In this episode, recorded during the 2024 Abundance360 Summit, Ray, Geoffrey, and Peter debate whether AI will become sentient, what consciousness constitutes, and if AI should have rights.

Ray Kurzweil, an American inventor and futurist, is a pioneer in artificial intelligence. He has contributed significantly to OCR, text-to-speech, and speech recognition technologies. He is the author of numerous books on AI and the future of technology and has received the National Medal of Technology and Innovation, among other honors. At Google, Kurzweil focuses on machine learning and language processing, driving advancements in technology and human potential.

Geoffrey Hinton, often referred to as the “godfather of deep learning,” is a British-Canadian cognitive psychologist and computer scientist recognized for his pioneering work in artificial neural networks. His research on neural networks, deep learning, and machine learning has significantly impacted the development of algorithms that can perform complex tasks such as image and speech recognition.

Read Ray’s latest book, The Singularity Is Nearer: When We Merge with AI

Follow Geoffrey on X: https://twitter.com/geoffreyhinton.
Learn more about Abundance360: https://www.abundance360.com/summit.
———-

This episode is supported by exceptional companies:

Get started with Fountain Life and become the CEO of your health: https://fountainlife.com/peter/

People like the veteran computer scientist Ray Kurzweil had anticipated that humanity would reach the technological singularity (where an AI agent is just as smart as a human) for yonks, outlining his thesis in ‘The Singularity is Near’ (2005) – with a projection for 2029.

Disciples like Ben Goertzel have claimed it can come as soon as 2027. Nvidia’s CEO Jensen Huang says it’s “five years away”, joining the likes of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and others in predicting an aggressive and exponential escalation. Should these predictions be true, they will also introduce a whole cluster bomb of ethical, moral, and existential anxieties that we will have to confront. So as The Matrix turns 25, maybe it wasn’t so far-fetched after all?

Sitting on tattered armchairs in front of an old boxy television in the heart of a wasteland, Morpheus shows Neo the “real world” for the first time. Here, he fills us in on how this dystopian vision of the future came to be. We’re at the summit of a lengthy yet compelling monologue that began many scenes earlier with questions Morpheus poses to Neo, and therefore us, progressing to the choice Neo must make – and crescendoing into the full tale of humanity’s downfall and the rise of the machines.

Unlike me, Kurzweil has been embracing AI for decades. In his 2005 book, The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, Kurzweil made the bold prediction that AI would expand human intelligence exponentially, changing life as we know it. He wasn’t wrong. Now in his 70s, Kurzweil is upping the ante in his newest book, The Singularity Is Nearer: When We Merge with AI, revisiting his prediction of the melding of human and machine, with 20 additional years of data showing the exponential rate of technological advancement. It’s a fascinating look at the future and the hope for a better world.

Kurzweil has long been recognized as a great thinker. The son of a musician father and visual artist mother, he grew up in New York City and at a young age became enamored with computers, writing his first computer program at the age of 15.

While at MIT, earning a degree in computer science and literature, Kurzweil started a company that created a computer program to match high school students with colleges. In the ensuing years, he went on to found (and sell) multiple technology-fueled companies and inventions, including the first reading machine for the blind and the first music synthesizer capable of re-creating the grand piano and other orchestral instruments (inspired by meeting Stevie Wonder). He has authored 11 books.

As well as normal hardback and paperback editions, it was released as a free e-book under the CC BY-NC-ND license. Accelerando won the Locus Award in 2006, and was nominated for several other awards in 2005 and 2006, including the Hugo, Campbell, Clarke, and British Science Fiction Association Awards.

The book is a collection of nine short stories telling the tale of three generations of a family before, during, and after a technological singularity. It was originally written as a series of novelettes and novellas, all published in Asimov’s Science Fiction magazine in the period 2001 to 2004. According to Stross, the initial inspiration for the stories was his experience working as a programmer for a high-growth company during the dot-com boom of the 1990s.

The first three stories follow the character of agalmic \.

Vernor Vinge the coming technological singularity 1993.

Shared with Dropbox.

In honor of Vernor Vinge father of the technological singularity hypothesis.

Vinge won multiple Hugo awards and created a sci-fi concept that drives AI researchers.

One of the most influential figures in the field of AI, Ray Kurzweil, has famously predicted that the singularity will happen by 2045. Kurzweil’s prediction is based on his observation of exponential growth in technological advancements and the concept of “technological singularity” proposed by mathematician Vernor Vinge.

It is with sadness — and deep appreciation of my friend and colleague — that I must report the passing of Vernor Vinge.

The technological singularity —or simply the singularity^[1] —is a hypothetical future point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable consequences for human civilization.^[2][3] According to the most popular version of the singularity hypothesis, I. J. Good’s intelligence explosion model, an upgradable intelligent agent will eventually enter a “runaway reaction” of self-improvement cycles, each new and more intelligent generation appearing more and more rapidly, causing an “explosion” in intelligence and resulting in a powerful superintelligence that qualitatively far surpasses all human intelligence.^[4]

The first person to use the concept of a “singularity” in the technological context was the 20th-century Hungarian-American mathematician John von Neumann.^[5] Stanislaw Ulam reports in 1958 an earlier discussion with von Neumann “centered on the accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue”.^[6] Subsequent authors have echoed this viewpoint.^[3][7]

The concept and the term “singularity” were popularized by Vernor Vinge first in 1983 in an article that claimed that once humans create intelligences greater than their own, there will be a technological and social transition similar in some sense to “the knotted space-time at the center of a black hole”,^[8] and later in his 1993 essay The Coming Technological Singularity,^[4][7] in which he wrote that it would signal the end of the human era, as the new superintelligence would continue to upgrade itself and would advance technologically at an incomprehensible rate. He wrote that he would be surprised if it occurred before 2005 or after 2030.^[4] Another significant contributor to wider circulation of the notion was Ray Kurzweil’s 2005 book The Singularity Is Near, predicting singularity by 2045.^[7].

Calum and David recently attended the BGI24 event in Panama City, that is, the Beneficial General Intelligence summit and unconference. One of the speakers we particularly enjoyed listening to was Daniel Faggella, the Founder and Head of Research of Emerj.

Something that featured in his talk was a 3 by 3 matrix, which he calls the Intelligence Trajectory Political Matrix, or ITPM for short. As we’ll be discussing in this episode, one of the dimensions of this matrix is the kind of end goal future that people desire, as intelligent systems become ever more powerful. And the other dimension is the kind of methods people want to use to bring about that desired future.

So, if anyone thinks there are only two options in play regarding the future of AI, for example “accelerationists” versus “doomers”, to use two names that are often thrown around these days, they’re actually missing a much wider set of options. And frankly, given the challenges posed by the fast development of AI systems that seem to be increasingly beyond our understanding and beyond our control, the more options we can consider, the better.