Well, it's decidedly possible, although I think, say, 2029 is way too optimistic (http://www.longbets.org/1). But as for when it comes...
...well, it would seem like it'd be the technological singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity). You couldn't predict anything.
Unless it isn't the singularity. Which is possible – nay, likely.
Consider Orgel's rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel%27s_rule) (or second rule, depending on which Wikipedia page you look at): "Evolution is cleverer than you are." Over and over again, nature has solved so many problems so efficiently, so ingeniously, that humans still cannot match what it has achieved. At present, it seems highly unlikely that even animal intelligence will be understood for decades. More importantly, especially if the hypothesis that human intelligence is a mating feature akin to peacock's tails is borne out, it is doubtful that anything, technological, natural, or hybrid, can think both (much) faster and (much) more effectively than we jumped-up apes.
On top of that, many of the organizations with the most resources for AI seem unlikely to simply release their programs into the population to act on their own will – at least, not for a long time. If, say, the military developed a superintelligent AI, it'd probably be ensconced in a classified bunker working on foreign policy, espionage, political forecasting, weapons development, or whatever else they want for ... I keep saying 'decades', don't I? Probably at least thirty years.
But, again, that's just the question of possibility. Philosophically, what would technology more intelligent than its creators imply?
To me, nothing much. I am bright enough, as college students go, but I entertain no delusions about how I compare to von Neumann, Einstein, Napoleon, Shakespeare, Galileo, Aristotle, Sun Tsu, or any other genius. And yet the difference between me and them, or me and a brain-damaged human, or a mouse, or a fly, means little to me. To be dethroned as the 'smartest beings around' – well, would simply make life a little more interesting.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
but in all seriousness, an actual question: what is your opinion on technology becoming more intelligent than humanity?
BRIEFS!
...well, it would seem like it'd be the technological singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity). You couldn't predict anything.
Unless it isn't the singularity. Which is possible – nay, likely.
Consider Orgel's rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel%27s_rule) (or second rule, depending on which Wikipedia page you look at): "Evolution is cleverer than you are." Over and over again, nature has solved so many problems so efficiently, so ingeniously, that humans still cannot match what it has achieved. At present, it seems highly unlikely that even animal intelligence will be understood for decades. More importantly, especially if the hypothesis that human intelligence is a mating feature akin to peacock's tails is borne out, it is doubtful that anything, technological, natural, or hybrid, can think both (much) faster and (much) more effectively than we jumped-up apes.
On top of that, many of the organizations with the most resources for AI seem unlikely to simply release their programs into the population to act on their own will – at least, not for a long time. If, say, the military developed a superintelligent AI, it'd probably be ensconced in a classified bunker working on foreign policy, espionage, political forecasting, weapons development, or whatever else they want for ... I keep saying 'decades', don't I? Probably at least thirty years.
But, again, that's just the question of possibility. Philosophically, what would technology more intelligent than its creators imply?
To me, nothing much. I am bright enough, as college students go, but I entertain no delusions about how I compare to von Neumann, Einstein, Napoleon, Shakespeare, Galileo, Aristotle, Sun Tsu, or any other genius. And yet the difference between me and them, or me and a brain-damaged human, or a mouse, or a fly, means little to me. To be dethroned as the 'smartest beings around' – well, would simply make life a little more interesting.
And I guess that's my answer to your question.