"I wanna, in the next 30 minutes, give you a sense on how fast the world is changing." Wow! It's changing so fast that his 30 minute presentation only took 22 minutes. ;-p
In a world so full of pessimism and hopelessness this is a real inspiirational talk to all of us, young or old alike, living anywhere in this world. Thanks, Peter. You're unique.
This is incredible. I bought the book after seeing this - the startup and tech revolution is here and there has never been a greater time to start a company and innovate.
Diamandis is right. The future can be very positive. The processing power of computers is accelerating so fast that it's changing all industries and all forms of business. Jobs are changing. The jobs are being transformed into tasks in job apps. The shopping did change. Now almost everyone can have their virtual office online, without renting an office. Clients can come it into a virtual office, or do video calls. More and more people can work from home, as long as their Internet connection is very nice.
Actually, the processing power is slowing down. It is physically impossible to keep shrinking the processors below a certain amount before electricity doesn't care and jumps and messes everything up. Quite honestly we need a new system that doesn't have this problem, and they're years away.
Processing power of computers isn't progressing as it used to. It doesn't double every year. You get twice as good smartphone after two years, not one. Singularitarians said that Moore's Law is not the end but there is nothing on the horizon that fulfills the promise. We went from 7 million to 7 billion transistors inside 100mm^2 chips in the last 20 years. So the number of transistors has been doubling every two years like Moore's Law states. But can we really go to 7 trillion in 2038 (some propose even earlier dates)? Current 100 mm^2 7nm smartphone SoC provides about 2500x improvement in "standard" processing power compared to a 100mm^2 1998 CPU. We need another 2500x before dreams of automation everywhere can be achieved. But can we do that in the near future? I don't know, I hope so. John Carmack for example says that there is only another 10x to go. That wouldn't be enough.
Diamandis thinks that the world will see some huge innovations during the next 8 years. But realistically, computing speed will only go up 20x or so in that time which can't fuel these expected innovations. 3D printing for example will still be a niche in ten years. Ideas about 3D printed buildings make me laugh.
Are you saying that progress in terms of how societies organise, how humans collaborate, how we solve TODAYS problems is lacking computational power and thus cannot happen? Is it really technological capabilities that is lacking or is it us humans not adapting fast enough to put these advancements to immediate action? Two cents: -We went to space with less computational power than each of our phones has -3D printing buildings are a reality already
Saddly I think Kynareth6 has a point... Our culture is far behind in mass technology though we have gadgets that are high tech. For example: cities should be engineered like skyscrapers are engineered, instead of the mess we have today; quick travel times, super efficient electric grids, beautiful green habitats between living areas, no industry cross contramination, etc. So we all know engineering could give us better cities, but we don't do that because... There has been no leader to push that. The difference between tribes that died in anonimity and the Mayans was simply that social movement that push them to greatness. We simply don't have a social/economic system that can function in the world Diamandis talks about.
"what does it means when I have a million fold memory" 15:20 It means total recall. If you unlock the brain, you might be able to give people the same thing those who had near death experience report namely, seeing one's whole life before their eyes in an instant. Imagine remembering everything all the time effortlessly.
What will I do with a superb memory? Improve my piano learning time. It takes me now hundreds of hours to memorize a simple piece of Chopin's or Bach's work.
all these older folks think that within their lifetime they'll see technology that will enable them to live for 3-5 more decades. you never see them predict (far more likely) that the technology is still a century away
5:48 This is still the current time, current reality for much of the world...... and it's arguably a good life... Not better or worse, just a different set of problems. Easier problems. More human-compatible problems.
Good to hear an update on Ray Kurzweil's prediction of when we'll reach the longevity escape velocity - 12 years from now. So for most people watching this video that is definitely attainable. And even if you're over 70 so in the high-risk zone, don't forget that shortly after we achieve LEV we will start reversing ageing to bring you biological age back down to your 20s, rather than living forever in your 80s.
It's an exciting time to be alive. I'll be 54 when the singularity happens in 2045. It's mind-blowing to think that immortality is within my grasp, as well as all of the other technologies that will be invented, such as enhancements to the brain.
Technology is indeed growing exponentially but another thing is growing exponentially which isn’t mentioned by Peter very much and that is environmental destruction, species extinction at nearly 200 species per day, raging wild fires, torrential rains, tornados, hurricanes and that is just a few of the numerous devastating catastrophes that civilization has produced.
Great talk Peter. I don't want to be that guy, but one correction. The singularity in physics is the beginning of our universe (the big bang) not a black hole.
I have two questions regarding this. How do singularitarians view climate change? Life expectancy has been falling in the US recently. How does this square with you worldview? Sincerely yours truly.
No answer. Those guys hope that an AI more intelligent than any human could appear about 2045 and then we will ask it to clean our mess... Really all those stories would be nice if our civilization would have taken environment into consideration. Unfortunately it's note the case and we could disappear because of climate change...
I though it was discovered that makers have been keeping up with that "graph" rather than that graph demonstrating the pace they're going at?....I don't suppose that would hut the rate of pace though because even if the whole mores law thing was fanciful it it made them go hard!
*tech and infostorage are accelerating, culture and reality on the ground are still so slow. "being in the 21st century is having 20th century culture distributed by high-speed internet"
The most logical and Efficient and there will be a phase where there's no need all unnecessary time consuming plan just for a step for to the next future, but all will play their part and they running, sprint to achieve a environment where beyond our expectations towards the next type civilization transformation.
Not everyone is equal in intelligence, curiosity and self-confidence. And, today's performing individual types will certainly not be those of tomorrow. It could be, as an example, that the successful people of the future will be those who handle boredom the best as machines will cater to their every need. Or else.
Peter .very inspiring video. I’ve researched hundreds of company’s worldwide with a different view . I look for new technology and exponential potential. My favorite is Australian company fbr . No idea if you heard of it but they Will explode globally
Think these are positive developments. Would like to see some of the capital investment go towards fortification of redundant physical infrastructure for communications and electric grids since so much of the positivity discussed here is reliant on that infrastructure being continuously operational with no hiccups. I realize such projects are not all that sexy relative to innovative tech, but as the speaker said, the “challenge was to avoid complacency”.
I wish Peter was my great uncle growing up... imagine the seeds he would plant in a child's curious mind... his kids are very lucky... I hope they appreciate him! He's probably cloned them to be replaced if they turn out to be A-holes!
Excellent presentation and spot on correct. However, he left out some other key accelerants - Artificial Intelligence, big data, big data analytics, Augmented Reality, Deep Learning, Cloud Computing, Quantum Computing, and even Smart Cities.
