TechStuff Enters the Singularity

we're talking about kind of a science fiction future. We're talking about the singularity and uh, long time listeners to tech Stuff and I'm talking about folks who listen way back before we ever talked out at thirty minutes, let alone an hour. May remember that we did an episode about how Ray Kurtzwild works. And Ray Kurtzwild is a futurist and one of the things he talks about extensively, particularly if you corner him at a cocktail party, is

the singularity. And so we wanted to talk about what the singularity is, why this idea, you know, we really wanted to kind of dig down into it, and why is this a big deal? And how realistic is this vision of the future. Yeah, because some people would take a little bit of h would would argue with your concept of it being science fiction. They take it extremely serious. Oh yeah, they say it's science fact, science fact, it's science inevitability. Yeah, the time. The term was actually coined

by a mathematician, John von Newman in the nineteen fifties. Um, but it was popularized by a science fiction writer. Yeah, it's also Ah, there are a lot of different concepts that are tied up together, and it all depends on upon whom you ask what it means by the singularity.

For instance, there's some people who when you hear the term the singularity, what they say is, Okay, that's a time when we get to the point where technological advances are coming so quickly that it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation of what the state of technology is because it changes. It changes five the milliseconds. So that's one version.

But most of the versions that that we're familiar with that the futurists talk about incorporate an idea of superhuman intelligence or the intelligence explosion, right, a kind of combination of of human and technological development that just dovetails into this gorgeous you know, space baby from two thousand one kind of that's an excellent way of putting it. The documentary two thousand one. I remember specifically when the space baby looked at Earth. Okay, but that documentary example doesn't

work at all. He usually does, but not this time. Yeah, not this time. Sorry. Space babies are a poor example in this in this one instance. But but metaphorically speaking, yes, you're right on track, because the intelligence explosion. That was a term introduced by someone known as Irving John Good, or if you want to go with, his birth name is a door Ja cub Gudak. I can see why

he changed it. Yeah he uh. He actually worked for a while at Bletchley Park with another fellow who who made sort of a name for himself in computer science, a fellow named Alan Turing. I guess I've heard of him. Yeah. Touring will come up in the discussion a little bit later, but but for right now, So Irving John Good just just a little quick anecdote that I thought was amusing. So Good was working with Touring to try and help

break German codes. I mean, that's what Bletchley Park was all about, right, So Good apparently one day drew the ire of touring when he decided to take a little cat nap because he was tired and he was It was Good's philosophy that being tired did not mean that. He meant that he was not going to work at his best, and he might as well go ahead and nap, exactly, take a nap, get refreshed, and then tackle the problem again,

and you're more likely to solve it. Whereas touring was very much a workhorse, you know he was he was no rest, no rest, let's do it. So touring, when he discovered that Good had been napping, decided that that this was the Good was not so good um and and touring Touring sort of treated him with disdain. He

began to essentially not speak to Good. Good meanwhile, began to think about the letters that were being used to in Enigma codes to code German messages, and he began to think, what if these letters are not completely random? What if the Germans are relying on some letters more frequently than others, And he began to look at frequency of these letters being used. He made up a table and mathematically analyze the frequency that certain letters were used

and discovered that there was a bias. Yeah, so he said, well, with this bias, that means that we can start to narrow down the possibilities of these codes. And in fact he was able to demonstrate that this was a way to help break German codes, and Touring, when he saw Good's work, said the sword, I tried that, but but

clearly that showed that it worked well. And then Good and another point apparently went to sleep one day and they've been working on a code that they just could not break, and while he was sleeping, he dreamed that perhaps when the Germans were encoding this particular message, they used the letters in reverse of the way they were actually printed, and so he tried that when he woke up, and it turned out he was right. And so then his argument was Touring, I need to go to bed.

So yeah, yeah, what the moral of the story here is that naps are good and no one should talk to you, right, yeah, yeah, that's how I live my life. But yeah, so so Good's point anyway, he came up with this term of the intelligence explosion, and it was this this sort of idea that we were going to reach a point where we are increasing either our own intelligence or some sort of artificial intelligence so far beyond what we are currently capable of understanding, that life as

we know it will change completely. And because it's going to go beyond what we know right now there's no way to predict what our life will be like because it's beyond our because it is by definition, out of our comprehension. Yes, as the Scots would say, it's beyond our ken are we going to be doing accents this episode? That was a terrible one. I actually regret doing it right now. I already knew I couldn't do Scottish and

yet there I went. Anyway, your trail placing again, So to kind of backtrack a bit before we really get into the whole singularity discussion, that was just a brief overview. A good foundation to start from is the concept of Moore's law. You know, originally Gordon Moore, who, by the way, it was a co founder of a little company called Intel.

