Subject: Book Review: The Age of Spiritual Machines

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 11:56:17 +0300

Here's my review of Ray Kurzweil's 1999 book

	"The Age of Spiritual Machines -
	 When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence"

Availability:
	Hebrew translation is available from Kinneret press, suggested retail
	price of 78 shekels. I bought my copy for 30 shekels in Zomet Sfarim.

Kurzweil's book tries to predict what our lives would be like in the year 2100
(yes, one of his predictions is that we'll all still be "alive" in 2100 - for
the reason I put "alive" in quotes, you'll have to read the book).

A common theme you see in many science-fiction books and films that try to
depict life on earth in 2100, or life of advanced aliens, is the striking
similarity between the way of life of these creatures and our current lives.
Star-Trek is a good example. Sure, Captain Kirk shoots a laser gun, gets
teleported and eats food generated by a machine, but in his world humans (or
other carbon-based life forms) still rule, travel physically in the universe,
get cured by a human doctor, and so on. More unusual life forms are either
relegated to one episode, or given bizarre flaws to explain their rarity
(e.g., Commander Data).

So, what will earth really look like in 97 years, in 2100? What will it
look like in just 17 years, in 2020? Kurzweil sets out to predict the answers
to these questions, and he does so in an enjoyable writing style and using
his extensive technical knowledge and visionary approach. He will shock most
readers by his predictions which initially seem outlandish, but on second
thought suddenly sound very reasonable and very possible - and perhaps even -
undeniable.

The basic premise of this very interesting book is what Kurzweil calls "The
Law of Accelerating Returns". Moore's law, stating (roughly) that the
computing power of a $1000 computer doubles every 12 months, is an example
of Kurzweil's more general law. But Moore law only talks about integrated
circuits made from transistors - this law only became relevant in the 1960s,
and will most likely stop being relevant sometime in the next decade. But
Kurzweil demonstrates that the same "law" of computing acceleration has been
valid ever since 1900 (!): The first computers were mechanical, then came
computers using electro-mechanical relays, then came vacuum tubes, then
stand-alone transistors and finally integrated circuits and VLSI; Computing
continued to accelerate at an almost constant pace throughout all these
changes in paradigms and technologies, and Kurzweil argues that it will
continue to do so - even if we need to replace our IC-based computers by
computers based on massively-parallel neural networks, nanotechnology-
manufactured computers or even quantum computers.  

One you understand Kurzweil's basic premise and agree that it is plausible
(he explains it very well and very convincingly), the unavoidable consequences
are staggering. The most obvious thing that is going to happen if computing
accelerates in its current pace, is that around 2020, a $1000 computer will
have the computing power of a human brain. Very quickly afterwards the
computer "intelligence" will surpass those of humans. In the following decades
other advances in technology like self-replicating nanotechnology will make
relying on human labor and thinking not only unnecessary - it will even be
stupid. Sending a human for exploration missions in outer space in a large
UFO-like spaceship would be extraordinarily silly, when you could send a
computer sized like a grain of rice and having the intelligence of a thousand
humans. By 2100, computer intelligence and the original human intelligence
that started it all will be completely inseparable, according to Kurzweil.
I don't want to spoil your fun of reading the book, so I won't reveal here
more of Kurzweil's predictions.

Kurzweil's book isn't perfect, of course. It discusses philosophical and
moral issues very sparingly. It downplays "modes of failure" (like computer
viruses, renegade nonobots) and the effect of Luddites and underdeveloped
countries. It is very conservative economically (Bill Gates will remain the
richest person in 2050, in 2020 there will be many more lawyers than doctors,
because Intellectual Property will be the most important economic issue).

All-in-all Kurzweil's book is very thought-provoking and I strongly recommend
it. Even if most of his predictions never come true, it really shines a
light on the question of what might happen as computers get stronger and
stronger, too strong to be used merely as a platform for "cute" GUIs like
Mac OS/X or MS-Windows :)

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |         Sunday, Sep 7 2003, 10 Elul 5763
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |I don't eat snails. I prefer fast food.
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |

---

From: Orna Agmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:54:19 +0300 (IDT)

> the reason I put "alive" in quotes, you'll have to read the book).

[snipped]

> computer "intelligence" will surpass those of humans. In the following decades

Computers are indeed getting faster and with more memory, but is this
really comparable to the human mind? Ever since the 60's (at least) they
have been trying for AI, but I do not think the development in this field
can be compared to the physical development of computers.

Does he say anything about how he thinks this will happen?

Orna.

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:42:08 +0300

> Does he say anything about how he thinks this will happen?

People who plan to read this book very soon might not want to read on, because
I'll be spoiling some of your surprises ;)

Yes. Kurzweil concedes that having a computer as strong computationally as
a human brain doesn't necessarily mean that we'll have the software as good
as the "software" that "runs" on the human brain.