It is quite exciting, exhilarating. I truly commend PD's enthusiasm and optimism. If technology is used for the most noble purposes, to expedite human evolution to a higher, expanded level of consciousness, then this drive to tech singularity is truly needed. The challenge is, this could also mean tools of incredible power & rapid connectivity in the hands of those with destructive mindset. Technology is amoral. It works with same efficiency in the hands of both good and bad minds. So, how do we prevent catastrophic disasters engendered by minds that are conditioned to create a dystopia, using these incredible technologies? How do we expand consciousness while our objective seems to be an expansion of human intelligence to super intelligence state with the help of AI? More than ever, the need is a concerted drive toward "inner singularity" before we arrive at "outer singularity." Humanity has to build a critical mass of individuals who reach a state of consciousness that is divine in nature and that is the only way to nullify the minds that contract into devilish states. Great tools have great power and we need humans who use it with great responsibility and care only with an intention of speeding up the evolution of this highly creative species.
Accept the Ratios - of good & evil. All human motivations are knowns. Normal - baser instincts; like - killling all day - for protien -or territory - & herding the weaker minded - got us to the point where we can hire (or vote into office ) these abhorent minds - for study - & oppose their state of the art - return to greatness - iron age thinking. Defence department - meets, greets & encourages - nationalistic offensive /defense daydreamers - all day. - We even have a contest called darpa or something to network these offensive /defenders - of rule of law. Shh - we - the coolest of the cucumberheads - like watching - the top - dangerous - turbo nerd - killbot designers.. They are are about 15% of the popullation - now.. Maybe we can cut the 15% by half or more - in the next decade too.
The future is only scary if we try to avoid it. I'm fascinated by the power of exponentianality. I'm curious about the changes that's gonna happen to the use of fiat currency.
New technology will solve some problems, but it will also create new ones. Like all, its just a tool. We may become smarter, but there are a lot smart idiots. What we need most is wisdom and people with pure motives.
We aren't much closer to worldwide enlightenment than we were centuries ago, but we do live better, longer, more comfortable lives. Accept human nature and create tools that work well with it.
LordF i don't agree with the "worldwide enlightenment" part. in several aspects, our world is indeed more enlightened. people today are far less likely to believe in superstition and religion than they were 3 centuries ago.
Also look at the statistics on violence, there is far, far less violence than 100, 200, or 300, etc. years ago. That I would definitely also call a form of enlightenment.
And people are way more connected than before, the implications are deep. Subconsciously through interactions with diverse people globally online, we realize that we are all pretty much the same. As knowledge spreads rapidly, the killing of animals for non-food reasons has decreased considerably. Wars are rarer. In short, appreciation for/of life has measurably increased in the last few decades alone. Not yet where we ought to be, but biology is way slower than technology so that may hold us back a little bit. IMO the main things holding us back from being empathetic, compassionate and objective include: Intellectual laziness (fear of thinking about something radically perception-challenging), anthropocentrism (egotism, ie, animals are here to provide for humans) and cognitive dissonance (not being able to act differently in the future due to anchorage to past view points/ low mental mobility/ brain elasticity).
Peter, If you truly think that in less than 30 years we will nearly be at our technological peak is insane. So you think in 2070 we will have the same technology as 2035? Ideas and innovation will always continue.
I wonder what the weather's like on his planet? The price of food & housing has been steadily climbing while wages haven't kept up. Then there's then hidden cost of his technology - the cost to mine the rare quartz, malibidininnidum (I never could pronounce that!), the the refining, the shipping, the fabrication, the final assembly & testing at the slave camps. Then there's the end-user cost, which most have learned to do without because they can't afford the latest I-phone.
The problem is his assumption that Moore's law can continue forever. It can't & we already know this. By 2120 computation power will exceed the number of atoms in the observable universe . Then the assumption that the time saved from innovation will be well spent. I wish you were correct
The problem with statistics and past trends is that they point to the past, not the future. Trends, and the statistics they represent, are actually a record of past choices. In a way, those trends represent momentum toward particular futures which, if reinforced, become increasingly likely over time. However, until those futures become the past, it remains possible to choose and realize alternative futures: we're not stuck with a particular future just because the trends point in that direction. What we really need to do is ask if the futures Diamandis is promoting are the only possibilities. Then we need to ask if, among all the alternative futures Diamandis isn't presenting, there are more desirable futures. We also need to ask what the consequences of the unchallenged assumptions behind Diamandis' futures are and whether we're willing to accept them.
Thx for the talk, you did an outstandig job there ... at 7:25 the accellleration is mybe even bigger because you could use lumen instead of watts (the lightbulb as been removed with LED and there is also an exponential evolution -> www.cree.com/news-media/news/article/cree-first-to-break-300-lumens-per-watt-barrier ) so if you use lumen you might get an hyperbolic regression curve ;)
If we have the ability to do what this video suggests then why are there people who are homeless? why are there people who are without food? why is there war? and "I don't know" is no longer a valid answer.
Because of selfish and short sighted people who'd rather ignore these problems and even profit off their abuse rather than make the world better. We need to align incentives with values.
Instead of asking this stupid "absolute" question, you should ask "is poverty decreasing" "is access to information increasing" and so on.. don't compare the present with perfection.. compare it with the past
There's a reason I hopped the fence from Futures Studies to Sociology when I decided to go back to school for a PhD: that is to understand how we've socially constructed technology as both inevitable and unquestionably desirable. This presentation is a primary example of why I question -- very deeply -- the notions of technological optimism and technological determinism. What I see here is an unquestioned faith that technology, coupled with unlimited funding, will solve all humanity's problems and make us all healthy, long-lived and whole human beings. There are a lot of problems with this scenario, as other commenters have mentioned. Technologies are always accompanied by unanticipated consequences and unanticipated applications, and we need to be aware of that -- after all, when people invented cell phones, were any of the inventors thinking about the possibility of those phones being used as virtually unjammable remote detonators for roadside bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq? Did anyone anticipate the well-documented increasing sleep deprivation problems associated with instantaneous connectivity around the globe, regardless of where the communicating parties are? These are only some of the unanticipated, under-anticipated, and overly dismissed issues associated with our unquestioned belief in the superiority of technological solutions. And let's not forget the inevitable failures that accompany new technologies: my whole life has been informed by promising technologies that ultimately failed to deliver or even set the state of the art back for decades: does anyone here remember the F-111 and the C-5 aircraft? I am not one of the people who will be joining the revolution to mate my brain to a computer. Why? Because I've experienced the so-called "Microsoft Blue Screen of Death" -- and I am certain that among the first users of these new technologies, there will be others who experience a more literal version. Personally, I don't want to be a casualty of the conflict over who owns the contents of my brain, and with the way Net Neutrality issues have been decided here in the USA, I am reasonably sure that once you go online via a direct connection to the cloud, service provides will make the contents of your brain available to whoever is willing to pay for them -- and you will have no opportunity to refuse. Are you sure you're ready to have your most intimate experiences and innermost thoughts sold to others without so much as a by-your-leave? Given the history of web browsers, are you certain that the risk of having pop-up ads, malware and spyware downloaded directly into your head is worth taking? We see how easily the controls in our browsers have been circumvented: in order to get much of the web content you want, you either have to accept the ads or pay extra to avoid them. I feel confident saying that these kinds of exploitations will occur as long as capital is involved in creating the technologies that will make them possible, because capital involves ownership, and ownership involves restricting the production, distribution and use of other resources. When your brain becomes a potential source of profit for someone else, it is almost certain that it will happen. When I started my first semester in University of Houston - Clear Lake's MS program in Studies of the Future, I went in thinking that technology drives society. I came out thinking about the ways society drives technology. As I've worked toward a PhD in sociology and have encountered social construction and the sociology of knowledge, I have become convinced that we need to deconstruct the narratives of technological optimism and technological determinism and step off the accelerator for a while as we reexamine how we think about technologies. Otherwise, the singularity is likely to suck us into a black hole of ever-increasing problems enabled by the technologies we created to solve the very problems we create.