Uh he he originally observed back in nineteen sixty five in a paper it I'm going to I'm gonna with this, but it was called something like cramming more components onto integrated circuits something like that. That was that was actually cramming was definitely one of the words used um and circuit probably was to Anyway, he noticed that over the course of I think originally it was twelve months, but today we consider it two years, uh eight twenty four months,

I think is the official unofficial right right right? Yeah, that that the number of discrete components on a a square inch silicon wafer would double due to improvements in manufacturing and efficiency. So that, uh, in effect, what this means to the layman is that our electronics and particularly

our computers get twice as powerful every two years. So if you bought a computer in and then bought another computer in two thousand, in theory, the computer in two thousand would be twice as powerful as the one fro. This is exponential growth. Uh. That's an important component, this

idea of exponential growth. And it goes without saying that if you continue on this path, if this, if this continues indefinitely, then you know, you quickly get to computers of almost unimaginable power just a decade out certainly, although I mean I still don't really understand what a gigabyte means because when when I first started using computers, we were not counting in that. I mean, I mean I

was still impressed by kilobytes at the time. So yeah, now, I remember the first time I got a hard drive, I think it had like a two fifty megabyte hard drive, and I thought, who needs that much space? Now? Gad, that's that's space we're talking about, not even processing pis.

So yeah, it's it's it's one of those things where the older you are, the more incredible today, is right, because you start looking at computers and you think, I remember when these things came out and they were essentially the equivalent of a of a really good desktop calculator.

So but Moore's law states that this advance will continue indefinitely until we hit some sort of fundamental obstacle that we just cannot engineer our way around, right, you know, And people that that's why it's it's kind of in contention right now, because people are saying that, well, there's there's only so much physical space that you can fit onto with with silicone, there's there's there's a physical limitation to the material in which there's only so much you

can do about it, And so does more It's law still apply if we're talking about other materials, and what's you know, right, and and how small can you get before you start to run into quantum effects that are impossible to work around? Uh? And then do you change the geometry of a chip. Do you go three dimensional

instead of two dimensional? Would that help? And yeah, there are a lot of engineers are working on this, and frankly, pretty much every couple of years, someone says, all right, this is the year Moore's law, and it's good to end. It's over, it's done with. Five years later, you're still going strong, and then someone else is gonna end. It's a little bit of a self fulfilling prophecy. I think that a lot of companies a to to keep it going,

to keep it going, Oh sure, yeah, yeah, yeah. No one wants to be the ones to say, uh, guys, guess what, we can't keep up with More's law anymore. No one wants to do that, so it is a good motivator. Also, if I can putting out myself real quick, I'm pretty sure that I just pronounced silicon is silicone, and I would like I would like to stay for the record that I know that those are two different substances. Okay,

that's fair. Anyway, I was I was going to ask you about it, but by the time you're you were finished talking, I thought, let's just go Yeah, that's cool, it's all right. If you knew how many times I

have used that particular pronunciation to to hilarious results. Um. So moving on with this, this whole idea about Moore's law, I mean, the reason this plays into the singularity is with the technological advances, you start to be able to achieve pretty incredible things, and uh, even within one generation of Moore's law, which is kind of a meaningless term.

But let's say, let's say you arbitrarily pick a date and then two years from date you look and see what's possible with the new technology and getting to twice as much power however you wanted to. Fine, it doesn't necessarily mean that you've only doubled the amount of things you can do with that power. You may have limitless things you can do. So with that idea, you're talking about being able to power through problems way faster than you did before. And there's lots of different ways of

doing that. For example, um, grid computing. Grid computing is when you are linking computers together to work on a problem all at once. Now, this works really well with certain problems, parallel problems we call them. Uh. These are problems where there are lots of potential solutions and each computer essentially is working on one set of potential solutions, and that way you have all these different computers working on it at the same time. It reduces the overall

time it takes to solve that parallel problem. Uh and so, um like if you've ever heard of anything like folding at home or the set project where you could dedicate your computer's idle time. So the problem the idle processes, the processes that are not being used while you're serving the web or writing how the singularity works, or I don't know, uh, building a architectural program in in in some sort of CAD application. Anything that you're not using

