You predict we’ll reach a point with artificial intelligence that you call the singularity. How will that affect us?

By the time we get to the 2040s, we’ll be able to multiply human intelligence a billionfold. That will be a profound change that’s singular in nature. Computers are going to keep getting smaller and smaller. Ultimately, they will go inside our bodies and brains and make us healthier, make us smarter. We’ll be online all the time. Search engines won’t wait to be asked.

Probably nothing new here for those well-versed in Kurzweil’s ideas, but it’s still neat to see transhumanist ideas being published in a magazine with as wide a circulation as TIME.

Why the Singularity isn’t going to happen (10/16/10) – “That is how Singularity-level technologies work in real life. They solve dire problems, sure. They save lives. But they also create problems we’d never imagined – problems that might have been inconceivable before that Singularity tech was invented.” (io9)

Artificial intelligence has a feel for laboratory science (10/14/10) - “‘The artificial experimenter will provide a tool for scientists, which will not only allow them to reduce experimentation costs, but will also allow them to redirect their time from monotonous characterisation experiments, to analysing the results, building theories and determining uses for those results,’ say the researchers in their paper.” (The Engineer)

In New Study, Babies Think A Silvery Robot Is Human, As Long As It Acts Friendly (10/14/10) – “At 18 months old, babies have begun to make conscious delineations between sentient beings and inanimate objects. But as robots get more and more advanced, those decisions may become harder to make. What causes a baby to decide a robot is more than bits of metal? As it turns out, it takes more than humanoid looks–babies rely on social interaction to make that call.” (PopSci)

Scary Smart: The Next Trillion-Dollar Industry (10/12/10) – “I’m convinced the next trillion-dollar industry will be built around all the stuff that makes us smarter. This would include things that go into our bodies–performance-enhancing supplements and drugs, chip implants and the like–and such traditional tools as smartphones, Web search and databases.” (Forbes.com)

Two Days Among The Immortals (10/11/10) - “Exercise, eat healthy and not too much, sleep well, don’t stress out… and you may well live long enough to live forever.” (h+ Magazine)

Over at Big Think, physicist  Michio Kaku appears in a video where he talks about the progression of Moore’s Law, the evolution of AI, and how to prevent robots from doing us harm:

Right now our machines are as smart as insects.  Eventually they’ll be smart as mice.  After that they’ll be smart as dogs and cats.  Probably by the end of the century, who knows, they’ll be as smart as monkeys.  At that point they could become potentially dangerous because monkeys can formulate their own plans.  They don’t have to listen to you.  They can formulate their own strategies, their own goals and I would say therefore at that point let’s put a chip in their brain to shut them off if they get murderous thoughts.  Isaac Asimov advocated something like that with his “Three Laws.”  I say hey, put a chip in their brain to shut them off if they start to get murderous.

Of course, we can avoid this scenario altogether by developing AI with benevolent motivations.

“In twenty years time, it is likely that most astronomers will never go near a cutting-edge telescope,” says Ray Norris at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Epping, Australia. So begins a fascinating discussion about the future of humanity’s oldest science.

Norris paints an optimistic picture. For him, the future is filled with automation that will make astronomers’ jobs easier. He says, for example, that in twenty years time: “I expect to be able to click on an object in a paper, and see its image at all wavelengths.” This data will be provided more or less automatically by a new generation of smart telescopes that calibrate and edit data on the fly and then send it to a Virtual Observatory that anybody can access.

The job for astronomers will be to theorise about this data, to look for patterns within it and to see how it explains some problems and creates others. They might then suggest what other data to collect.

That should free up much of their time. Norris says the time not spent fiddling with equitorial mounts and lens cloths will allow them up to better engage with the public who pay their wages.

The article notes that as technology progresses, the ability of machines to find patterns and evaluate data may eclipse that of humans, as well. Machines in other scientific disciplines have made great strides in automated research. However, given the nature of astronomy, it’s likely that humans in this field may be among the first scientists to find themselves replaced by computers.

(Via Instapundit)

“We want students to think big, but do so realistically,” (Founder Peter) Diamandis says. That’s why the curriculum focuses on solutions for developing countries and emerging markets–where the greatest untapped opportunities exist.

“The point is not to just have a good idea. It’s to really launch a project,” Kurzweil adds, noting that SU is providing opportunities for teams to receive capital from companies like ePlanet Ventures. They also get to pitch a crowd of investors during their final presentations.

As director of the Innovation Center at Un Techo para Chile, an NGO that invents products such as silicon mobile showers to improve the lives of impoverished Chileans, Julian Ugarte knows how crucial business strategy is in turning ideas into reality. “There’s obviously more water than soda in the world, but it’s easier to find Coca-Cola than fresh water in slums,” he says, “so if the Valley gets excited, the talent and resources here can make a real difference in the developing world.”

The article touches on some of the concepts of the singularity and transhumanism, but is appropriately focused on how these ideas will play a role in business.

30 INFORMATION OVERLOAD Futurist Ray Kurzweil talks expansively about the coming “singularity,” a moment when human and machine intelligence become indistinguishable and the pace of progress accelerates unimaginably. If minds could be transferred to computers, Kurzweil argues, death would become meaningless. And if humans merged with their machines, the world as we know it would no longer exist. In the evolutionary sense, this could represent the emergence of a new species—Homo singularity?—that would be mostly technology driven. (And don’t ask what happens if the power fails.) Linguist Stephen Pinker dismisses this whole vision, likening it to the old predictions of domed cities and nuclear-powered cars. But Kurzweil claims he can provide the date when the singularity will arrive: 2045, just in time for DISCOVER’s 65th anniversary. ODDS: indeterminate, but likely—human-machine merging is starting already.