@@siddheshpatwardhan4920, it's true that not everything is, itself, a social construction; however, social constructions are attached to almost everything people do or use. For example, automobiles aren't just machines people can use to get around: they're status symbols; they represent freedom; to some, they're symbols of rebellion. Despite being physically real things, they also have symbolic aspects attached: they have meaning to people. And, having meaning, they are socially constructed. Life has gotten better in many respects because of technologies, but it's also gotten worse. I was born just months shy of the tenth anniversary of the Texas City Disaster (April 16, 1947), when the S.S. Grandcamp, carrying 2,300 tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer bound for France exploded in the Texas City harbor. Yet, despite knowledge of ammonium nitrate's explosive qualities -- it was used as an explosive fill in bombs and artillery shells in World Wars One and Two -- we have consistently forgotten to treat it as the potential threat it is. I know this is a mutually constructed social reality, because we have plenty of data about ammonium nitrate. Yet because of its useful properties as a fertilizer, we overlook it's dangerous side: witness the 2013 ammonium nitrate explosion in West, Texas. To farmers, ammonium nitrate is growth, profit, and ease of operation. To people like Timothy McVeigh, ammonium nitrate is a political statement. So while it's true that not everything is a social construct, the idea that technology always (or almost always) makes life better is. That we often accept technologies as inevitable, innocuous, or universally beneficial are dangerous social constructions, because we can choose not to adopt technologies. That's why I think it's important that we interrogate every new technology that comes along and try to think about how it can be re-invented, either intentionally or unintentionally, into something less than life affirming.
There appears to be a major missing piece here ... it is true that since around 1970 we have had the technology to provide a high standard of living for everyone on Earth, and this is a paradigm shift from not enough to a new paradigm, or context today of abundance. What would have people / companies compete once they know there is abundance. The future must be about collaboration and distribution of wealth.
Henry Ford gave the same sales pitch to the Robber Barons. rob·ber bar·on noun plural noun: robber barons a person who has become rich through ruthless and unscrupulous business practices (originally with reference to prominent US businessmen in the late 19th century). The people here are listed in Josephson, Robber Barons or in the cited source, Andrew Carnegie (steel) - Pittsburgh and New York William A. Clark (copper) - Butte, Montana[25] Jay Cooke (finance) - Philadelphia Charles Crocker (railroads) - California Daniel Drew (finance) - New York James Buchanan Duke (tobacco, electric power) - Durham, North Carolina James Dunsmuir (coal, lumber) - Victoria, BC Canada[26] Marshall Field (retail) - Chicago[27] James Fisk (finance) - New York Henry Morrison Flagler (Standard Oil, railroads) - New York and Florida[28] Henry Clay Frick (steel) - Pittsburgh and New York John Warne Gates (barbed wire, oil) - Texas[29] Jay Gould (railroads) - New York[30] Edward Henry Harriman (railroads) - New York[31] James J. Hill (fuel, coal, steamboats, railroads) - St Paul, Minnesota Charles T. Hinde (railroads, water transport, shipping, hotels) - Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, California Mark Hopkins (railroads) - California Collis Potter Huntington (railroads) - California Andrew W. Mellon (finance, oil) - Pittsburgh J. P. Morgan (finance, industrial consolidation) - New York John Cleveland Osgood (coal mining, iron) - Colorado[32] Henry B. Plant (railroads) - Florida[33] William Randolph Hearst (Media mogul) - California[34][35] John D. Rockefeller (Standard Oil) - Cleveland, New York Henry Huttleston Rogers (Standard Oil; copper), New York.[36] Charles M. Schwab (steel) - Pittsburgh and New York Joseph Seligman (banking) - New York John D. Spreckels (water transport, railroads, sugar) - California Leland Stanford (railroads) - California Cornelius Vanderbilt (water transport, railroads) - New York[37] Charles Tyson Yerkes (street railroads) - Chicago[38] I bet you can name 25 Robber Barrons right now in this field of Technology.
Moore's Law is inherently limited. We've already advanced very far. I doubt it will last forever. That's why quantum computing holds so much promise. Though I guess that might just be an opinion.
Moore's law speaks only about amount of transistors you can put on a chip and how expensive they will be. And yeah regarding the transistors we're pretty much reaching atomic scale which is a fundamental limit that's going to take major innovation to bypass. So Moore's law is very dead at the moment. But that doesn't necessarily mean computers will stop becoming more powerful or cheaper. You already named quantum computing yourself, but that's just one type of innovation that's being worked on. Even for conventional computing there's still plenty of things in the pipeline that have the promise of increasing computing speeds hundreds or even thousand folds. You have 3D stacking, use of superconductive materials, optical computing and so forth. Never mind that the most important aspects of computing in regards to human progress are big data, artificial intelligence and simulation modeling, all fields which can greatly benefit from the development of new types of computer architectures.
15:35 Many people are happy with their fate... tech hasn't helped them to date... perhaps freed them from working their fields for a few weeks a year, and gave them more choice, but for the most part their lives are still unchanged... only a few people are turned on by tech, not everyone wants to become a spacefaring cyborg. It's great to see so much techno-optimism, but we're all still human, if we can learn to understand each others desires and feelings, that would be the real revolution... but what evidence is there that that will be driven by technological advance?
Just maybe tech could offer us the opportunity to share our thoughts, desires or feelings, enough for a revolution. I know the ideas in his presentation seem the work of science-fiction but perhaps one day when we are able to link our minds as a collective we would understand one another or even then our human thought-processing and overall cognitive functioning may not be so complex enough for that to be a reality.