can be dedicated to one of these projects. Same sort of idea that, uh, you don't necessarily have to build a supercomputer to solve complex problems if you use a whole bunch of computers, whole bunch of small ones. Large Hadron Collider does this, although they use very nice advanced computers, but they do a lot of grid computing as well. So uh So, just using those kind of models, we see that we're able to do much more sophisticated things than we could if we were Certainly, Yes, networks, as

it turns out, are pretty cool. Yeah, and networks play a part in this idea of the singularity. Um. Actually, I guess now is a good time. We'll we'll kind of transition into Verner Vengees And honestly, I don't know how to say his last name. I say venge and it could end up being Vinghi. But I just went with what you said. So that's great, that's fine. What we'll say that Vench says everything is silicone. Uh, so

Verner though he Verne, I call him Verne. Ah he He suggested four different potential pathways that humans could take, or really that the world could take to arrive at the technological singularity. Okay, the four ways are we could develop a superhuman artificial intelligence, So computers suddenly are able to think on a level that's analogous to the way humans think and can do it better than right. Uh, whether or not that means computers are conscious, that's debatable.

We'll get into that too. Computer networks could somehow become self aware. That's number two. So yes, sky net so like like the grid computing. We were just talking about that somehow using these grid computers, the network itself having enough cycles and enough pathways and enough loops back around it starts going like, hey, I recognize this, starts thinking about like like like thinking about IBM S Watson. But

it's distributed across a network. So computers, you can think of computers is all being super powerful neurons in a brain, and that the network is actually neural pathways. And it's definitely a science fiction a e way of looking at things. Doesn't mean it won't happen, but stranger things, my friends. It feels like a matrix kind of thing to me.

Then we have the idea that computer human interfaces are so advanced and so intrinsically tied to who we are, that humans themselves evolved beyond being human, we become trans human.

So this is an idea that we almost merge with computers that on some level via kind of nanobot technology, you know, stuff stuff running through our bloodstream, stuff in our yea, or we have just brain interfaces where our consciousness, our consciousness is connected to so so for example, we might have it where instead of connecting to the Internet via some device like a smartphone or a computer, yeah, it's right there in our our meat brains, so that

you know you're sitting there having a conversation with someone. Then you're like, oh, wait, what movie was that guy in? Let me just look up I am dB in my brain.

And then you you know, depending on how good your connection is, which means, by the way, if you are a journalist and you attend ce s, you will automatically be dumber because all the all the internet connectivity will be taken up and so you'll be sitting there trying to ask good questions and drool will come out of your mouth, which to me is a typical c E S. I can I can only assume that that wireless technology would advance also at this point, but one can only

hope fingers problems. There are certain technologies that are not advancing at the exponential rate of Moore's lave, which is another problem. We'll talk about that. And then the fourth and final method that Werner had suggested the world may go would be that humans would advance so far in biological sciences that they would allow us to engineer human intelligence so that we could make ourselves as smart as

we wanted to be. This is sort of that Gattica future where we've got all the another another great documentary, where we we engineer ourselves to be super smart. So those are the four pathways artificial intelligence, computer networks become self aware, computer human interface has become really really awesome, or we have biologically engineered human intelligence and uh, and all four of these lead to a similar outcome, which

is this intelligence explosion. And this is the idea that some form of superhuman intelligence is created, either artificially or within our elves, and that at that point we will no longer be able to predict what our world will will be like because by definition, we will have a

superhuman intelligent entity involved. And and because that's superhuman, it's beyond our ability to predict which is you know, which, which makes thought, experience experiments about it a little bit uh philosophical, that's the kind way of putting it, uh, pointless. Would be another way of putting up like we could, we could, you know, sit there and and and spitball a whole bunch of possible futures. But that's the thing, they're possible. We don't know which one could come out.

