Charlie Rose

futurevisionaries  04/22/2011 09:47 PM Report

Can you help or know of people or companies that can help?

I need to save global FUTURE brands for and by the global people and countries.

My name is Kent G Anderson .

I see where 12 years of my life's work and ideas can help all people in all countries. My goal is to share the global Brand FUTURE... Future is design like a country and people's ideas are the global product. For more information about me and global people FUTURE google Kent G Anderson. My web page is www.futurevisionaries.com .

FUTURE sm/tm

925 N Griffin

Bismarck,ND

58501

USA

milmntec@btinet.net

SFsteve  03/25/2011 06:07 PM Report

I was glad that Mr Kurzweil spoke about the impact of AI on totalitarian humans. However, I wish he had also talked about the possibility of AI going racists & totalitarian (à la "The Matrix" or "The Terminator").

Also, would like to hear a psychologist's thoughts on what it would be like for humans to, as Kurzweil predicts, live forever. Just trying to imagine that idiot down the street at 222 years of age. Heaven help us!

JohnGelles  03/22/2011 06:19 AM Report

It is true that Ray Kurzweil is not John Gelles. He assumes economics will not fail the human race in time and leave us victims of trade and real wars. I also believe we will overcome the ignorance we have inherited that accepts the constraints of laissez faire, corporate anarchy, debt-based money, and complexity in administrative and related law that has run amuck -- but I have far less faith that such OVERCOMING is nearly certain.

My attitude is that Ray Kurzweil must help us make progress in law and economics happen -- Singlularity University ought to include revolutionary reform of these systems in the scope of its objectives.

As to the science fiction elements in some of Kurzweil's texts, they ought to viewed as poetry more than prediction. There will be no AI progress that turns our memory and imaginations into a machine with all our faculties.

But their are and will be machines that can do intellectual tasks better than human beings. They will remember more. They will think faster. They will turn out better products that can be classified as products of the imagination.

As Alan Turing put it: our machine products will not be easily distinguishable from human products.

Yet there will remain the profound difference between life and artificial lifelike elements of systems and machines that we humans will ALWAYS describe FIRST and our machine cousins will add to their bag of tricks SECOND.

Other comments here are not all as admiring of Kurzweil as I hope and intend mine to be. That is a shame. He is a giant among us. Of course, if Singularity U does not tackle law and economics he will be as guilty of others for failure to see the forest for the trees.

The CR show tonight (Monday the 22nd) was outstanding on Libya and Modernist Cuisine.

But Barney Frank on law and economics, especially banking and spending and government's duty to protect workers and consumers from corporate executives, lawyers, lobbyists, and bribed politicians, was pitiful. Barney talks to fast and knows too little of the potential to produce when systems are streamlined to win the war against tyranny, ignorance and hate that mankind has waged for so long.

His text will be out in a few days -- and I have no right to mention him here: but his desire to cut defense spending and invite American influence to lessened in favor of the likes of Putin and on account of idiots like Kuscinich makes me as improper as REMant who recently insulted Bernard Henry-Levy. The CR fan club is peopled by a motley group. At the top are his guests like Kurzweil and Henry-Levy. At the bottom are the those like me -- who write too much and too often.

blank  03/22/2011 04:46 AM Report

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811199

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8570836.stm

they first reached absolute zero when i was in high school

ShalomFreedman  03/22/2011 01:36 AM Report

Kurzweil ignores the greatest part of the human situation and condition. He talks about people being immortal when mankind is becoming a more aging population with more and more disabled and incapacitated people. He ignores the fact that despite the 'political effect' of Facebook the supposedly revolutionary effect of all this is extremely problematic. The whole business of 'reverse engineering' the human brain in order to produce artificial intelligences which will somehow blend with and enhance us is a subject I am reluctant to comment about. We are seeing dramatic changes and who knows where this is going to. Kurzweil is interesting and original and raises questions mankind very much needs to think about. I doubt however the new race of immortals he believes may come into being in a few decades will come into being at that time. I think we should be giving very much attention to the other side of this, the question of whether we will be here at all in that time.