Resulta paradojal que Singularity University, un incuestionable líder social en el mundo actual, lejos de hacer honor a su nombre, sea incapaz de realizar una adecuada lectura del particular momento evolutivo que estamos viviendo. Sus proyecciones, en exceso optimistas, no solo no parecen no contemplar “la Singularidad que viene”. En efecto, a la hora de proyectar las consecuencias que tendrá en el mundo del trabajo la irrupción de la Inteligencia Artificial, apuestan a que se repetirá el escenario que vivió la humanidad cuando la Revolución Industrial se abrió paso, alterando las condiciones laborales. Singularity University apuesta, sin base, a que se repetirá la historia y que se crearán más puestos de trabajo que los actuales que sean reemplazados por la Inteligencia Artificial. En la práctica, es cosa de tiempo para que la Inteligencia Artificial sea capaz de realizar TODO aquello que hoy es susceptible de ser llamado “trabajo humano”. ¿Veinte años? ¿Cien años?. Es solo cosa de tiempo. ¿Qué peso le asigna Singularity University al rol que puede jugar la Inteligencia Artificial en lo de “competir” con el ser humano y eventualmente quitarle el liderazgo evolutivo que hoy poseemos?. Para Stephen Hawking, quien no era precisamente un imbécil, el ser humano perdería esa batalla. Singularity University se mantiene ajena, y hace como si no existiera el desafío en cuestión. Otra muestra se su extravío se manifiesta cuando reparamos en la postura que tiene Singularity University para referirse al hecho cierto de que más bien antes que después los humanos conseguiremos rejuvenecer y optar a vivir “por toda una eternidad”. No hacen el esfuerzo mental para dimensionar lo que ello implica. Se conforman con vomitar cifras y destacar los avances tecnológicos en salud sin valorar su significado. La ceguera intelectual de Singularity University les impide realizar la labor que en mérito de su nombre les corresponde hacer. No basta con vomitar optimismo para ser hoy un líder social como el que aparenta, cree ser, Singularity University. A los gurúes de las redes les basta con vender la idea “tu todo lo puedes” para disponer de una audiencia. Lamentablemente, el rol actual de Sigularity University parece ser el de un “vendedor de ilusiones”. Y es lamentable por cuanto no basta con sustentar el optimismo sobre “cifras duras” para disponer de un adecuado correlato del particular momento evolutivo que estamos viviendo. Es preciso, si Singularity University busca ser un agente social efectivo, que comience por poner los pies sobre la tierra. Ello implica ampliar su mirada, y reconocer que para hacer frente a lo que viene precisamos disponer de un derrotero de acción que precisa comenzar por dar respuesta a las preguntas ¿Qué somos? y ¿Hacia dónde vamos?. Cierto es que tales preguntas han resultado ser preguntas que están presentes en el ser humano desde que accedió a la Acción Consciente, como cierto es que, habida consideración del rol que ha jugado el Método Científico en “meternos en este enredo evolutivo”, el mundo científico ha dejado en manos de los filósofos hacer frente a dichas preguntas. El tema es que “se nos acaba el tiempo”, y precisamos hacer uso de todas nuestras herramientas para hacer frente a lo que viene. Sobre el particular, le recomiendo a Sigularity University que invite a un concurso mundial en el que el primer premio será para quien entregue la más convincente explicación de “lo que somos” los humanos. Sin saber de lo que somos -o al menos de la mejor aproximación a la que podamos optar para acceder a tal saber- nuestras posibilidades de ser asertivos se sustentarán solo en la intuición. Con ello se denigra el potencial de acción de la Razón, herramienta evolutiva que nos ha conducido a vivir el particular momento evolutivo en el que estamos situados.
15:40 We have computers, running water, etc. Many people don't. We'll have super tech, many people still won't.. The human race has spawned off a homo technicus.... at the same time we're splitting off cyborgs, and at the same time we could be splitting off superintelligent computers capable of self-optimizing themselves into whatever... angels?! Ironic that even the most primitive people have a pretty good concept of this... has it perhaps happened before? Or are we simply manifesting our fantasies?
This is Good, But: How much more Humanity could do without the Basic problems like Hunger, Sickness and “Madness”? With a better behavior Humanity could Grow Wayyyyy Faster and more Efficient.
Eating animals makes many people hungry (lack of food due to raising animals forexportation), sick (cancer, diabetes, heart disease) and even mad (cf experiment in a prison: going vegetarian reduced aggressivity). The world must go vegan.
Key nuance here is that everyone will at least be "haves" supported by Maslo's first two critical rungs. Following an an exchange from Elon, sufficient automation will necessitate UBI, as well hopefully UHC will finally break past the corrupt firewall in America and few remaining areas in the world without it.
I am all for seeing technology bringing about a better way of life and respecting the planet as we move on. My only concern is having "super human" dominance over "ordinary humans"!
"I wanna, in the next 30 minutes, give you a sense on how fast the world is changing."
Wow! It's changing so fast that his 30 minute presentation only took 22 minutes. ;-p
The comments section is the best.
Yeah. Haha. I noticed the same thing.
Peter, I doubt you'll ever read this, but you really are a hero of mine. Thanks so much for what you do.
Very well much a mentor of mine also...
Your doubt was well founded
In a world so full of pessimism and hopelessness this is a real inspiirational talk to all of us, young or old alike, living anywhere in this world. Thanks, Peter. You're unique.
This is incredible. I bought the book after seeing this - the startup and tech revolution is here and there has never been a greater time to start a company and innovate.
I'm always inspired by you Peter Diamandis, I couldn't have asked for anything better. I'm making great strides in Africa because of you.
@SpinazFou AI/Machine Learning
Sensors & Networks (Internet of Things)
Digital Manufacturing/3D Printing
Robotics & Drones
Virtual and Augmented Reality
Synthetic Biology and Genomics
Quantum Computing
Material Sciences
@L K Wow, you are one poisonous fuck.
@L K you are quite ignorant on Africa huh
In the last few days I have said "Exciting times!" so often - this video just goes and affirms that statement!
Diamandis is right. The future can be very positive.
The processing power of computers is accelerating so fast that it's changing all industries and all forms of business. Jobs are changing. The jobs are being transformed into tasks in job apps. The shopping did change.
Now almost everyone can have their virtual office online, without renting an office. Clients can come it into a virtual office, or do video calls. More and more people can work from home, as long as their Internet connection is very nice.
Actually, the processing power is slowing down. It is physically impossible to keep shrinking the processors below a certain amount before electricity doesn't care and jumps and messes everything up. Quite honestly we need a new system that doesn't have this problem, and they're years away.
Processing power of computers isn't progressing as it used to. It doesn't double every year. You get twice as good smartphone after two years, not one. Singularitarians said that Moore's Law is not the end but there is nothing on the horizon that fulfills the promise. We went from 7 million to 7 billion transistors inside 100mm^2 chips in the last 20 years. So the number of transistors has been doubling every two years like Moore's Law states. But can we really go to 7 trillion in 2038 (some propose even earlier dates)? Current 100 mm^2 7nm smartphone SoC provides about 2500x improvement in "standard" processing power compared to a 100mm^2 1998 CPU. We need another 2500x before dreams of automation everywhere can be achieved. But can we do that in the near future? I don't know, I hope so. John Carmack for example says that there is only another 10x to go. That wouldn't be enough.
Diamandis thinks that the world will see some huge innovations during the next 8 years. But realistically, computing speed will only go up 20x or so in that time which can't fuel these expected innovations. 3D printing for example will still be a niche in ten years. Ideas about 3D printed buildings make me laugh.