We don't even know if these four pathways are inevitable. We have futurists who truly believe that this is something that will happen at some point there are other people who are more skeptical, but we'll talk about them in a bit. So one of the outcomes that Werner was talking about, uh, and it's it's a fairly popular one in futurist circles is the idea of the robo apocalypse. Essentially, this is where you've got the humans are bad, destroy

all humans idea. Essentially the the ideas that humans would become extinct, either through definition because we've evolved into something else or because whatever the super human intelligence is in besides, we are a problem. Yeah, and a lot a lot of futures are a lot more positive about that. They're they're more looking forward to it than being scared of it. It's less of oh, no, big scary robots are coming to take over our society, and more of a robots

are coming to take over society like free day, Yeah exactly. Yeah, Yeah, I don't have to work anymore, and and I don't because robots are are supplying all the things we need. There's no need for anyone to work anymore. There's no need for money anymore, because the only reason you need money is so you can buy stuff. But if everything is free, then you don't need you, So it becomes Star Trek and we all, you know, run around in jumpsuits and punch people. And if you're Kirk, you make

out a lot. I mean a lot that dude. Every week, Piccard and Ryker, if you add them together, make one Kirk and yes, in this documentary series Star Trek. I don't know about Archer because I never watched Enterprise, So you guys have to get back to me on that. Yeah, sorry, sorry about that. It's also a gap in my personal understanding. I just took one look at that decontamination chamber and said, yep,

I'm out um anyway. So that's that's Werner Avenge. Uh. It's he's sort of popularized this idea, but he's there are other people who have kind of I think their names are synonymous with it, and we will talk about them in just a minute, but for now, let's take a moment to thank our sponsor and now back to the show. So Verner Venge again very much associated with the idea of the singularity. But there's another name that

comes up all the time, right, Kurtswile, r Kurtswile. And this is a fellow who has been referred to in various circles, as as the Thomas Edison of Modern Technology or um or or, perhaps more colorfully, the Willy Wonka of Technology that was by Jeff Duncan of Digital Trends, and I just wanted to shout out because that was great, Um, but you get nothing. I shared a remix of Willy Wonka earlier today and it's still playing through my head. We're fans, we might be fans of the Gene Wilder

Willy Wonka. Everyone, everyone, homework assignment. Go watch that. It has nothing to do with the singularity singularity at all. I don't know there's some chocolate singularity in their chocolate singularity. I want episode on that band. If I were better at cover band names, I totally would have said something witty right there. Yeah, all right, well, fair enough, we'll say it's the archiese for sugar Sugar, Oh dear, Oh my goodness. Okay, So Ray hurts while Ray hurts, while

Um is the kind of cat who you know. When he was in high school, UM invented a computer program. And this is in the mid nineteen sixties. This isn't like last year or something. In the mid nineteen sixties created a computer program that listened to classical music, found patterns in it, and then created new classical music based on that. So it's a computer that composed classical music following the rules of classical music that other composers had created. Yes,

that's kind of cool. That's just that's just something he did, you know, And yeah, dudes get credentials. Yeah, it's He also kind of invented flatbed scanners, has done a whole bunch of stuff in speech recognition, and which that's interesting because well, and we'll talk about that in a second.

But but one of Kurt's Well's big points is that he thinks that by and this all depends upon which interview you read of kurts Well, but in various interviews he said that essentially, by twenty th we will reach a point where we will be able to make an artificial brain. Well, we'll we'll have reverse engineered the brain and we'll be able to create an artificial one. Uh. There's a lot of debate in in Uh, in smarter circles than the ones I move in. Uh, that's not

a that's not a slap against my friends. They're pretty bright, but none of us are neuro cheologically gifted at that point. UM, I include myself in that in that circle. So, but there there's some very bright people who debate about this point, whether or not will be able by the year twenty thirty to reverse engineer the brain and design an artificial one. And I think the debate is not so much on whether or not will have the technological power necessary to

to uh simulate a brain. And we can simulate brains on a certain superficial level today. I mean hypothetically we could connect enough computers that we could make it go. I think, yeah, we could probably get the computer horsepower, especially by twenty thirty to simulate a human brain. The question is whether we will understand the human brain enough exactly. So uh, that's that sort of where the debate lies.

It's not so much on the technological side of things as it is the biological side of things, which is kind of interesting. Um. I've read a lot of critics who who have really jumped on Kurtswil for this. Particularly PZ.

