The article, which was written in 1993, is somewhat old, but in my belief, more relevant than ever. The summary reads:

Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.

Is such progress avoidable? If not to be avoided, can events be guided so that we may survive?  These questions are investigated. Some possible answers (and some further    dangers) are presented.

The author discusses the meaning of super-intelligence and the singularity, and investigates potential implications of the event.

Super-intelligence may be defined as an intelligence greater than human intelligence, and one that can be artificially created, or caused (accidental discovery/creation of super-intelligence is not discussed, like the discovery of intelligent life on other planets).

I strongly recommend that you read the article. It has some very exciting and thought-provoking insights, as well as some earth-shattering conclusions.

After reading the article, I realized that I had already starting to note the emergence of one type of super-intelligence already – the Internet.

Imagine the most difficult problems of intelligence individual humans grasp with. For example, consider an individual scientist working in a particular field who runs into an obstacle. We are close to the point where he could “crowdsource or even cloudsource” his way through the problem.

This is vastly different than traditional groups of people, like scientific teams. I’m talking about something like what I can now do with programming questions: Utilize Google + StackOverflow to use the best that machines and human minds have to offer. Of course,
there’s currently no guarantee that the best minds will choose to work on my problems, or that the end result will further expand human knowledge – but I believe we are progressing towards this.

Further, online communities like Reddit are streamlining education and individual human evolution. The influence of a vast community with an above-average intelligence is that its constituents start evolving above-average intelligence. A person with a mild interest in Quantum Physics enters the community, interacts with others with knowledge/experience/intelligence beyond his own, and he/she in turn, becomes more knowledgeable, skilled.

Of course, there’s again no guarantee that the pursuits are ones which further human knowledge or intelligence (exhibit A: http://www.reddit.com/r/cats – a sub-reddit with pictures of cute cats – not that there’s anything wrong with that), and it’s even possible that many of these communities actually hamper the growth of intelligence. An example might be a community focused around the belief that cheeze is evil, and cheeze-makers are taking over the world via some top-secret conspiracy involving banks, secret hand-signs, and mind-controlled cows, etc. However, it is clear to me that the end result is generally positive. I believe instances like the middle-eastern revolutions for freedom may be emergent behavior, though I concede that this is highly speculative.

Imagine, however, that we start streamlining, and quantifying quality of communication online. We could use our collective skills to extract knowledge from the noise, wheat from the chaff. Any discussions could have measurable, objective gains. Very primitive systems to this end exist – the voting systems of reddit, StackOverflow, etc., however, these do not necessarily work well.

Incorrect, incomplete information often bubbles up instead of rationally sound, intelligent information. People with an agenda can create fake consensus, and influence the majority viewpoint. “Cheaters” can find ways to hack the community to further their own ends.

All of these reasons is why I call the present systems “primitive”. I do, however, believe that more sophisticated systems will evolve. When they do, we might start witnessing the birth of Oracle(s), where every question with an answer known to the human race gets answered, and sometimes, even ones that have not been answered yet. Some would say this is already so.

From this point, I can envision these systems evolving, and merging with other systems, possibly even “awakening”, as the author of the linked article has postulated.

I, for one, cannot wait to see where this goes.

This was my impression too, until recently. The Kinect is undoubtedly one of the cooler pieces of technology I have seen recently, and it is also proving to be a commercial hit.

Here’s an interesting application of Kinect that really blew my mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QrnwoO1-8A&feature=player_embedded

Some other interesting research that Microsoft is doing:

• http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/default.aspx?id=139046
• http://www.ted.com/talks/blaise_aguera.html

In a related note, I found this amazingly cool video via a TechCrunch article about one of the videos above: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgTq-AgYlTE&feature=player_embedded

How awesome is technology?! I feel blessed to be born in an age where I can witness and appreciate the amazing changes taking place in the world around us, an age where humanity’s quest for an understanding of the world has reached an apex. We are in the golden age of science, reason and progress – and it’s only going to get better.

A few things are immediately obvious;

• Google’s Android is here to stay, and is picking up even more steam (even if Amazon’s tablet rumor isn’t true, other makers have already started releasing Android tablets). Google has still not released its tablet focused version of Android – Android ‘Gingerbread’ – this will further accelerate adoption.
• Apple has a fight on its hands – I doubt its margins will be affected drastically. Keep in mind, though that many features missing in the iPad (Flash, multiple ports, etc.) are now available with similar or better hardware, innovative features, with comparable or better (arguably) user experiences.
• Users are in for a feast – lots of great options, and all this competition will force down prices

Good times!

Looks awesome! Can’t wait to try it out!

Froyo is a significant upgrade for the Android OS, and users still on 2.1 and below are really missing out. It’s not only important for the users, but also for Google and carriers, because this will significantly improve users’ experience of Android devices. With more people enjoying their Android phones, one can expect greater Android adoption and acceleration of Android sales.

