Artificial intelligence, intelligence, life ... How long to wait for them?
I'm afraid I have already waited. At least, artificial life - so surely they have waited, and even more. And how do you expand life at a speed of 6 planets per hour - impressive? Want to know more - read on.
But before that I allow myself (and I recommend you) a little fantasy about what we (humanity) would order to make the ideal performer (a sort of gin from a bottle or a goldfish on a planetary scale) serve. Those. Imagine that humanity created robots that everyone can, everyone can do, serve humanity in everything and they don’t pereoca. What would be the challenge for such perfect performers of the will of mankind? For now, think about it, and I will return to this question at the end of the article.
Now there will be some numbers. I have tried to reduce their number, which would not particularly overload you, dear reader.
')
Let's remember how the number of people has changed over the past ... well, at least 20 years. Wikipedia claims that from five billion with a small change to almost seven (approximately), i.e. 1.3 times. And how did the number of computers increase over the past 20 years? Unfortunately, there are no statistics on the number of computers, but there are statistics on computer sales. Suppose that the entire computer park is completely updated every three years, i.e. It is necessary to sum up the number of sales for this year and the previous two. It turns out that in 1990 there were about 56 million computers. And now you need to find statistics on sales of computers, smartphones and tablets over the past few years. The numbers in different places will be different. It turned out that on average computers (including laptops) sold for 300 million a year, smartphones and tablets for about 200 million (after all, modern smartphones and tablets will be much faster than computers of the 90s). If the numbers you find will be very different from mine - let me know. But, by and large, I am only interested in the order of numbers, and plus or minus 10-20-30% percent does not play a special role. The total is (200 + 300) * 3 = 1500 million, i.e. one and a half billion. And the growth over the past 20 years was: 1500/56 = 26 times. Very good, against the background of 1.3 times in humans. But that is not all.
And how did the average performance of computers increase? About? If my memory serves me, then the execution of one instruction previously required several cycles, and the frequencies were of the order of tens of megahertz, i.e. about 1 million operations per second. And now? And now several operations per clock, frequencies of the order of a gigahertz and several cores. Suppose that on average two gigahertz, two cores, two teams per clock. Multiply and get 8 billion. Those. growth over the past 20 years - 8 thousand times. Multiply by the increase in the number of computers by 26 times, we get about 208 thousand (rounded up to 200)
What is the result of this figure - an increase of 200 thousand times over the past 20 years? This is the growth of what? This is the cumulative growth of computational potential - computational power, it can be said. What do computers calculate? Programs and data they calculate. Those. 200 thousand times - this accounted for the growth of habitat programs. Compare with the increase in the number of people in the same period by 1.3 times. And we’ll get (on the condition of directly proportional dependence of the number of living people on the environment) that the environment of the programs has grown 150 thousand times faster, the number of people over the past 20 years. And according to forecasts, in the next 10 years, this growth will only accelerate.
But why did I compare the computing power (program environment) and the number of people? I see a direct relationship here: programs can use computing resources only in proportion to their number. Those. if there is no free computing resource, the program does not start for execution - it simply does not work. A person also strives to use all available resources to him - remember that you have heard more than once about the exhaustion of non-renewable resources of the planet, the coming famine, the shortage of drinking water, etc. Or another example: let's take some grass that grew on an island, and took all its territory. What will the grass do if the area of ​​the island, suitable for grass growth, suddenly increase? It is unlikely that anyone will dispute the fact that the grass over time will take a new habitat. Those. it can be argued that the change in the size of the living environment of a living organism is directly related to the number of these organisms. Let not at once, but long in time, but now the principle itself is important.
So, if you agree with the rationality of comparing these values, then the growth of the program’s habitat, as well as their number, exceeds the rate of growth of the planet’s population 150,000 times! This is just a fucking difference! If humanity had the same growth, then it would take for the same 20 years to fully master (assuming 10 billion people live on the planet) 100 thousand Earth-like planets !!! Think about it: in 20 years to populate a hundred thousand planets with people, with a greater concentration of people than there is now !!! This is 5 thousand planets per year! This is 142 planets per day or 6 planets per hour!
Impressed by the scale? Now slowly go ahead.
I propose to think about the artificial intelligence, intellect, life. I do not want to talk about the first two: artificial intelligence and intelligence, because I believe that the majority of readers will not agree with me on what even ordinary, and not artificial intelligence and intelligence are. I propose to pay attention to life - it will be easier to deal with it.