Myers has written some pretty um yeah, strongly worded, strongly worded criticisms to Kurtzwild's theories, saying that that Kurtzwild simply does not understand neurological development and activities, and that you know, the nature between the environment and are are the way our brains develop over time versus the you know, nurture versus nature, all of this stuff with hormonal changes, electrochemical reaction, saying that there's there's so many little bits that make

up our brains, so many hormones, so many processes, and we understand such a small fraction of what they do. This is why a lot of psychiatric drugs, for example, are kind of like, oh, well, we invented this thing, and we guess it. Does this thing? Take it and see what happens? We stuff don't it tends to make you happy. H It also makes you perceived the color red as having the smell of oranges, like you know

that that's we don't. We don't understand it fully. And in fact, there are other people like Stephen Novella, who is uh he's the author of the Neurological Blog, and he also is a host on a wonderful podcast called Skeptics Guide to the Universe. If you guys haven't listened to that, you should try that out if you especially

if you like skepticism, and critical thinking. But he's he's a doctor and a proponent of evidence based medicine, and he talks about how, uh, you know, we don't know how much we don't know about the brain, Like we we have no way of knowing where the endpoint is as far as the brain is concerned, and therefore we cannot guess at how long it will take us to reverse engineer it simply because we don't know where the

finish line is, right, right, Yeah. Kurt Kurt Swile Church of Ball has a new book new as of we're recording this in January. It just came out in November called How to Create a Mind. The Secret of Human Thought Revealed, and and in the book he theorizes that, um, okay, if you'll follow me for a second, atoms are tiny bits of data DNA. It's a form of a program. The nervous system is a computer that coordinates bodily functions, and thought is kind of simultaneously a program and the

data that that program contains. This is another problem that some scientists have, is reducing the human brain to the model of a computer, right because it's you know, it's it's a very it's a very elegant, interesting proposition and and it's kind of sexy like that because you go like, oh, well that's that that sort of makes sense. Man Like, let's go get a pizza and talk about this more. Let me let me get a program that will allow me to suddenly know all kung fu. And when you're

a programmer, that's a great plan. I mean that sounds that sounds terrific. But yeah, there's um one one specific guy found, Jarren Lanier wrote a terrific thing called one Half of a Manifesto, which is a really entertaining read if you guys like this kind of thing. Where and he was saying that what futurists are talking about when they talk about this the singularity is basically a religion. He was calling it cybernetic totalism. Uh, you know, like

like a fanatic ideology. He compares it to Marxism at some point. Yeah. Um, and he was saying that that, you know, it's this, this theory is a terrific theory if you want to get into the philosophy of who we are and what we do and what technology is. But that you know, cybernetic patterns aren't necessarily the best way to understand reality, and that they're not necessarily the best model for how people work, for how culture works, for how intelligence works. And that's saying so isn't gross

over simplification. That's a good point, and uh, we should also point out that it all depends on how you define intelligence as well, because Kurt Swell himself has worded his own predictions in such a way that that some

would argue. Novella argues, for example, that he has given himself enough room where he's going to be right no matter what, like saying that by we will be able to reverse engineer basic brain functions, and novellasis will technically, you could argue that now, so that kind of gives you a lot of room. Yeah. But um, but whether or not it means total brain function, that's that's a

totally different question. And so the other point is that we could theoretically create an artificial intelligence that does not necessarily reverse engineer the brain. It doesn't follow the human intelligence model. I mean, that's IBM S. Watson again, a good example of artificial intelligence that you know, in some ways it mimics the brain because it kind of has to.

You know, are coming at this human beings are the ones creating this technology, and so as human beings creating this technology, it's going to follow the rules that as we understand them. So there's going to be some imgree there. But but IBM S Watson, you know, you think about that. It doesn't really understand necessarily the data that's passing through it. It's looking for the connections and making just making making

connections and recognizing patterns and spitting out useful information. Yeah, it's it's looking for whatever answer is most likely the right one. It's all probability based, right, So, and if it doesn't reach a certain threshold, it doesn't provide the answer. So if arbitrarily speaking, I don't know what the threshold is, so I'm just making a number. Let's say it has to be certain or higher for it to give that answer. If that if the if a certainty falls below that threshold,

no answer is given. That's essentially how it worked when Watson was on jet right. It would analyze the the the the answer in jeopardy terms, and then come up with what it thought was probably the most accurate question for that answer, and occasionally it was wrong to hilarious results, but it did sort of seem to kind of mimic the way humans think, at least on a superficial level. And I mean the thing about humans is that they're they're wrong a lot more than a lot more than

what that fifteen percent at the time something. Yeah, it's you know, it's we've we've got well, we give answers even if we're not short the question. I certainly do, because we all know from going to trivia nights m. Yeah. And and there's there's a lot of I've read a lot on online about arguments of how it's our deficiencies are memory biases, are rational behavior? Are weird hormonal stuff going on? Or what makes us human? And that you can't teach a computer to be irrational. That's true. Uh,