There’s similar thoughts on the idea of genetically engineered superhumans becoming the dominant species, thus leading to the demise of humble Homo sapiens like yours truly. While the original “20 Ways the World Could End” article included some pretty outlandish threats (“Divine Intervention,” “Alien Invasion” and “Someone wakes up and it was all a dream” are a few), it also outlined more plausible threats, like asteroid impacts and massive solar flares, that we can actually defend against to some extent.

Nonetheless, while I suppose any of these are possible end-of-the-world scenarios, I won’t be losing any sleep tonight.

In this article from AlterNet, a writer discusses the “Bizarre Libertarian Plan of Uploading Brains into Robots to Escape Society.” Setting aside his mistaken presumption that all transhumanists share a libertarian political persuasion (although several prominent voices do), he describes several advanced technologies and concepts central to transhumanist thought and comes to the following conclusion:

No one wants to die, but the thought of living forever among narcissistic libertarian cyborgs makes death’s cold embrace seem more like a squishy hug from the Easter Bunny.

Now AlterNet is a “liberal” blog, but I think this post would have been far more interesting had it compared the approach to transhuman concepts from both a libertarian viewpoint and a democratic transhumanist viewpoint as espoused by thinkers like Dr. James Hughes or George Dvorsky.

Politics aside, though, this article does illustrate how most people view transhumanism. First, these technologies are so radical it’s difficult for most people to wrap their minds around them As a result, transhumanist thinkers get labeled as, at best, idealists, and at worst, cranks. Second, even if you convince people that these technologies are feasible and are on their way, it’s a challenge to convince them that they’re desirable. I’m still amazed more people aren’t enthusiastic about the concept that they might never have to die a natural death.

Transhumanism’s struggle in the near future will be portraying itself in ways that aren’t scary, weird or off-putting. Even so, as transhumanist technologies advance I expect a much larger (and organized) backlash. Good, proactive PR can go a long way toward helping to mitigate negative sentiment.

He also provides his opinion on who is helping bring about this potential future:

Ok, so who is working towards this eventuality? Well, if it happens this way, pretty much everybody in the NBIC fields – everybody working on nanotech and biotech and AI and brain science, whether as citizen scientists in a collaborationist project or working for a corporation, or those wacky surrealists at DARPA – they’re all pushing this potentiality forward. Of course, we may have to “hijack the singularity” from them eventually – or even now (think gene patent v. open source bio). But mainly, I think all the people who are engaging in open source collaborationist tinkering and culture, the citizen scientists – particularly the more sophisticated and educated young people that are choosing to invest themselves in “garage” projects – I think they all may be taking us there.

I also think the best, smartest critics and skeptics and SF writers and creators are helping – by problematizing these scenarios in advance, by giving us arguments and narratives that remind us about human behaviors and emotions and political and economic and scientific realities. Brilliant fiction adds to our foresight… our pattern recognition… by playing out dramatic, difficult, dark, challenging, ambiguous or dystopian scenarios based on similar technological possibilities.

Like all of R.U. Sirius’ writings, it’s well worth reading.

One of the great things about TED is that, while the conferences are fairly exclusive, they put up video from their presentations online for all of us to benefit. While there are many presentations worth watching out of the 600+ videos that can be found on the TED site, here are my favorite five talks on transhumanist topics:

Aimee Mullins on running (February 1998)

Aimee Mullins garnered attention as a record-setting runner who also happens to be a double amputee. She successfully competed against able-bodied athletes while at Georgetown University on carbon fiber legs that were modeled after those of a cheetah. At TED1998 she spoke about her experiences running in college and at the paralympics, and the challenges she experienced using her then-revolutionary prosthetics.

Rodney Brooks says robots will invade our lives (February 2003)

Roboticist Rodney Brooks, Director of MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, spoke in 2003 about how robots would be increasingly integrated into our lives. While advancements in robotics have come a long way since Brooks gave this presentation, a lot of this is still very applicable today, especially his demonstration on how we will provide direction to robots on how to perform complex tasks.

Nick Bostrom on our biggest problems (July 2005)

Philosopher Nick Bostrom, founder of the World Transhumanist Association (Now Humanity+) and current director of Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute, presented on humanity’s three biggest problems, including death, existential risk and that “life isn’t usually as wonderful as it could be.” He talks through how humans would need to change, as well as how we would have to change the world around us, to address these issues.

Ray Kurzweil on how technology will transform us (February 2005)

At TED2005, Ray Kurzweil provided an overview of his Law of Accelerating Returns and how it will affect the development of nanotechnology, the growth of computing, and how we will eventually merge with our technology. This is a great overview of many of Kurzweil’s thoughts that he addresses in his books, particularly The Singularity is Near.

Aubrey de Grey says we can avoid aging (July 2005)

Aubrey de Grey, gerontologist and author of Ending Aging, presented in 2005 on why defeating aging is desirable, why we need to begin serious discussions of radical longevity, feasibility of radical longevity, why humans accept aging, and how we can actually begin to significantly extend lifespans.

EDIT 3/23/10: I clarified some language in the blurb about Aubrey de Grey’s presentation.

The lineup of guest speakers is equally impressive, including Alex Lightman, Natasha Vita-More, Aubrey de Grey, and many, many more.

If I was a Rutgers student, I would be all over this.