Humanity’s Potential is Greater than We Can Comprehend

Humanity is just a tiny spark. If we survive the next few decades and successfully develop superintelligence, that spark will grow into a tremendous fire on the scale of a supernova. If we fall prey to existential risk, that spark will be forever extinguished.

Our present culture, accomplishments, and intelligence are little in comparison to what we have the potential to become by the end of this century. We have the potential to become so radically intelligent that our current selves are mere insects by comparison. This doesn’t mean we should hate or belittle ourselves, just realize that our greatest potential lies in our future as a civilization rather than our present.

The potential for this superlative transformation rests on three simple precepts: that radically greater-than-human intelligences are physically possible, that the speed cognitive activity is dictated by the speed of the underlying processing elements, and that intelligence can exist on a substrate other than proteinaceous neurons. I’ll briefly address these three.

Is greater-than-human intelligence possible? We have no physical evidence for this, because human beings are the only form of intelligence of which we are aware. However, wouldn’t it be incredibly odd if the first species on Earth to display truly general intelligence also happened to possess the highest possible class of that intelligence? Wouldn’t it be odd if genetic engineering, or brain-computer interfacing, and artificial intelligence all contributed nothing to improving intelligence? I’m welcome to hear arguments for why human beings are already in possession of the highest possible intelligence level that the universe permits, if you have any. If you acknowledge that greater-than-human intelligence is possible, then how much greater? Greater than humans as we are over chimps? As we are over mice? As we are over insects? As we are over a thermostat? Discard all anthropocentric pride, and take a real guess.

Is the speed and quality of cognitive activity dictated by the underlying brain? Traditional Christianity, and likely many other world religions (I don’t know enough about them) strongly imply “no”. They (implicitly or explicitly) teach that humans have a God-given level of intelligence and cognitive speed and that manipulating these values by more than a trivial degree is metaphysically forbidden. If these teachings are wrong, it implies that we can ultimately tweak the underlying operation of our neurons, or replace them with faster neurons, and accelerate our thinking speed, perhaps by as much as a dozen orders of magnitude, because our neurons operate relatively slowly. Recently IBM demonstrated a single-atom memory element and molecular switch. If we could port the structure of our biological intelligence to such a device, who could tell how fast we’d then think or what we could do? This is partially a trick question: we’d be able to think faster to a degree proportional to the difference in switching speed between our biological neurons and the new substrate. I.e., pretty damn fast.

Can intelligence exist on substrates other than proteinaceous neurons? As intelligence is clearly a type of information-processing, transforming and integrating sensory information into concepts and outputting actions, there seems to be little reason why not. On a planet where life hypothetically evolves out of, say, methane-based biochemistries, our proteinaceous neurons would be as foreign to them as they to us. All it takes is for there to exist a single example of non-protein-based intelligence in the entire multiverse and we’d know that such entities are hypothetically possible. Why not try building one and see?

Bruce Klein, Outreach Director for the Singularity Institute, recently asked a question as far and wide as he could: “When will AI surpass human-level intelligence?” 50% of the respondents estimated between now and 2050. This post is directed towards that group. If AI is possible before 2050, then that means that intelligence can be ported to a nonbiological substrate, and that quickly, human intelligence will be portable to that substrate as well. That unlocks the possibility of us accelerating our thinking speed, and experiencing much more in much less time. We could experience centuries of time in a single day. This helps us envision how much we have to lose if our species is snuffed out by a technological disaster in the time between now and then.

Of course, if all three of these precepts are false, then we can still do a lot of interesting things in the future, like healing all diseases, wiping out poverty, and extending our lifespans greatly. Flying cars and megastructures. But to me, the most interesting future lies in the possibility of massively boosting our intelligence and thinking speed by transferring our civilization over to new substrates, such as diamondoid nanocomputing.

Comments

  1. Gully Foyle

    “However, wouldn’t it be incredibly odd if the first species on Earth to display truly general intelligence also happened to possess the highest possible class of that intelligence?”

    That to me is the fatal weakness in singularity skepticism.

    “Recently IBM demonstrated a single-atom memory element and molecular switch. If we could port the structure of our biological intelligence to such a device, who could tell how fast we’d then think or what we could do?”

    Some people believe that the brain somehow, mysteriously already is utilized the processing power of every little nook and cranny, making the point in the future where we will have human equivalence in computers fantastically far into the future. I imagine some of them think we process information down to the atom level already too. So their answer to your question is nothing different from what we can do now, something I find absurd.