Are you saying that progress in terms of how societies organise, how humans collaborate, how we solve TODAYS problems is lacking computational power and thus cannot happen? Is it really technological capabilities that is lacking or is it us humans not adapting fast enough to put these advancements to immediate action?
Two cents:
-We went to space with less computational power than each of our phones has
-3D printing buildings are a reality already
Saddly I think Kynareth6 has a point... Our culture is far behind in mass technology though we have gadgets that are high tech. For example: cities should be engineered like skyscrapers are engineered, instead of the mess we have today; quick travel times, super efficient electric grids, beautiful green habitats between living areas, no industry cross contramination, etc.
So we all know engineering could give us better cities, but we don't do that because... There has been no leader to push that. The difference between tribes that died in anonimity and the Mayans was simply that social movement that push them to greatness. We simply don't have a social/economic system that can function in the world Diamandis talks about.
Mr. peter dimandis, you are a brilliant man!!!
10:08 investing to accelerate the arrival of The Singularity.
I LIKE IT!.
Masayoshi-san and SoftBank are going places!
Acceleration is the second derivative of position, therefore re acceleration of the acceleration is not jerk, but snap.
2:47 Accelerating the acceleration - Computational Abundance /Moore's Law;
Saved Time;
Prize Thinking;
Amazing to Peters passion only multiply every year (by factor of 10x, beating Moore’s law) 👏👍🚀😀
Excellent video, thanks for posting, much appreciated : )
"what does it means when I have a million fold memory" 15:20
It means total recall. If you unlock the brain, you might be able to give people the same thing those who had near death experience report namely, seeing one's whole life before their eyes in an instant.
Imagine remembering everything all the time effortlessly.
I was watching this gifted pianist wi
What will I do with a superb memory? Improve my piano learning time. It takes me now hundreds of hours to memorize a simple piece of Chopin's or Bach's work.
all these older folks think that within their lifetime they'll see technology that will enable them to live for 3-5 more decades. you never see them predict (far more likely) that the technology is still a century away
5:48 This is still the current time, current reality for much of the world...... and it's arguably a good life... Not better or worse, just a different set of problems. Easier problems. More human-compatible problems.
This made me happy
Good to hear an update on Ray Kurzweil's prediction of when we'll reach the longevity escape velocity - 12 years from now. So for most people watching this video that is definitely attainable. And even if you're over 70 so in the high-risk zone, don't forget that shortly after we achieve LEV we will start reversing ageing to bring you biological age back down to your 20s, rather than living forever in your 80s.
12 years from now for the wealthiest. If you are low or middle class you may still not make it.
I think if artificial general intelligence being a thing than we reach there
It's an exciting time to be alive. I'll be 54 when the singularity happens in 2045. It's mind-blowing to think that immortality is within my grasp, as well as all of the other technologies that will be invented, such as enhancements to the brain.
Technology is indeed growing exponentially but another thing is growing exponentially which isn’t mentioned by Peter very much and that is environmental destruction, species extinction at nearly 200 species per day, raging wild fires, torrential rains, tornados, hurricanes and that is just a few of the numerous devastating catastrophes that civilization has produced.
That’s Trumps and Republicans fault
I will contribute in reaching singularity
Got to love all of those taking pictures of the slides, when this is on UA-cam
Excellent speech
Accelerationg exponential Technologies+ the exponential growth computing
Great talk Peter.
I don't want to be that guy, but one correction. The singularity in physics is the beginning of our universe (the big bang) not a black hole.
I adore you dear Peter Diamandis.
I can't wait
I have two questions regarding this.
How do singularitarians view climate change?
Life expectancy has been falling in the US recently. How does this square with you worldview?
Sincerely yours truly.
No answer. Those guys hope that an AI more intelligent than any human could appear about 2045 and then we will ask it to clean our mess... Really all those stories would be nice if our civilization would have taken environment into consideration. Unfortunately it's note the case and we could disappear because of climate change...
This talk was very informative and educational.
Welcome to the Church of Singularity.
I though it was discovered that makers have been keeping up with that "graph" rather than that graph demonstrating the pace they're going at?....I don't suppose that would hut the rate of pace though because even if the whole mores law thing was fanciful it it made them go hard!
Nice talk, putting into perspective how fast the change has happened and how it is accelerating.
*tech and infostorage are accelerating, culture and reality on the ground are still so slow. "being in the 21st century is having 20th century culture distributed by high-speed internet"
The story the Beauty and the beast is one of the best story,the bad spell is over,the bad curse is over,that is singularly !
What's Your Fight Team?
1) Objective Truth
or
2) Subjective Truth
@
also: don't forget to enjoy every day of 2018, 2019, 2020, ...
What do you mean live in the present?
@@WG501st Live in the present? Like an ANIMAL? NEVER!!!
The most logical and Efficient and there will be a phase where there's no need all unnecessary time consuming plan just for a step for to the next future, but all will play their part and they running, sprint to achieve a environment where beyond our expectations towards the next type civilization transformation.
Thx for this informative video.
Thank you.
Brazil here. Welcome Peter!
Not everyone is equal in intelligence, curiosity and self-confidence. And, today's performing individual types will certainly not be those of tomorrow. It could be, as an example, that the successful people of the future will be those who handle boredom the best as machines will cater to their every need. Or else.
Fantastic!!
Peter .very inspiring video. I’ve researched hundreds of company’s worldwide with a different view . I look for new technology and exponential potential.
My favorite is Australian company fbr . No idea if you heard of it but they Will explode globally
sweet idea the singularity University 🎓!
Think these are positive developments. Would like to see some of the capital investment go towards fortification of redundant physical infrastructure for communications and electric grids since so much of the positivity discussed here is reliant on that infrastructure being continuously operational with no hiccups. I realize such projects are not all that sexy relative to innovative tech, but as the speaker said, the “challenge was to avoid complacency”.
Great !
Does anyone have the slides from this talk?
Bad spell is over,bad curse is over that is singularity !
🙏 thank you Peter
Peter Diamandis, why don't you talk about phasing out money and diving into post-scarcity with all technology can already accomplish?
Expect me to be annoying more often by pushing the topic everywhere I see fit, which is almost everywhere.
I wish Peter was my great uncle growing up... imagine the seeds he would plant in a child's curious mind... his kids are very lucky... I hope they appreciate him! He's probably cloned them to be replaced if they turn out to be A-holes!
The Relative Growth Movement is already underway!
una cosa es el capital de una nación y otra la verdadera riqueza, no olvidemos que lo que causa esto es la inflación.
This video was amazing
Excellent talk! You're more inspiring than Kaku and Kurzweil!
Excellent presentation and spot on correct. However, he left out some other key accelerants - Artificial Intelligence, big data, big data analytics, Augmented Reality, Deep Learning, Cloud Computing, Quantum Computing, and even Smart Cities.
