scientist” in the Uk. Homo Sapiens were genetically engineered slaves to another species of humans that enventualy moved to Mars

http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/secret-science-hidden-history/A_Secret_Human_History.html

[quote]nephorm wrote:
NeoSpartan wrote:
Actually ur wrong on that. Its like the song says (forgot the name):

“Only Stupid People are Breeding”

Harvey Danger. Flag Pole Sitta.[/quote]

THX MAN!!!

Just found it on i-Tunes… I haven’t listened to it in a LONG time.

Or the humans will remain just the way they are, while at some point branching off the “next step”, some kind of superhumans (from our perspective) that will take over the spot at the top of the ladder. It has happened millions of times before, I can’t see why it won’t happen again.

It may even happen that the superhumans will be better not just by being some kind of amplified humans (more intelligent, better memory, taller, stronger, etc.) but they may have something that we don’t have at all.

E.g., the first living cell had something that all the rocks before didn’t: life. Or the first human being had something that all the apes and crocodiles and worms and bacteria before didn’t: intelligence. Maybe the “next step” will have something as radically different from the human intelligence as this intelligence is different from animal instinct.

Of course, this is all speculation, but it would be neat to happen that way. Look around you, at the situation the world is in today and ask yourself - is this the pinnacle of billions of years of evolution?
If the answer is yes, that would be such an awful waste of time.

[quote]florin wrote:
E.g., the first living cell had something that all the rocks before didn’t: life. Or the first human being had something that all the apes and crocodiles and worms and bacteria before didn’t: intelligence. Maybe the “next step” will have something as radically different from the human intelligence as this intelligence is different from animal instinct.[/quote]

True. But going from something like a crocodile to a human took millions of years of evolution and trial and error.

I think it will take millions more to fine tune and improve on what we already have.

[quote]
Look around you, at the situation the world is in today and ask yourself - is this the pinnacle of billions of years of evolution?[/quote]

Let’s hope we don’t destroy the earth by nukes, toxic chemicals, global warming… etc. before the people of the future have a chance to appear.

[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:

Let’s hope we don’t destroy the earth by nukes, toxic chemicals, global warming… etc. before the people of the future have a chance to appear.

[/quote]

These things are the driving force that will cause the new species to take over.

Without environmental change the dinos would probably still be in charge.

Yeah, dinosaurs were known to be big into nuclear technology. Those arrogant bastards.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
brucevangeorge wrote:

Let’s hope we don’t destroy the earth by nukes, toxic chemicals, global warming… etc. before the people of the future have a chance to appear.

These things are the driving force that will cause the new species to take over.

Without environmental change the dinos would probably still be in charge.[/quote]

[quote]TheWookie wrote:
Yeah, dinosaurs were known to be big into nuclear technology. Those arrogant bastards.

[/quote]

Exactly! That is why we can measure the radioactivity of their bones to determine their age.