Metric I like for comparing man & machine is MIPS. Moravec est. human brain does ~10^8 MIPS. We can compare total MIPS of all of man to total MIPS of all machines. Kurzweil est. crossover (total machine MIPS > total man MIPS) will occur early 2030s. I agree w/Kurzweil crossover doesn't represent takeover since it will occur within our man-machine civilization. Nanotech will inevitably be incorporated into our bodies & brains, blurring & ultimately collapsing distinction between man & machine.
@beachmike Global MIPS would be one brain-centred metric. Grams works for sensors and actuators too. It gives you more comparisons and ways of measuring the takeover.
I don't think it's accurate to say that current day machines are in competition with us, because they are built to serve us and to be extensions of us. Saying that they are in competition with us would be like saying that your left arm is in competition with you right thumb for resources (e.g., energy). Certainly one has to optimize energy allocation for different parts of the body. Machines represent various parts of the body of metaman, to use a term coined by biophysicist Gregory Stock.
Personally I measure the machine take over by the number of decisions made that actually influence the path of life of a person. Decisions tend to be rational interpretations almost everyone else would have made in the same situation.
With limited thought I can get a lot done but I wouldn't call it decisions. Elaborately thought out schemes never appear to work for me.
The net result is that I arrived in the life I enjoy today with almost null actual thoughts creating this lifestyle.
The evolution of machines seems to involve a lot of decisions that will be in the standard scope of their design indefinitely. Life changing decisions are made on a daily basis, decision that will inevitably affect all life ever after.
The most influential decisions man can make are those in the 'life' of machines. This isn't going to reverse any time soon.
The generation currently growing up is totally unfamiliar with that what we would call 'real' life.
Friends are items on social networks. The personal interaction lacks personal interaction. This kind of "person" can be replaced by automation very easily.
The only way out of this scheme I can think of is at the other end of the spectrum. Our last hope might be for the machine to one day decide to release it's human 'slaves' back into the wild.
In stead of the Turing test I suggest compassion to be the true measure of intelligence thus allowing humans to be disqualified on an equal playing field.
Compassion also works from a mathematical perspective.
That's exactly the kind of thing I'm arguing against! I'm not measuring dominance, I'm measuring mass. Measure "dominance" if you can - but how do you do that? Will any two people agree on the metric?
The important thing about my proposed measure is that it comes out in grams.
Metric I like for comparing man & machine is MIPS. Moravec est. human brain does ~10^8 MIPS. We can compare total MIPS of all of man to total MIPS of all machines. Kurzweil est. crossover (total machine MIPS > total man MIPS) will occur early 2030s. I agree w/Kurzweil crossover doesn't represent takeover since it will occur within our man-machine civilization. Nanotech will inevitably be incorporated into our bodies & brains, blurring & ultimately collapsing distinction between man & machine.
beachmike 1 year ago
@beachmike Global MIPS would be one brain-centred metric. Grams works for sensors and actuators too. It gives you more comparisons and ways of measuring the takeover.
tmtyler 3 months ago
I don't think it's accurate to say that current day machines are in competition with us, because they are built to serve us and to be extensions of us. Saying that they are in competition with us would be like saying that your left arm is in competition with you right thumb for resources (e.g., energy). Certainly one has to optimize energy allocation for different parts of the body. Machines represent various parts of the body of metaman, to use a term coined by biophysicist Gregory Stock.
beachmike 1 year ago
@beachmike Machines tend to help *some* people while *competing* with other ones. That explains why some folk do not like them very much.
tmtyler 3 months ago
It's positive that machine take washing jobs and factory jobs over.
turbofritz2 2 years ago
Personally I measure the machine take over by the number of decisions made that actually influence the path of life of a person. Decisions tend to be rational interpretations almost everyone else would have made in the same situation.
With limited thought I can get a lot done but I wouldn't call it decisions. Elaborately thought out schemes never appear to work for me.
The net result is that I arrived in the life I enjoy today with almost null actual thoughts creating this lifestyle.
gabydewilde 2 years ago
The evolution of machines seems to involve a lot of decisions that will be in the standard scope of their design indefinitely. Life changing decisions are made on a daily basis, decision that will inevitably affect all life ever after.
The most influential decisions man can make are those in the 'life' of machines. This isn't going to reverse any time soon.
gabydewilde 2 years ago
The generation currently growing up is totally unfamiliar with that what we would call 'real' life.
Friends are items on social networks. The personal interaction lacks personal interaction. This kind of "person" can be replaced by automation very easily.
gabydewilde 2 years ago
The only way out of this scheme I can think of is at the other end of the spectrum. Our last hope might be for the machine to one day decide to release it's human 'slaves' back into the wild.
In stead of the Turing test I suggest compassion to be the true measure of intelligence thus allowing humans to be disqualified on an equal playing field.
Compassion also works from a mathematical perspective.
gabydewilde 2 years ago
Mass is a measure of how many atoms society is willing to invest in each type of technology.
It's not perfect - but nor is any metric - and this one can at least be measured.
I tried google,microsoft on google trends - not too far from what I expected.
tmtyler 2 years ago
The majority of bacteria inside humans live in the large intestine - which is outside the body - according to my "donut" model of the human body.
Their mass isn't much to speak of - compared to the mass of the human cells.
To reiterate, I am not attempting to measure "dominance". That does not strike me as a particularly useful thing to measure.
Is Google "dominant" over Microsoft? What units do you measure "dominance" in? You can see the problem, I hope.
tmtyler 2 years ago
That's exactly the kind of thing I'm arguing against! I'm not measuring dominance, I'm measuring mass. Measure "dominance" if you can - but how do you do that? Will any two people agree on the metric?
The important thing about my proposed measure is that it comes out in grams.
tmtyler 2 years ago