although you can't teach you to swear, you can. We just we read a story last week, yeah, where where IBM allowed Watson to read the Urban Dictionary and then I Watson got a little bit of a potty mouth. It got it got kind of fresh. It did it did it started it started to say that, Uh, oh see what was it? Oh, I'm going to say something and it's going to be bleaped out right. Tyler Tyler Tyler just said so. Uh. Anyway, So there's one point where a researcher asked a question of Watson, and Watson

included within the answer the word so. Since I was bleeped out, you probably don't know what it was, so go look it up. It was funny. It was really funny. Yes, and then and then they basically nuked that part of Watson from orbit. They were like, you know what, never mind, it was the only way to be sure. They wiped out the Urban Dictionary from Watson's memory. They also said that a very similar thing happened when they let Watson

read Wikipedia. No judgments here, just saying what what IBM said. Anyway, Again, the computer was unable to determine when, when, when it was appropriate. What's the appropriate context for dropping a swear word? It didn't know, so it just started to speak kind of like my wife does. So, uh, yeah, it was I'm going to pay for that later. Uh So, anyway, that that that's an interesting point though. Again you're you're showing how machine intelligence and human intelligence are different because

the machine intelligence doesn't have that context. Sure, and of course, you know we're talking about about science fiction or science future. However, you want to term it so that you know, we might very well come up with a fancy little program script that lets you that lets you introduce that kind of bias. But you know, yeah, but again from that documentary Star Trek, I mean data never figured out those contractions. Touring actually had a great uh mental exercise really and

it's called the Touring test. And this this applies to artificial intelligence. Tourings point and we've talked about the train

test in previous episodes of tech Stuff. But just as a refresher, Touring had suggested that you could create a test and that if a machine could pass that test at the same level as a human in other words, uh, if you were unable to determine that the person who took that test was human or machine, the machine had passed the touring test and had had essentially simulated human intelligence and h It usually works as an interview, so you have someone who's who's conducting an interview, and you

have either a machine answering or a human answering, and there's a barrier up so that of course the person asking the questions cannot see who is responding, and of course they're responding through you know, text usually because if they're responding through a voice and it's like, I think the answer as far you know, you'd be like, well, either it's a robot or the most boring person in

the world. Uh. The idea being you would ask these questions over a computer monitor, get text responses, and if you were unable to to answer with a certain degree of accuracy whether or not it was a machine or a person, then you would say the machine passed the tour and uh and and you could argue, well, that could just mean that the machine is very good at mimicking human intelligence. It does not actually possess human intelligence. Touring's point is, does that matter? Because I know that

I am intelligent. I speak with someone like Lauren, who I assume is also intelligent based upon the responses she gives, But she could just be simulating intelligence. However, I have I have already bestowed in my mind the the feature of intelligence upon Lauren, because what she does is very much akin to what I do. So Touring said, if you extend the courtesy to your fellow human being that they are intelligent based on the fact that they act like you do, why would you not do the same

thing for a machine. Does it matter if the machine can actually think, If the machine simulates thought well enough for it to pass as human, then you're giving it the same benefit of doubt that anyone else. This is what a lot of science fiction movies are about. Actually, Yeah, there's a lot of philosophy, and a lot of philosophy, a lot of Isaac Asthma, of a lot of Blade Runner and and and that's a sorry, well no, but

you know Philip K. Dick look him up. So anyway than you do Android's dream of electric Sheep, I won't I won't spoil it for you. Uh. They to kind of wrap this all up, getting back into the discussion of philosophy. Uh, we had very recently we did a

podcast about are we living in a computer simulation? And that kind of plays into this idea of the singularity, because that argument stated that if the singularity is in fact possible, if it's inevitable, if we are going to reach this level of trans humanism where we are no longer able to really predict what the present will be like because it will be beyond our understanding, then why thing we would expect to do is create simulations of our past to kind of study ourselves and to see

what happens play around variables. Yeah, they like good experiments. Yeah, and we could we could, if we're that advanced, we could, in theory, create such a realistic simulation that the inhabitants of that simulation would be incapable of knowing that they were artificial and would be completely you know, self aware of themselves. You know, that was totally redundant, self aware

and uh, but unable to know that they were a simulation. Uh. He said that if those things are possible, then there's no way of knowing that, you know, the the overwhelming uh possibility is that we are in a computer simulations computer simulation right now, because yeah, if that's if that's what's gonna happen, then there's no way of saying with certainty that we are not in fact the product of that.