His response to this attack is two-pronged:

First, he claims that together with the improvement of computing power, we're
going to see improvement in other relvant technologies. One of these
technologies is scanning human brains using MRI-like technologies with ever-
increasing resolution (what he calls "bandwidth"). By 2020 Kurzweil predicts
we could destructively scan the entire structure of a (dead) human brain, and
by 2050 we will be able to non-destructively scan a live human brain (I'm
writing this from memory, so perhaps I got the dates wrong). Scanning the
complete structure of a brain will supposedly allow us to replicate exactly
the "mind" of a person on a computer, which is one way of making a computer do
what a human can do. Such scanning will also allow scientists to better
understand how the brain is built, copying "algorithms" from it (like how to
do face recognition, how to read, how to understand language, etc.) into
artificial neural networks on a computer.
One really interesting observersion Kurzweil makes is that the "algorithms"
in the human brain are much "smaller" than appear in first glance. He estimates
the amount of DNA that specifies the human brain to contain only 10 MB of data.
Yes, something 1/10th the size of Open Office ;) How can 10 MB of code specify
something like our brain that contains thousands of times more information?
The "trick", Kurzweil says, is that a fetus brain starts out with a lot of
random neural connections (this, of course, doesn't need any "data" to specify)
and appropriate algorithms to build correct connections based on input data
the baby gets in the very first years of its life. Similarly, we might
theoretically build a computer that has a few-megabyte-large program and then
goes on to listen, see and read, like a child normally would, until it built
the knowledge of an adult human. But how do we write this 10MB program?
Understanding the human brain might give us some ideas. Evolution has worked
on it for a lot more years than our human programmers can spare ;)

Kurzweil's second reponse to your "attack" is that "AI" is a moving target:
Whenever a computer can do something it couldn't do before, we suddenly say
this is not "real" intelligence. For example, a computer can now beat the
world chess champion and it couldn't do so in the 60s. Did we conclude that
computers have become smarter than humans? No, we concluded that playing chess
doesn't require intelligence :) Similarly, computers can now read written
text (OCR), understand words spoken to it ("continuous speech recognition"),
translate texts (as varying degrees of accuracy), create music and paintings
of certain complexity, and other stuff they weren't able to do in the 60s.
Right, computers still don't pass the "Turing Test". But the Turing Test
basically requires a single computer to have all the faculties of the human
brain - understanding and producing language, recognizing patterns, memory
and knowledge of the world, the concept of "self", emotions, sense of humor,
and so on. Would a computer that knows how to do just one of those things,
or just a few of them be "intelligent" or not?

Another thing to remember that in 2020 computers will be (according to
Kurzweil's predictions) as strong (computationally) as the human brain,
but in 2030 they will be 1000 stronger. Given such huge margins, it is
conceivable that even lousily-designed software we put on these computers
will appear to be as intelligent as a human.

You might like to read Kurzweil's original arguments, rather than my "broken
telephone" (how do you call that in English?) version of his arguments.

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |        Sunday, Sep 14 2003, 17 Elul 5763
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-790466, ICQ 13349191 |The human mind is like a parachute - it
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |functions better when it is open.

---

From: Orna Agmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 18:29:06 +0200 (IST)

> telephone" (how do you call that in English?) version of his arguments.

I think, out of all those tasks that a computer needs to be able to do in
order to pass the Turing test, the humor part is the most difficult. Humor
changes between places and times. I wonder, what defines humor?

It ranges from sharp tongues (??) such as word games to slapstick, and we
recognize it all as humor.

Can anyone draw a plan as to how to teach a computer to laugh? Say we
define laugh as print "LOL", and define smile as print ":)". How would a
computer know when to print any of those, and when to operate an Eliza
program?

P.S.

I do actually classify OCR and speach recognition under AI.

Orna.

---

From: Muli Ben-Yehuda <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 19:16:39 +0200

> changes between places and times. I wonder, what defines humor?

There is an excellent science fiction story, where the main question
is what makes humans laugh? In order to not give the story away, I'll
just mention that it ends with the alien / entity that was looking for
the answer to the above question laughing, and laughing, and
laughing... Anyone knows what story I'm thinking about?

> computer know when to print any of those, and when to operate an Eliza

Judging by IRC or AOL, randomly would do just fine ;-) 
-- 
Muli Ben-Yehuda
http://www.mulix.org | http://mulix.livejournal.com/

"the nucleus of linux oscillates my world" - gccbot@#offtopic

---

From: Orna Agmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 21:24:51 +0200 (IST)

> laughing... Anyone knows what story I'm thinking about?

I was thinking of a story by Asimov, which involves Multivac, but I don't
think it is this one.