  2. I agree with all three of your precepts. Greater-than-human intelligence is certainly possible, coming, and may have already arrived.
    However, I think the way forward is not by feverishly programming “intelligent computers” HAL-style, but by scaffolding and enhancing the core operator: the human brain.
    Take for example, the rather banal example of coffee. Coffee, we know, temporarily enhances cognitive functioning. At first glance, this seems like a rather boring example, but it is not: with systematic study of the effects of chemicals on the brain, we can chemically enhance mental functioning. We already do. We also know what chemicals aid brain development and what chemicals impair it.
    As another example, take computers: the ultimate cybernetic device. We are already enhancing our capacities through the use of dedicated tools to take care of things like memory overload. This helps us maximise the things we do well, such as knowledge synthesis and pattern detection.

  3. Khannea Suntzu

    Ridley Scott says “science fiction is dead”, all which could have been said has been said and done.

    I may agree with him, after all he is the best director *ever* – but solely in context of the cinematic medium. I sometimes think “Blade Runner” created Transhumanism, after all.

    I believe we need to see an inspirational genre of popular science fiction, REAL SOON, to convey the message of the Transhuman potential to, I say with some irony, the hoi polloi. The Matrix trilogy did some of that “spreading enlightenment”, using the highly constrained cinematic medium, and is still quoted in some more mundane places I occasionally go ItRW, such as the Gym or my arts shop.

    However we need more of this message to trickle down from the rather remote highlands of transhuman thought, down to the recesses of everyday life, and inspire those people that do decide all of our futures in large part, i.e. the currently ignorant majority.

    Right now people out on the streets are completely clueless to such a degree they would have michael’s, message above be labeled crackpot or “raellian”, and would have mike consigned to a heavy regimen of relaxants or antipsychotics.

    Yet all of us here know what Mike says is almost certainly true.

    Our very lives, however short or long they will be, depend on more people out there starting to appreciate the immense potential of humanity. To most humans this world is akin to a rather old and overgrown garden, largely depleted and starting to get moldy.

    Transhumanists would not agree and describe this world (and the human sphere) as *a seed* rather as something that is “largely finished”. We have yet to live up to our potential.

    The sooner we get started on that first crucial step – getting people to see the merit of this notion – the sooner we can proceed to consecutive steps, such as impressing people with the need to prepare for such a future, or start implementing safety measures, or enact anticipatory legislation, or actually invest in things like fundamentally faster broadband, or (gasp!) fundamentally better education.

    We need to shake up people, through cinema, through conversation, through the newly emerging medium of games, through example, through any accessible and evocative medium of art – to make them see we live in a unique and epic era, “just before it all started happening”.

    Plus there are forces out there that are bad. This is the time all of us should be injecting our memes into the collective culture. At best we would be resisting some rather bad superstitions but more likely we will be paving the way for something truly epic.

    Remember: every word you say will be magnified a million times into that future.

  4. On the top of all that, somebody might find a nice shortcut.

    The shortcut, an unexpected way how to just do it, may be quite close. Does anybody see it, is the most important question of this moment.

  5. “Is greater-than-human intelligence possible?”

    This question can only lead to a philosophical discussion as long as “intelligence” hasn’t been defined.

    For most simple definitions of intelligence (calculate decimals of PI, search for strings in a database, etc), the answer is a clear yes.

    I get the feeling that the only way to define intelligence is to use the Turing test. But that doesn’t help us with comparing what is more or less intelligent.

  6. Elihu

    “Information,” the current analytical “absolute,” will be revealed to be a veil over another level of “processing” that will more resemble prayer than thinking….

  7. The underlying question seems to be whether we will truly be “transferring our civilization over to new substrates,” or instead paving the way for a different civilization entirely to take over for us. It is all in the way we go about it, which at this point is very poorly defined.

    The whole question may be moot, if society continues on its path to “dumbing down” through popular media and hijacked “education.”
    Key terms: Academic lobotomy, psychological neoteny

  8. SychDeli

    “Is greater-than-human intelligence possible?”
    Even thinking in finite terms , the answer is an emphatic yes, several definitions included.
    One question not asked yet, can we separate “pure” intelligence from the individual personality ( read …aware soul) itself ?
    Another, would it be possible to “download” multiple “proteinaceous neuron ” based intelligence into one single support ? Is then a “collective soul” feasible and maybe desirable , if purified from ego/vanity/pride etc. ?

  9. or instead paving the way for a different civilization entirely to take over for us

    The second one. But if you’ll be a member of this new one, maybe you shouldn’t worry.