Also important to note is the fact that the Android fragmentation situation is vastly improved, with Google making sure Froyo runs on most of the Android phones out there, and slowly decoupling newer features out of the OS, into independent applications. This way, all users can enjoy the base experience of the latest Android versions, with more advanced features available as applications for the newest phones.

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

- Martin Niemöller, about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group

Google led the way in terms of the waves it created, followed closely by Apple and Facebook. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying that Google had a perfect 6 months, or that it made no mistakes. On the contrary, the reason for this article is my opinion that Google has quite a bit of work to do. Oh, and ignore the title, it was just bait

One of Google’s main strengths has always been, and always will be innovation. Google thrives on challenging the best and delivering.

Take their search engine. From being virtually unknown to becoming a verb for searching the web; or Google Chrome, which everybody (hyperbole) is suddenly using; to Android, the awakening giant. Google has managed to hit home run after home run where technological excellence and innovation are concerned.

But, oh, do they need to learn about people! They have utterly, embarrassingly failed at anything to do with people. Take the Nexus One – arguably the best damn Android phone out there (keep your pantyhose on, I said arguably), but its sales absolutely flopped! Why? Because it was a bad phone? Hell, no!

They smugly assumed, on the basis of their previous efforts, that people would just line up to buy the Nexus One! Without the backing of any major American mobile network firm, without any marketing at all – yeah, not happening.

Or take their decision to have Google Buzz auto-follow people. Or to have their Google’s home page have a background image by default for everybody (for fuck’s sake, don’t mess with my Google Search!). Google seems to have forgotten that data is not people. No matter how many internal tests, surveys, focus groups they run, you cannot possibly anticipate human sentiment or irrationality.

The people at Google are smart enough to eventually figure this out. Eventually, they are going to get people on board their management who get people. I just hope for their sakes and ours that it happens sooner than later!

Looks like you’ve fallen for the old “but it’s gotta be more than just that” trap. I’ll clarify in a moment. But to begin with, I don’t like the phrase “purpose of life”. It just sounds too lofty – as if life has chosen or been assigned a goal for itself. The truth is more like “it happens”. Maybe I’d call it “the impetus of life”. The point is – life is a consequence, not a motive force.

Now to address the other concerns you had. Your first contention is that the propagation of genes is not the only ‘purpose’ of life and you illustrate with the example of the baby kangaroo (kangaroo?! really!!). True, the roo baby runs away from the croc, but it’s an impulse that has evolved to let the roo baby survive into adulthood so it can have its own roo babies. Sure, that’s not what it’s thinking about while it is running away, but that’s only because evolution is very good at fooling ‘life’ to achieve its (evolution’s, not life’s) goals.

Let me illustrate: if a baby – roo or human or whatever – puts its grubby paw into a fire, it will certainly learn a lesson not to do that again. The instinct to withdraw from the source of the pain is exactly that – an instinct. The baby doesn’t think, “oops… what’s that smell. Hmm… doesn’t look too good. I’m going black. Nope… this won’t do. I gotta survive until I’m old enough to bag me some booty. Let’s take that hand outta the fire.” PAIN does all that for the baby without him even realizing it. Just another example of evolution ‘fooling’ us all into achieving its ends. In fact, all our instincts are just evolution’s tricks to make us survive and procreate – fear, pain, hunger, horniness, you name it.

The same applies to people who don’t want to have kids. You see, as far as evolution is concerned it’s not the kids that matter, but sex. Another ‘trick’ of evolution. The theory is that if you have enough sex you’re pretty much guaranteed to become a mommy or daddy soon enough as long as all the organs are working as they should. That’s before we invented condoms and birth control and stuff – but of course that doesn’t really count in evolutionary terms except perhaps to illustrate that evolution has created a sort of Frankenstein in us humans – its creation that is smart enough to thwart evolution’s own mechanisms… heh. But yeah, the point is that even people who don’t want kids like sex.

Sure there are people who feel no pain or hate sex or commit suicide. These anomalies are at the very root of evolution. You see, each ‘copy’ of the genes is slightly different from the previous one. So that causes subtle changes from generation to generation. Usually these changes are too small to make a difference to the offspring in any way, but sometimes they either help it (sharper eyes, bigger brain, pain, fear and so on) or harm it (asymmetrical legs, mental illness, out-of-control emotions, etc). These changes are what cause all evolution. The ones better adapted to survive get to pass on their genes and continue their dynasty while the ‘unfit’ ones do not. For instance, someone who hates sex will not get to pass on his/her genes and that anti-sex impulse will disappear from the gene pool. Or the genes of a baby roo that decides to make friends with the croc will disappear in a crunchy snack. Over millions of years, these little physiological and behavioral changes cause new species to appear and evolve themselves.