blank  03/21/2011 02:05 PM Report

it's sort of like the concept of teleporting even if you could completely recreate a version of yourself within a computer with "consciousness" that would just be another version of you you're consciousness would not transfer to the computer and let's say that we created it would the computer version of you copy and clone itself since that would be so easy and if it did would it get along with itself if you met another you would you get along with it once you realized that it was taking your place and living your life in your place also it was only you the instant it was created and then the two of you went on separate paths it's sort of like you would be creating your biggest competition transferring your own consciousness into the realm of the computer world which is already happening is a separate issue and i don't think will create immortality anymore than a movie actor or an author continues to live in the minds of other people after that person dies just in a more active manner like if it turns into a personality program or something i could see people creating dna sequence patterns and maybe additional life forms in the form of computers that could keep going beyond our existence and may put into perspective what we really are or then there is the whole issue with artificial dna implanted into cells i don't really know but the important thing i think for now is to be able to use computers while still being very physically active in the natural world at least that's what i would like to do (though i haven't seen this movie)

or let's say you could replace each cell in your body as it dies with an artificial slightly altered cloned computer cell and then at some point eventually you would be a computer with what seemed like a seamless transition of consciousness maybe it's conceivable i don't know

or would you have just slowly died and lost consciousness as a computer was slowly born and maybe really that's what is always happening to us

for example if you became completely computer and then you copied all of that information into a computer that wouldn't be you you would just be making a clone then you'd have to kill yourself so that only the clone of you existed

but then when i think of myself as a kid all of the cells in my body have died so did that person die and i just think that person is me because i have vaguely all of the same memories

but all of those cells were gradually replaced to have to kill yourself after being completely cloned instantaneously all at once seems like an extreme thing to do maybe if you cloned yourself in waves just parts of you at a time

and what about the fact that 90% of the cells in our bodies are bacteria does that affect our consciousness and how we think is there bacteria in our brains which affect all the signals that are constantly occurring in some way or other i think it can get massively complex and how small does it all get

if you put synthetically generated dna in cells could you at some point capture the whole pattern bypass the cells and enter it all into a virtually created computer world and will the transition of consciousness from yourself to that be a smooth transition even though that ultimately won't be you

the world would be created by thoughts and memories and pictures that would be shared with other people and so the more people entered into the world then gradually the bigger it would get

i don't know not in my lifetime it's an interesting thought though i think it is conceivable

you don't want the idea of becoming a computer to allow yourself to neglect your health cuz it's not coming any time soon and when it does i think it'll be way over rated

REMant  03/20/2011 01:40 PM Report

The third buffoon on this liberal Friday. Part Future Shlock, Hegel, Comte, Condorcet, Deepak Chopra, and just plain science fiction. What utter nonsense. There never was a time on this planet when men or even birds were separate from their so-called tools. It's what those tools really signify that is significant. Is a straw more than a straw for the fact that a monkey uses it to get ants out of a hole? Or is a computer really in itself more than a bunch of capacitors, resistors, transistors and diodes?

Even so no computer can yet really conceptualize, which is what we do in order to predict, and become more efficient at delaying death, unless you would like to repeal the 2nd law of thermodynamics. And that's the only real progress there is. The best anyone can hope for is the ability to see ourselves objectively and realize that nature has always been smarter than any man individually or collectively. That's because necessarily action comes before thought. Thinking is feedback, a reflexive act, no matter how good we get at it. We discover things, we do not make them. The design is God's or nature's, not ours. That's why Luther and Calvin took the stand they did. We exist only as part of a culture, eco- or physical system. And so far can it be said to progress, it is not certain it really evolves with respect to an end. This tho is not skepticism. To believe otherwise is pure voluntarism, some would label impiety, and, may I say again, characteristic liberalism.

And if he does not accept the idea of nature or God in this sense, which it appears he doesn't, Kurzweil is a long way from being able to predict anything, tho from what I read those he has, have been so obvious I am surprised anyone would want to even try to take credit for them. Nevertheless, what good are predictions of the future except to impede the process of discovery, like alchemy, through willfulness? If anything he is talking about applications, not knowledge.

So Kurzweil is quite wrong about Watson as I also said a few weeks ago, tho speech and text recognition is his field and that's what it does. Believe it or not a lot of us also wrote our first computer program in Fortran around 1963. And built computers as the materials became available. But the thing is that not only did computer programs of that era do only sophisticated sorting, the same as the punch card machines which they replaced, this is still so. Many other kinds of machine systems can be said to think as well, since they embody some sort of feedback to maintain equilibrium, like a gyroscope, or can follow instructions, like a jacquard loom.