What is life? On the example of our carbon form of life? There are many formal definitions on the wiki, but it seemed to me that was not enough and now I will add one more. In my opinion life is the ability of creatures:
Or in other words:
Yes, points 1 and 2 seem to be mutually contradictory, but they are not. Yes, the exchange (information) of information within an organic cell and between the cell and its neighbors (the environment) is also very important; Of course, the reproduction mechanism itself (gene-based replication), and so on, is extremely important. But this is all concrete, but I want to focus your attention on the general - on abstractions. Let us just remember that living beings are such creatures that, dwelling in a certain environment, can: multiply, modify, adapt. Take that flora, that the fauna of the earth - they correspond to this principle. Of course, it would be somewhat rash to call the flora of the earth - a reasonable life, but this is not necessary: ​​I remind you that for the time being we are discussing just life, and not intelligent life.
And what about the program? Do they live? The simplest polymorphic viruses created back in 1990 satisfied two of the three signs of life — modified and copied themselves. The emergence of heuristic algorithms in antiviruses automatically launched the mechanism of natural selection - those viruses that were “caught” were removed, and the rest continued to multiply. But this is all very far-fetched and too fantastic to convince you, the reader, of the “living viruses” that have existed since the last century. In fact, everything is easier. Man creates programs, modifies them, multiplies them on computers, leaves only the "best". It is thanks to the daily activities of human programs acquired the status of living (in my interpretation of the term "living", of course). Programmers create new programs (modify), vendors distribute programs (multiply), users run only the best programs on their computers (adaptation).
Here, an attentive reader may argue: “But the programs themselves do not multiply / change / adapt” and will be absolutely right! So after all, a person does not independently “reproduce / change / adapt”, but with the help of genes! At the same time, genes - they do not exist - this is an abstraction! Genes are located outside the plane of our existence! There are only chromosomes, but not genes! (For more detailed information I refer the reader to the book "selfish gene")
So, organic life is controlled by genes, and the genes do not exist in the space-time where life exists. And programs are governed by a person who exists in a completely different continuum - not where programs exist. In my opinion, the analogy is complete and quite obvious. And if so, then the program is alive. Not reasonable - we didn’t talk about the mind, but alive!
Against this background, one of the representatives of the living world of programs looks very fantastic, or rather a conglomerate of programs: the operating system for smartphones and tablets is “android”. What it struck me was the system requirements for its assembly (compilation, etc.). Here is an excerpt from the news about this:
Requirements for the build environment for the complete reassembly of Android 4.0 from source code have become known. Judging by the specification, the requirements for the assembly environment are approximately doubled compared with the release of Android 2.3. A system with 16 GB of RAM and 25 GB of free disk space is recommended for assembly (for assembly of all supported platforms, 80 GB is required). The amount of code is 6 GB. The build time on a dual-processor system with 24 GB of RAM and an Intel Xeon E5620 2.4GHz CPU is 25 minutes of real time or 5 hours of processor time.
And this is all to build a set of programs that will run on the device that fits in the palm of your hand! Which should work from a small battery with a small amount of energy! But I was a little distracted.
Remember, at the beginning of the article I asked you to imagine that humanity created robots that everyone can, everyone can do, serve humanity in everything, and they don’t pereoca? What would be the challenge for such perfect performers of the will of mankind? Since I do not have the opportunity to you, the reader, now to hear, you will have to limit yourself only to my answer to this question. In a generalized form, this task would be formulated as follows: "the creation, distribution, maintenance and maintenance of an ideal habitat for humanity." Those. clean air, water, food, sun, sea and sand, and generally a life without worries. As the saying goes, “what would you have everything and you wouldn’t have anything for it,” I would add from myself: “I didn’t have to work for that either." We will not go into the details of how good or bad such a problem / situation is for mankind in principle (although this is also an interesting topic for discussion).
And what does mankind do, creating and distributing across the entire planet a multitude of computers, smartphones, tablets and a unified environment uniting them all - the Internet? It creates an environment where live programs live. It turns out that, recently, mankind, in relation to programs, plays the role of “gin from a bottle” / goldfish / silent and helpful robots, which by all means expand and equip the habitat of programs. What does it do with great speed: 6 Earth-like planets per hour! And what does humanity take for it in exchange for programs? It contributes to their reproduction, modification, adaptation. Also feeds electricity at its own expense ...
Imagine? All of us, people using modern IT technologies - serve the programs! We create them a fertile habitat! We humans run errands! Does the truth sound very absurd and looks like a plot of a strange-fiction film?
Here one could fantasize about the fact that the sinister artificial intelligence already exists and that he enslaved all the people who now serve the programs with great pleasure. But actually this is ridiculous. It is as ridiculous as to assume that we, the people, enslaved the genes and force them to serve themselves for the good ... And yet ... doesn’t humanity do this right now, developing GMOs and experimenting on this field?