To be sure these ‘unfit’ individual exist even among us today – some survive into adulthood only because of modern medicine, and many will not get to pass on their ‘inferior’ genes. I put inferior and unfit in quotes because they’re not absolutes – evolution is dependent on the environment. I won’t go into a thesis here, but suffice it to say that if the environment changes, the ‘inferiority’ or ‘superiority’ of genes (and I mean this ONLY in terms of survivability) can change dramatically. For instance, children with juvenile diabetes would not have survived into adulthood a hundred years ago, but they lead almost normal lives today and even go on to have kids of their own. The environment changed (modern medicine came along) and that particular ‘inferiority’ of their genes suddenly didn’t matter anymore. The same can’t (yet) be said for juvenile Huntington’s patients or those susceptible to fatal early onset cancers. Those genes still have ‘inferior’ survivability and will likely get nipped in the bud.

Moving on to another point – ‘Sacrificing self for others’ might seem like a contradiction, but it’s really not – you wouldn’t normally do it for a stranger, but for the people you love – most likely your spouse and children. By doing that, you’re STILL protecting your own genes by ensuring that they get a chance to continue the dynasty.

And there are even theories of specie-wide bonds that help entire species survive. For instance, if you were wandering through the forest and came upon a leopard and a man facing off, you’re likely to rush to the aid of the human. It’s instinctive, and it’s a weaker bond compared to the one you share with your kids, but it’s there. However if you came upon your brother fighting another guy, you’re likely to help your brother. The theory is that the closer someone is to you in the gene kaleidoscope, the more likely you are to stick up for him or her. Think tribes, states, countries and even races/religions. Again, NOT a perfect or universal behavior by a long shot, but statistically quite accurate.

Then of course there’s also the social influence to consider. It can sometimes override the evolutionary impulse. Ironically, the social instinct has evolved because it helps (statistically) the survival of the species and each individual in it. However, sometimes an individual pays the ultimate price for it. In the end, the price to pay (‘sacrifice’ of an individual) is far outweighed by the reward of social instinct. It’s a numbers game for evolution, not an individuals game.

To address the case of the organism that can’t procreate but continues to fulfill its other needs… It’s like a computer with busted speakers – just because the speaker doesn’t work doesn’t mean the computer will seize up, right? All the other processes that evolution put in place to ensure the transfer of genes will continue to work until the individual dies. Don’t forget – the organism doesn’t know that it’s only a tool in evolution’s hands. It’s only logical – there’s no supreme authority that will automatically eliminate an individual just because its dick doesn’t work or whatever. That ‘negative’ trait of not being able to procreate will automatically disappear from the gene pool because, well, it can’t procreate.

‘Contentment’ or ‘Happiness’ as the purpose of life is a philosophical concept, not an evolutionary concept. An unhappy or discontent individual is just as likely to survive and have kids as a happy one, maybe even more so depending from individual to individual. Evolution doesn’t discriminate based on happiness, only survivability and procreatibility (yup, just invented that word!).

Happiness as the goal of life is great as a philosophical concept. In fact, I couldn’t agree with it more. The ultimate purpose I’ve chosen in life is to bring myself as much happiness as possible. But I don’t think this drive is universal and it is certainly not vital to survival. I don’t even think it’s instinctive, except perhaps at a very basic level where satisfaction of hunger/thirst/sex urge brings ‘happiness’.

Conclusion – The impetus of life is to survive as long as possible or in some species until procreation (as in the case of your spider and many thousands of other species that die as soon as they lay their eggs) and to pass on its genes from generation to generation. In fact that’s the very definition of life.

Think about it – the simplest systems are the ones that are most likely to work and endure for billions of years. It can’t get simpler than “pass those genes”. Everything else is incidental. You can’t have different rules for different species, and as you aptly pointed out, micro-organisms are surely not thinking about spiritual fulfillment. So that leave us with “PASS THOSE DAMN GENES!”

How do they do this? They are able to start slotting you the second you visit a website. Your IP address immediately lets them know where your geographical address, and cookies on your computer help uniquely identify you. Thus starts your profiling. If you are part of an online community or website like Gmail, Yahoo, MSN, they would know what your age, sex, etc., is from your profile.

If you are part of social media websites like Facebook, Orkut, Twitter, this information becomes even more detailed, even allowing them to create a ‘social graph’ of your friends, acquaintances and interactions. In the near future, search engines will start  suggesting more appropriate results for you based on what your friends’ updates, blogs, etc.!

If all this sounds alarming, it should. I am not going to discuss the ethics of this, or suggest solutions. However, I would like to share a very interesting development.

BlueKai, the US’ largest behavioral data provider has opened up their system to enable you to see what information they have on you. By visiting http://tags.bluekai.com/registry, you can see what information their database has about you.

Though BlueKai is a small provider, and has a limited dataset primarily restricted to the US, it is very interesting to see what kind of information they can collect. Check out the demo they’ve shown of how they can collect your information by visiting the fictional website link. They also allow you to remove your personal information from their database.

I think what BlueKai is doing is definitely a step in the right direction. Online marketers should follow in their footsteps, and reveal exactly what personal identifying information, or behavioral data they are collecting. Failing to do so might lead to legislation protecting consumers, or a consumer backlash.