I see he has also dabbled in music synthesis and stock-picking, as well as, dietetics, and the quest for immortality. His Wikipedia page is so laudatory it either must have been authored personally, by these filmmakers who are mentioned by name in it, or taken from some publicity releases. (I see I am not the only one who thinks so, see criticism in the article itself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil and in discussion about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ray_Kurzweil) But his "Singularity University" funded by Google and NASA is IMHO yet another sign that some organizations have far too much money at their discretion. I note also that he seems to be another of the Vietnam cohort who managed to avoid the draft.

JohnGelles  03/19/2011 06:14 PM Report

If you think the CR AI simulator den voter learning machine is far too large for Singularity University (Google for it) to be a part of, consider Ray's illustration of a blackberry small enough to be injected in a vein. The AI simulator I have in mind will have a small breast-pocket size remote remember-er to help you recall details that escape recall. How about your veins? I'm with Kamen here. He built a human hand for the Army and VA. It is a work of art and the highest form of science and technology. I doubt that Kamen will bid to build a CR human help that attaches to the brain for sight and sound you wish you knew by heart.

JohnGelles  03/19/2011 05:57 PM Report

I goofed here -- so I've tried to change it:

Brains are OK. This is not to nit-pick Charlie for short-changing the IT attack on economic failure to employ every person or democracy's failure to motivate our whole system to educate and train citizens for useful thought.

We must bring to our thought processes the excitement Ray Kurzweil and his type bring to problems and solutions.

ALSO protection from the worst wisdom of crowds must also protect us from the WORST wisdom of experts. Sounds impossible -- ad maybe it is.

ALSO -- our inventors are on track for arriving at the DAY when a CR machine will be affordable to voters in every democracy. -- is now corrected to change say to day.

================

Although my typos are inexcusable -- the transcript usually has a lot. We need a system upgrade to minimize them in the comments. Where they are in the transcript they do good: they train us to correct all typos automatically in our human head.

JohnGelles  03/19/2011 05:42 PM Report

March 18 CR Show is a KEEPER. Do not clear it from your TV digital recorder. It will be followed up from year to year on progress in INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY especially ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE which are racing ahead, I believe, of brain biological science which has been favored by our host.

Brains are OK. This is not to nit-pick Charlie for short-changing the IT attack on economic failure to employ every person or democracy's failure to motivate our whole system to educate and train citizens for thought and ignore most of the excitement Ray Kurzweil and his type bring to problems and solutions.

Dean Kamen is another of this type -- with all the smarts of Kurzweil but less of his intense optimism over when AI will support law and economics or why very long life is not the kind of gift humans will receive in the foreseeable future.

CR needs to bring Kurzweil, Kamen and Mathew Forstater together to consider why we cannot turn inventors loose, with extreme AI in mind, to tackle the function of money in a MONETARY system of production.

Rose is always looking for money to underwrite his interviews. The rest of us are looking for money to protect democracy from the worst "wisdom of the crowd" and "wisdom of the expert". What might that money do? Pay for our education in a Charlie Rose AI home machine. What would it look like?

It would be like a flight simulator -- but to teach you how to vote. It would look like a home office and a simulator's cockpit mixed together. It would replace your home library and intimate den.

There would be a battery of flat screen windows -- maybe 12 -- on a wall in three rows of four each (except in the middle row, screens 2 and 3 would have merged into one screen larger than all others.)

This learning machine would encourage you to know the history of war and economics -- straight out, as well inside out and upside down.

There would be many versions of the wall -- not not so many, at default showing -- that they canceled each other out. Beyond the default, each person would tailor his own -- fact, opinion and neither-and-both, -- created by the individual who owned it. (If you mixed or averaged them, they would be full of nonsense as are our heads today).

But they would upgrade every citizen's CHANCE of being less stupid every day. They would not IMO create a wisdom of crowds superior to the wisdom of the wise. But the decisions of an electorate ought to better if we had these machines than they are today.

The March 18th show leaves many of us rewarded with the hope that our Arab cousins are worth defending with our life and our inventors are on track for arriving at the say when a CR machine will be affordable to voters in every democracy.

What about places where the people want to live under an orthodoxy that honors no human rights and puts tyrants and oligarchs in charge. Will we have to kill them before they are armed with WMD's? YES.