But before that I allow myself (and I recommend you) a little fantasy about what we (humanity) would order to make the ideal performer (a sort of gin from a bottle or a goldfish on a planetary scale) serve. Those. Imagine that humanity created robots that everyone can, everyone can do, serve humanity in everything and they don’t pereoca. What would be the challenge for such perfect performers of the will of mankind? For now, think about it, and I will return to this question at the end of the article.
Now there will be some numbers. I have tried to reduce their number, which would not particularly overload you, dear reader.
')
Let's remember how the number of people has changed over the past ... well, at least 20 years. Wikipedia claims that from five billion with a small change to almost seven (approximately), i.e. 1.3 times. And how did the number of computers increase over the past 20 years? Unfortunately, there are no statistics on the number of computers, but there are statistics on computer sales. Suppose that the entire computer park is completely updated every three years, i.e. It is necessary to sum up the number of sales for this year and the previous two. It turns out that in 1990 there were about 56 million computers. And now you need to find statistics on sales of computers, smartphones and tablets over the past few years. The numbers in different places will be different. It turned out that on average computers (including laptops) sold for 300 million a year, smartphones and tablets for about 200 million (after all, modern smartphones and tablets will be much faster than computers of the 90s). If the numbers you find will be very different from mine - let me know. But, by and large, I am only interested in the order of numbers, and plus or minus 10-20-30% percent does not play a special role. The total is (200 + 300) * 3 = 1500 million, i.e. one and a half billion. And the growth over the past 20 years was: 1500/56 = 26 times. Very good, against the background of 1.3 times in humans. But that is not all.
And how did the average performance of computers increase? About? If my memory serves me, then the execution of one instruction previously required several cycles, and the frequencies were of the order of tens of megahertz, i.e. about 1 million operations per second. And now? And now several operations per clock, frequencies of the order of a gigahertz and several cores. Suppose that on average two gigahertz, two cores, two teams per clock. Multiply and get 8 billion. Those. growth over the past 20 years - 8 thousand times. Multiply by the increase in the number of computers by 26 times, we get about 208 thousand (rounded up to 200)
What is the result of this figure - an increase of 200 thousand times over the past 20 years? This is the growth of what? This is the cumulative growth of computational potential - computational power, it can be said. What do computers calculate? Programs and data they calculate. Those. 200 thousand times - this accounted for the growth of habitat programs. Compare with the increase in the number of people in the same period by 1.3 times. And we’ll get (on the condition of directly proportional dependence of the number of living people on the environment) that the environment of the programs has grown 150 thousand times faster, the number of people over the past 20 years. And according to forecasts, in the next 10 years, this growth will only accelerate.
But why did I compare the computing power (program environment) and the number of people? I see a direct relationship here: programs can use computing resources only in proportion to their number. Those. if there is no free computing resource, the program does not start for execution - it simply does not work. A person also strives to use all available resources to him - remember that you have heard more than once about the exhaustion of non-renewable resources of the planet, the coming famine, the shortage of drinking water, etc. Or another example: let's take some grass that grew on an island, and took all its territory. What will the grass do if the area of ​​the island, suitable for grass growth, suddenly increase? It is unlikely that anyone will dispute the fact that the grass over time will take a new habitat. Those. it can be argued that the change in the size of the living environment of a living organism is directly related to the number of these organisms. Let not at once, but long in time, but now the principle itself is important.
So, if you agree with the rationality of comparing these values, then the growth of the program’s habitat, as well as their number, exceeds the rate of growth of the planet’s population 150,000 times! This is just a fucking difference! If humanity had the same growth, then it would take for the same 20 years to fully master (assuming 10 billion people live on the planet) 100 thousand Earth-like planets !!! Think about it: in 20 years to populate a hundred thousand planets with people, with a greater concentration of people than there is now !!! This is 5 thousand planets per year! This is 142 planets per day or 6 planets per hour!
Impressed by the scale? Now slowly go ahead.
I propose to think about the artificial intelligence, intellect, life. I do not want to talk about the first two: artificial intelligence and intelligence, because I believe that the majority of readers will not agree with me on what even ordinary, and not artificial intelligence and intelligence are. I propose to pay attention to life - it will be easier to deal with it.
What is life? On the example of our carbon form of life? There are many formal definitions on the wiki, but it seemed to me that was not enough and now I will add one more. In my opinion life is the ability of creatures:
- multiply,
- to change,
- to adapt.
Or in other words:
- Copy yourself, keeping your form unchanged in future generations.