It is quite exciting, exhilarating. I truly commend PD's enthusiasm and optimism. If technology is used for the most noble purposes, to expedite human evolution to a higher, expanded level of consciousness, then this drive to tech singularity is truly needed. The challenge is, this could also mean tools of incredible power & rapid connectivity in the hands of those with destructive mindset. Technology is amoral. It works with same efficiency in the hands of both good and bad minds. So, how do we prevent catastrophic disasters engendered by minds that are conditioned to create a dystopia, using these incredible technologies? How do we expand consciousness while our objective seems to be an expansion of human intelligence to super intelligence state with the help of AI? More than ever, the need is a concerted drive toward "inner singularity" before we arrive at "outer singularity." Humanity has to build a critical mass of individuals who reach a state of consciousness that is divine in nature and that is the only way to nullify the minds that contract into devilish states. Great tools have great power and we need humans who use it with great responsibility and care only with an intention of speeding up the evolution of this highly creative species.
Accept the Ratios - of good & evil. All human motivations are knowns.
Normal - baser instincts; like - killling all day - for protien -or territory - & herding the weaker minded - got us to the point where we can hire (or vote into office ) these abhorent minds - for study - & oppose their state of the art - return to greatness - iron age thinking.
Defence department - meets, greets & encourages - nationalistic offensive /defense daydreamers - all day. -
We even have a contest called darpa or something to network these offensive /defenders - of rule of law.
Shh - we - the coolest of the cucumberheads - like watching - the top - dangerous - turbo nerd - killbot designers..
They are are about 15% of the popullation - now..
Maybe we can cut the 15% by half or more - in the next decade too.
How much faster can we go ?
The future is always in the past of the next day.
Singularity only succeeds when you do the best heavenly things!
The future is only scary if we try to avoid it. I'm fascinated by the power of exponentianality. I'm curious about the changes that's gonna happen to the use of fiat currency.
Down with the dollar! Buy btc
Thomas Anderson, you're drinking the idiot juice that the media houses dish out. What has a religion has to do with technology?
New technology will solve some problems, but it will also create new ones. Like all, its just a tool. We may become smarter, but there are a lot smart idiots. What we need most is wisdom and people with pure motives.
We aren't much closer to worldwide enlightenment than we were centuries ago, but we do live better, longer, more comfortable lives. Accept human nature and create tools that work well with it.
2 steps forward - 3 steps back.
It seems we'll never 'Get There'.
LordF
i don't agree with the "worldwide enlightenment" part.
in several aspects, our world is indeed more enlightened. people today are far less likely to believe in superstition and religion than they were 3 centuries ago.
Also look at the statistics on violence, there is far, far less violence than 100, 200, or 300, etc. years ago.
That I would definitely also call a form of enlightenment.
And people are way more connected than before, the implications are deep. Subconsciously through interactions with diverse people globally online, we realize that we are all pretty much the same. As knowledge spreads rapidly, the killing of animals for non-food reasons has decreased considerably. Wars are rarer. In short, appreciation for/of life has measurably increased in the last few decades alone. Not yet where we ought to be, but biology is way slower than technology so that may hold us back a little bit. IMO the main things holding us back from being empathetic, compassionate and objective include:
Intellectual laziness (fear of thinking about something radically perception-challenging), anthropocentrism (egotism, ie, animals are here to provide for humans) and cognitive dissonance (not being able to act differently in the future due to anchorage to past view points/ low mental mobility/ brain elasticity).
Peter,
If you truly think that in less than 30 years we will nearly be at our technological peak is insane. So you think in 2070 we will have the same technology as 2035? Ideas and innovation will always continue.
He doesnt say that. For what we know now there is no technological peak. The graph is exponential not an s curve
The Singularity Is Near
I wonder what the weather's like on his planet? The price of food & housing has been steadily climbing while wages haven't kept up. Then there's then hidden cost of his technology - the cost to mine the rare quartz, malibidininnidum (I never could pronounce that!), the the refining, the shipping, the fabrication, the final assembly & testing at the slave camps. Then there's the end-user cost, which most have learned to do without because they can't afford the latest I-phone.
Love it,excellent explanation,thank you👌☝️✨
The problem is his assumption that Moore's law can continue forever. It can't & we already know this. By 2120 computation power will exceed the number of atoms in the observable universe . Then the assumption that the time saved from innovation will be well spent. I wish you were correct
This is based on statistics, past trends, hard data - the opposite of religion. That it points to a better future is a bonus, not its raison d'être.
The problem with statistics and past trends is that they point to the past, not the future. Trends, and the statistics they represent, are actually a record of past choices. In a way, those trends represent momentum toward particular futures which, if reinforced, become increasingly likely over time. However, until those futures become the past, it remains possible to choose and realize alternative futures: we're not stuck with a particular future just because the trends point in that direction.
What we really need to do is ask if the futures Diamandis is promoting are the only possibilities. Then we need to ask if, among all the alternative futures Diamandis isn't presenting, there are more desirable futures. We also need to ask what the consequences of the unchallenged assumptions behind Diamandis' futures are and whether we're willing to accept them.
Ricardo Lourizela I probably wouldn’t have said it better myself, my friend - and I’m a PhD working on theoretical statistics.
Awesome 👏 talk
Inspiration in ref to the future
Thx for the talk, you did an outstandig job there ... at 7:25 the accellleration is mybe even bigger because you could use lumen instead of watts (the lightbulb as been removed with LED and there is also an exponential evolution -> www.cree.com/news-media/news/article/cree-first-to-break-300-lumens-per-watt-barrier ) so if you use lumen you might get an hyperbolic regression curve ;)
Access to the internet isn't "access to all the computational power you want."
I wonder if there is a Singularity University that does not contain Moore's law.
Did you include global warming?
The haves, and the super haves? 🤯
Wow!!! This is amazing! I'm def excited for the future :o
And will all this human genius ever be able to feed the world, stop wars and pollution. Hope so .
If we have the ability to do what this video suggests then why are there people who are homeless? why are there people who are without food? why is there war? and "I don't know" is no longer a valid answer.
Because of selfish and short sighted people who'd rather ignore these problems and even profit off their abuse rather than make the world better. We need to align incentives with values.
Instead of asking this stupid "absolute" question, you should ask "is poverty decreasing" "is access to information increasing" and so on.. don't compare the present with perfection.. compare it with the past
There's a reason I hopped the fence from Futures Studies to Sociology when I decided to go back to school for a PhD: that is to understand how we've socially constructed technology as both inevitable and unquestionably desirable. This presentation is a primary example of why I question -- very deeply -- the notions of technological optimism and technological determinism. What I see here is an unquestioned faith that technology, coupled with unlimited funding, will solve all humanity's problems and make us all healthy, long-lived and whole human beings. There are a lot of problems with this scenario, as other commenters have mentioned. Technologies are always accompanied by unanticipated consequences and unanticipated applications, and we need to be aware of that -- after all, when people invented cell phones, were any of the inventors thinking about the possibility of those phones being used as virtually unjammable remote detonators for roadside bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq? Did anyone anticipate the well-documented increasing sleep deprivation problems associated with instantaneous connectivity around the globe, regardless of where the communicating parties are? These are only some of the unanticipated, under-anticipated, and overly dismissed issues associated with our unquestioned belief in the superiority of technological solutions. And let's not forget the inevitable failures that accompany new technologies: my whole life has been informed by promising technologies that ultimately failed to deliver or even set the state of the art back for decades: does anyone here remember the F-111 and the C-5 aircraft?