And so, uh, the point being not necessarily that we are in fact living in a computer simulation, but that perhaps the single larry this transhumanism thing might not be realistic. It might not be the future that we're headed to. Maybe it ends up being a pipe dream that's not really possible for us to attain, or maybe we'll wipe ourselves out through some terrible war or catastrophic accident. Um, maybe we create a biological entity that wipes us out all of the stand h we create a black hole

at the LHC. Which come on, people don't write me. I already know about that, and how tiny and and and almost non existent they are because it lasted so quickly. Let's say that they do that thing where you look at that one website where the black hole forms in the parking lot outside the LHC, and you just see the whole picture go um, which funny video. Anyway, that's that argument plays back into this. So I don't know. I don't know if we're going to ever see a

future where the singularity becomes a thing. Oh and we never really talked about it. But one of the big points that kurts Well really punches in his Singularity talks is the idea of digital immortality, right right. And he's been obsessed with this I and and obsessed is probably a judgmental word. I apologize that's but he's been very focused on this concept. His father died when he was about twenty four, and he's been exploring theories on life

extension ever since then. And uh and supposedly takes all kinds of supplements and sells them as well to extend life, has all kind of kinds of health plans, dietary plans that he has exercise all this the idea that the idea being that if he can preserve his own last long enough that we hit the singularity, then he can become immortal. Right and either that, you know, we attain

immortality through one of a thousand different ways. For example, we end up uploading our own intelligence into the cloud and then we become part of a group asciousness, so we are no longer really individuals. Or we merge with computers in some other way so that we are technically immortal that way. Or we just conquer the genes that all guide a the aging process and we stop it and we stop disease, you know, we we take like in transmant you just take a cancer pill and then

you don't get cancer because that's what you do. Yeah, So again the singularity. That's kind of why I think a lot of critics also point to it as being more of a religion, because it's kind of this sort of utopian pipe dream in their minds. There's the former CEO of Lotus, Mitch Kapor Kappa, I'm not sure how you say it. Once called called it the intelligent design for the i Q one for people. Yeah. Ouch, well, well, kurtz Wild's kind of laughing all the way to the bank.

I hear that a company that rhymes with Schmoogle hired him a little little people. I mean, we're you probably wouldn't have heard of him, Yeah, but yeah, they just hired him on to be I have it in my notes at the official title. I think it's the director of engineering. Yeah, a director of engineering over there. Um, they get they get some big names. I mean, they had vent Surf as the chief evangelists, and of course

he was one of the fathers of the Internet. So Google's Google's gotta They're known for for getting some really smart people. And and to be fair, while the singularity may or may not ever happen, I think it's important that we have optimists in the field of technology who are really pushing for our development to try and make

the world a better place for people. Now, you know, absolutely so, even if we're even if we never reach the point of digital immortality in our lifetimes or any other it's I mean, if if someone wants to think so big that that they want to put in nanobots to make my body awesomer. I mean, and and not that that came out that came out possibly crude. I mostly means that I don't get cancer and die, um kind of stuff. That's that's terrific. I can I can't

argue with any part of that. Yeah, I'm gonna be on video so much this year that I definitely need my body to be awesomer, So I'm all for that. Well either way, yes, and and and Google. You know, Google looks forward so much to two augmented reality, augmented reality. I'm sorry, I'm I can't pronounce anything today. I am on a non role in the Internet of Things and all of that wonderful future tech that it seems like a terrific fit. Yeah. Yeah, so we'll see how how

it goes. I mean, obviously, the nice thing about this is that all we have to do is live long enough to see it happen or not happen. And most predictions have the singularity hitting somewhere between twenty and that we'll find out. Yeah, it all depends on upon which futurists you're asking. And also it's one of those kind of I think it's one of those rolling goal posts as well. You know how how certain technologies are always twenty years away, or five years away or ten years away.

So we'll see. Maybe maybe by we'll be saying, all right, we've revised our figures seven days definitely, but but who know us, We'll see. Guys. If you have any suggestions for future episodes of tech Stuff, well here's what you can do. You can write us an email. And a lot of people have been asking about our email address. I do say that every episode, but in case you've missed it, listen carefully. Our email address is tech Stuff

at Discovery dot com. Send an email. I'll prove it by writing back, or drop us a line on Facebook. Our Twitter are handled there at both of us. Is text Stuff hs W and Lauren and I will talk to you again in the future. For more on this and thousands of other topics. Is it hastaff works dot com.