- Change its shape when copying
- Purposefully change your form for a new environment (or leave only those who have adapted to breeding - the so-called natural selection)
Yes, points 1 and 2 seem to be mutually contradictory, but they are not. Yes, the exchange (information) of information within an organic cell and between the cell and its neighbors (the environment) is also very important; Of course, the reproduction mechanism itself (gene-based replication), and so on, is extremely important. But this is all concrete, but I want to focus your attention on the general - on abstractions. Let us just remember that living beings are such creatures that, dwelling in a certain environment, can: multiply, modify, adapt. Take that flora, that the fauna of the earth - they correspond to this principle. Of course, it would be somewhat rash to call the flora of the earth - a reasonable life, but this is not necessary: ​​I remind you that for the time being we are discussing just life, and not intelligent life.
And what about the program? Do they live? The simplest polymorphic viruses created back in 1990 satisfied two of the three signs of life — modified and copied themselves. The emergence of heuristic algorithms in antiviruses automatically launched the mechanism of natural selection - those viruses that were “caught” were removed, and the rest continued to multiply. But this is all very far-fetched and too fantastic to convince you, the reader, of the “living viruses” that have existed since the last century. In fact, everything is easier. Man creates programs, modifies them, multiplies them on computers, leaves only the "best". It is thanks to the daily activities of human programs acquired the status of living (in my interpretation of the term "living", of course). Programmers create new programs (modify), vendors distribute programs (multiply), users run only the best programs on their computers (adaptation).
Here, an attentive reader may argue: “But the programs themselves do not multiply / change / adapt” and will be absolutely right! So after all, a person does not independently “reproduce / change / adapt”, but with the help of genes! At the same time, genes - they do not exist - this is an abstraction! Genes are located outside the plane of our existence! There are only chromosomes, but not genes! (For more detailed information I refer the reader to the book "selfish gene")
So, organic life is controlled by genes, and the genes do not exist in the space-time where life exists. And programs are governed by a person who exists in a completely different continuum - not where programs exist. In my opinion, the analogy is complete and quite obvious. And if so, then the program is alive. Not reasonable - we didn’t talk about the mind, but alive!
Against this background, one of the representatives of the living world of programs looks very fantastic, or rather a conglomerate of programs: the operating system for smartphones and tablets is “android”. What it struck me was the system requirements for its assembly (compilation, etc.). Here is an excerpt from the news about this:
Requirements for the build environment for the complete reassembly of Android 4.0 from source code have become known. Judging by the specification, the requirements for the assembly environment are approximately doubled compared with the release of Android 2.3. A system with 16 GB of RAM and 25 GB of free disk space is recommended for assembly (for assembly of all supported platforms, 80 GB is required). The amount of code is 6 GB. The build time on a dual-processor system with 24 GB of RAM and an Intel Xeon E5620 2.4GHz CPU is 25 minutes of real time or 5 hours of processor time.
And this is all to build a set of programs that will run on the device that fits in the palm of your hand! Which should work from a small battery with a small amount of energy! But I was a little distracted.
Remember, at the beginning of the article I asked you to imagine that humanity created robots that everyone can, everyone can do, serve humanity in everything, and they don’t pereoca? What would be the challenge for such perfect performers of the will of mankind? Since I do not have the opportunity to you, the reader, now to hear, you will have to limit yourself only to my answer to this question. In a generalized form, this task would be formulated as follows: "the creation, distribution, maintenance and maintenance of an ideal habitat for humanity." Those. clean air, water, food, sun, sea and sand, and generally a life without worries. As the saying goes, “what would you have everything and you wouldn’t have anything for it,” I would add from myself: “I didn’t have to work for that either." We will not go into the details of how good or bad such a problem / situation is for mankind in principle (although this is also an interesting topic for discussion).
And what does mankind do, creating and distributing across the entire planet a multitude of computers, smartphones, tablets and a unified environment uniting them all - the Internet? It creates an environment where live programs live. It turns out that, recently, mankind, in relation to programs, plays the role of “gin from a bottle” / goldfish / silent and helpful robots, which by all means expand and equip the habitat of programs. What does it do with great speed: 6 Earth-like planets per hour! And what does humanity take for it in exchange for programs? It contributes to their reproduction, modification, adaptation. Also feeds electricity at its own expense ...
Imagine? All of us, people using modern IT technologies - serve the programs! We create them a fertile habitat! We humans run errands! Does the truth sound very absurd and looks like a plot of a strange-fiction film?
Here one could fantasize about the fact that the sinister artificial intelligence already exists and that he enslaved all the people who now serve the programs with great pleasure. But actually this is ridiculous. It is as ridiculous as to assume that we, the people, enslaved the genes and force them to serve themselves for the good ... And yet ... doesn’t humanity do this right now, developing GMOs and experimenting on this field?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/145659/
All Articles