I am not one of the people who will be joining the revolution to mate my brain to a computer. Why? Because I've experienced the so-called "Microsoft Blue Screen of Death" -- and I am certain that among the first users of these new technologies, there will be others who experience a more literal version. Personally, I don't want to be a casualty of the conflict over who owns the contents of my brain, and with the way Net Neutrality issues have been decided here in the USA, I am reasonably sure that once you go online via a direct connection to the cloud, service provides will make the contents of your brain available to whoever is willing to pay for them -- and you will have no opportunity to refuse. Are you sure you're ready to have your most intimate experiences and innermost thoughts sold to others without so much as a by-your-leave? Given the history of web browsers, are you certain that the risk of having pop-up ads, malware and spyware downloaded directly into your head is worth taking? We see how easily the controls in our browsers have been circumvented: in order to get much of the web content you want, you either have to accept the ads or pay extra to avoid them. I feel confident saying that these kinds of exploitations will occur as long as capital is involved in creating the technologies that will make them possible, because capital involves ownership, and ownership involves restricting the production, distribution and use of other resources. When your brain becomes a potential source of profit for someone else, it is almost certain that it will happen.
When I started my first semester in University of Houston - Clear Lake's MS program in Studies of the Future, I went in thinking that technology drives society. I came out thinking about the ways society drives technology. As I've worked toward a PhD in sociology and have encountered social construction and the sociology of knowledge, I have become convinced that we need to deconstruct the narratives of technological optimism and technological determinism and step off the accelerator for a while as we reexamine how we think about technologies. Otherwise, the singularity is likely to suck us into a black hole of ever-increasing problems enabled by the technologies we created to solve the very problems we create.
Smartest comment here.
Not everything is a "social construct". Life has continually kept getting better because of technology
@@siddheshpatwardhan4920, it's true that not everything is, itself, a social construction; however, social constructions are attached to almost everything people do or use. For example, automobiles aren't just machines people can use to get around: they're status symbols; they represent freedom; to some, they're symbols of rebellion. Despite being physically real things, they also have symbolic aspects attached: they have meaning to people. And, having meaning, they are socially constructed.
Life has gotten better in many respects because of technologies, but it's also gotten worse. I was born just months shy of the tenth anniversary of the Texas City Disaster (April 16, 1947), when the S.S. Grandcamp, carrying 2,300 tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer bound for France exploded in the Texas City harbor. Yet, despite knowledge of ammonium nitrate's explosive qualities -- it was used as an explosive fill in bombs and artillery shells in World Wars One and Two -- we have consistently forgotten to treat it as the potential threat it is. I know this is a mutually constructed social reality, because we have plenty of data about ammonium nitrate. Yet because of its useful properties as a fertilizer, we overlook it's dangerous side: witness the 2013 ammonium nitrate explosion in West, Texas. To farmers, ammonium nitrate is growth, profit, and ease of operation. To people like Timothy McVeigh, ammonium nitrate is a political statement.
So while it's true that not everything is a social construct, the idea that technology always (or almost always) makes life better is. That we often accept technologies as inevitable, innocuous, or universally beneficial are dangerous social constructions, because we can choose not to adopt technologies. That's why I think it's important that we interrogate every new technology that comes along and try to think about how it can be re-invented, either intentionally or unintentionally, into something less than life affirming.
Wasn't Ray's prediction 2029?
There appears to be a major missing piece here ... it is true that since around 1970 we have had the technology to provide a high standard of living for everyone on Earth, and this is a paradigm shift from not enough to a new paradigm, or context today of abundance.
What would have people / companies compete once they know there is abundance. The future must be about collaboration and distribution of wealth.
Henry Ford gave the same sales pitch to the Robber Barons.
rob·ber bar·on
noun
plural noun: robber barons
a person who has become rich through ruthless and unscrupulous business practices (originally with reference to prominent US businessmen in the late 19th century).
The people here are listed in Josephson, Robber Barons or in the cited source,
Andrew Carnegie (steel) - Pittsburgh and New York
William A. Clark (copper) - Butte, Montana[25]
Jay Cooke (finance) - Philadelphia
Charles Crocker (railroads) - California
Daniel Drew (finance) - New York
James Buchanan Duke (tobacco, electric power) - Durham, North Carolina
James Dunsmuir (coal, lumber) - Victoria, BC Canada[26]
Marshall Field (retail) - Chicago[27]
James Fisk (finance) - New York
Henry Morrison Flagler (Standard Oil, railroads) - New York and Florida[28]
Henry Clay Frick (steel) - Pittsburgh and New York
John Warne Gates (barbed wire, oil) - Texas[29]
Jay Gould (railroads) - New York[30]
Edward Henry Harriman (railroads) - New York[31]
James J. Hill (fuel, coal, steamboats, railroads) - St Paul, Minnesota
Charles T. Hinde (railroads, water transport, shipping, hotels) - Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, California
Mark Hopkins (railroads) - California
Collis Potter Huntington (railroads) - California
Andrew W. Mellon (finance, oil) - Pittsburgh
J. P. Morgan (finance, industrial consolidation) - New York
John Cleveland Osgood (coal mining, iron) - Colorado[32]
Henry B. Plant (railroads) - Florida[33]
William Randolph Hearst (Media mogul) - California[34][35]
John D. Rockefeller (Standard Oil) - Cleveland, New York
Henry Huttleston Rogers (Standard Oil; copper), New York.[36]
Charles M. Schwab (steel) - Pittsburgh and New York
Joseph Seligman (banking) - New York
John D. Spreckels (water transport, railroads, sugar) - California
Leland Stanford (railroads) - California
Cornelius Vanderbilt (water transport, railroads) - New York[37]
Charles Tyson Yerkes (street railroads) - Chicago[38]
I bet you can name 25 Robber Barrons right now in this field of Technology.
Thank you!!! 🌟
Moore's Law is inherently limited. We've already advanced very far. I doubt it will last forever. That's why quantum computing holds so much promise. Though I guess that might just be an opinion.
Moore's law speaks only about amount of transistors you can put on a chip and how expensive they will be. And yeah regarding the transistors we're pretty much reaching atomic scale which is a fundamental limit that's going to take major innovation to bypass. So Moore's law is very dead at the moment.
But that doesn't necessarily mean computers will stop becoming more powerful or cheaper. You already named quantum computing yourself, but that's just one type of innovation that's being worked on. Even for conventional computing there's still plenty of things in the pipeline that have the promise of increasing computing speeds hundreds or even thousand folds. You have 3D stacking, use of superconductive materials, optical computing and so forth. Never mind that the most important aspects of computing in regards to human progress are big data, artificial intelligence and simulation modeling, all fields which can greatly benefit from the development of new types of computer architectures.
1:02 makes a joke - this he's really funny so pauses to let the audience laugh or applaud - great big silence
15:35 Many people are happy with their fate... tech hasn't helped them to date... perhaps freed them from working their fields for a few weeks a year, and gave them more choice, but for the most part their lives are still unchanged... only a few people are turned on by tech, not everyone wants to become a spacefaring cyborg. It's great to see so much techno-optimism, but we're all still human, if we can learn to understand each others desires and feelings, that would be the real revolution... but what evidence is there that that will be driven by technological advance?
Just maybe tech could offer us the opportunity to share our thoughts, desires or feelings, enough for a revolution. I know the ideas in his presentation seem the work of science-fiction but perhaps one day when we are able to link our minds as a collective we would understand one another or even then our human thought-processing and overall cognitive functioning may not be so complex enough for that to be a reality.
The last time I took time to understand someone else I almost became a serial killer.
hmm. I work remotely and can't wait to get out to the field to work. Just want the garden and be able to talk to my cat.
What "wakes me up and scares me a little bit" is climate breakdown, which is as exponentially growing as thechnology is
The amount of solar power capacity and electric car sales are also growing exponentially so that will solve climate change
Good idea to auto reply with slides if you send email to that address.
Is this working now?
Do you have those slides by any chance? I emailed and got the 2020 deck, it's very different
Resulta paradojal que Singularity University, un incuestionable líder social en el mundo actual, lejos de hacer honor a su nombre, sea incapaz de realizar una adecuada lectura del particular momento evolutivo que estamos viviendo. Sus proyecciones, en exceso optimistas, no solo no parecen no contemplar “la Singularidad que viene”. En efecto, a la hora de proyectar las consecuencias que tendrá en el mundo del trabajo la irrupción de la Inteligencia Artificial, apuestan a que se repetirá el escenario que vivió la humanidad cuando la Revolución Industrial se abrió paso, alterando las condiciones laborales. Singularity University apuesta, sin base, a que se repetirá la historia y que se crearán más puestos de trabajo que los actuales que sean reemplazados por la Inteligencia Artificial. En la práctica, es cosa de tiempo para que la Inteligencia Artificial sea capaz de realizar TODO aquello que hoy es susceptible de ser llamado “trabajo humano”. ¿Veinte años? ¿Cien años?. Es solo cosa de tiempo.
¿Qué peso le asigna Singularity University al rol que puede jugar la Inteligencia Artificial en lo de “competir” con el ser humano y eventualmente quitarle el liderazgo evolutivo que hoy poseemos?. Para Stephen Hawking, quien no era precisamente un imbécil, el ser humano perdería esa batalla. Singularity University se mantiene ajena, y hace como si no existiera el desafío en cuestión.
Otra muestra se su extravío se manifiesta cuando reparamos en la postura que tiene Singularity University para referirse al hecho cierto de que más bien antes que después los humanos conseguiremos rejuvenecer y optar a vivir “por toda una eternidad”. No hacen el esfuerzo mental para dimensionar lo que ello implica. Se conforman con vomitar cifras y destacar los avances tecnológicos en salud sin valorar su significado.
La ceguera intelectual de Singularity University les impide realizar la labor que en mérito de su nombre les corresponde hacer.
No basta con vomitar optimismo para ser hoy un líder social como el que aparenta, cree ser, Singularity University. A los gurúes de las redes les basta con vender la idea “tu todo lo puedes” para disponer de una audiencia. Lamentablemente, el rol actual de Sigularity University parece ser el de un “vendedor de ilusiones”. Y es lamentable por cuanto no basta con sustentar el optimismo sobre “cifras duras” para disponer de un adecuado correlato del particular momento evolutivo que estamos viviendo.
Es preciso, si Singularity University busca ser un agente social efectivo, que comience por poner los pies sobre la tierra. Ello implica ampliar su mirada, y reconocer que para hacer frente a lo que viene precisamos disponer de un derrotero de acción que precisa comenzar por dar respuesta a las preguntas ¿Qué somos? y ¿Hacia dónde vamos?. Cierto es que tales preguntas han resultado ser preguntas que están presentes en el ser humano desde que accedió a la Acción Consciente, como cierto es que, habida consideración del rol que ha jugado el Método Científico en “meternos en este enredo evolutivo”, el mundo científico ha dejado en manos de los filósofos hacer frente a dichas preguntas. El tema es que “se nos acaba el tiempo”, y precisamos hacer uso de todas nuestras herramientas para hacer frente a lo que viene.
Sobre el particular, le recomiendo a Sigularity University que invite a un concurso mundial en el que el primer premio será para quien entregue la más convincente explicación de “lo que somos” los humanos. Sin saber de lo que somos -o al menos de la mejor aproximación a la que podamos optar para acceder a tal saber- nuestras posibilidades de ser asertivos se sustentarán solo en la intuición. Con ello se denigra el potencial de acción de la Razón, herramienta evolutiva que nos ha conducido a vivir el particular momento evolutivo en el que estamos situados.
15:40 We have computers, running water, etc. Many people don't. We'll have super tech, many people still won't.. The human race has spawned off a homo technicus.... at the same time we're splitting off cyborgs, and at the same time we could be splitting off superintelligent computers capable of self-optimizing themselves into whatever... angels?! Ironic that even the most primitive people have a pretty good concept of this... has it perhaps happened before? Or are we simply manifesting our fantasies?
What a nice guy, very positive about the future. Just like me. I´m your follower now, Peter!
This is Good, But:
How much more Humanity could do without the Basic problems like Hunger,
Sickness and “Madness”? With a better behavior Humanity could Grow Wayyyyy Faster and more Efficient.
Eating animals makes many people hungry (lack of food due to raising animals forexportation), sick (cancer, diabetes, heart disease) and even mad (cf experiment in a prison: going vegetarian reduced aggressivity). The world must go vegan.
Erm...the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?...
Key nuance here is that everyone will at least be "haves" supported by Maslo's first two critical rungs. Following an an exchange from Elon, sufficient automation will necessitate UBI, as well hopefully UHC will finally break past the corrupt firewall in America and few remaining areas in the world without it.
I am all for seeing technology bringing about a better way of life and respecting the planet as we move on. My only concern is having "super human" dominance over "ordinary humans"!
én gyémántként , ti szének :)))))))))) természetes pozitiv :))
Nipsey Hussle Got me here! TMC
I appreciate the challenge to the billionaires to slay our greatest problems.
Accelerating assets for the super rich.
Is war Business an infinity? I think not !
Did Dr. Diamandis ever practice medicine, where he encountered the reality that people will die regardless of what modern health care can do?
If one is waiting for the singularity that one is bound to be crushed by it.