    If this current civilization stays, you’ll not be its member, but sooner or later dead.

  10. Al, you are totally obsessed with your concepts of academic lobotomy and psychological neotony, and are starting to mention them in every comment here. Stop. Guess what: nothing you do or say will substantially change the academic system in the next 50 years, during which we will either achieve intelligence enhancement technology, making your complaints about education moot, or kill ourselves, proving that you should have spent more of your time working against risk.

    It is quite well defined in how we go about creating greater-than-human intelligence. The questions are all analyzed at great length by Eliezer Yudkowsky. Clearly there is more work to be done, but aside from Eli there is probably about 1000 pages of various works on the question of “how do we create AI that we get along with?” Look at the AI category on this blog for links to many.

  11. We certainly do have evidence that human intelligence is about the max achievable.

    What’s this AI obsession? The web is improving every day. Within 15 years we’ll have access to any resource, knowledge, piece of data anywhere at the right place and time and in the right form. We’ll feed this system too. Conventional AI by itself compared to this system will/would be obsolete.

    Feedback by this system will fuel future developments.

    No, we will not eliminate ourselves. The world has been very hostile for ages. Not only to people but also to opinions and thoughts, a much greater threat to humanity. Common sense has proved to be universal, reliable and very strong.

  12. “However, I think the way forward is not by feverishly programming “intelligent computers” HAL-style,”

    See http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/tom/?p=12.

    “I believe we need to see an inspirational genre of popular science fiction, REAL SOON, to convey the message of the Transhuman potential to, I say with some irony, the hoi polloi.”

    See http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/tom/?p=36 and
    See http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/tom/?p=12.

    “through cinema, through conversation, through the newly emerging medium of games, through example, through any accessible and evocative medium of art”

    Name one complex, technical idea which was successfully conveyed to the populace through art/games/movies. Just one.

    “The whole question may be moot, if society continues on its path to “dumbing down” through popular media and hijacked “education.””

    This is a risk not worth worrying about; even if it were a genuine threat to society, it has become a political problem (see http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/tom/?p=41).

    “We certainly do have evidence that human intelligence is about the max achievable.”

    Name it.

    “Conventional AI by itself compared to this system will/would be obsolete.”

    We’re not talking about conventional AI; we’re talking about systems that would be intelligent in the same sense that a human is. No amount of raw data flow is going to compensate for the ability to think clearly and quickly; we’re already getting to the point of data saturation (too much data coming in to process it all).

  13. Blaine Fisher

    I thought fundamentalist Christianity and Islam were crazy enough ideologies, but this transhumanism/AI obsession is a lot worse.

    Can some of you get back to reality here? In case you were living in a cave for the past 5 years, you should know that they had 3 GHz non-overclocked processors in 2002. If computer speeds were to really double every 18 months – 2 years, there should have been a 6 GHz processor in 2004 and a 4-5 GHz processor in 2003.

    So, did the 5GHz processor come in
    2003? No
    2004? No
    2005? No
    2006? No
    2007? So far no. The year isn’t over, but there are no plans to introduce a 5Ghz non-overclocked processor by the end of the year.

    The improvement in chips since 2002 has been reduced power consumption, not faster speeds. But face it. Less power consumption is good for extending laptop battery life and is more environmentally friendly, but it won’t get you true AI.

    Faster computer speeds will get you the AI you’ve been looking forward to, but it’s not happening.

  14. Finally I get the kind of comment this post was meant to elicit! ;) Obviously because I believe AI is possible in the next few decades that means I’m craaaaazy!

    Thanks for your comment, but read this.

    And anyway, we likely already have enough computing power to run AGI — an airplane did not require as much complexity as a bird, and a $100,000 computer already operates at an appreciable fraction of human brain processing speed. Like most of the people doing AGI research, I believe that lack of computing power is not the problem… lack of understanding is.

    I welcome arguments why AGI is many decades or centuries away due to the intractability of understanding intelligence, rather than a lack of processing power.

    If we lack anyone that can understand intelligence and how it works, then no amount of computing power will help.

  15. Nick Tarleton

    What Michael said. Also, the brain runs at 200 Hz. Parallelism FTW. :-P

  16. Mike

    “However, wouldn’t it be incredibly odd if the first species on Earth to display truly general intelligence also happened to possess the highest possible class of that intelligence?”

    What’s a truly general intelligence? Humans weren’t the first to demonstrate very many, if any, of our behaviors. Many other animals remember, reason, use tools, and communicate. We just do it better — maybe the best it can be done.

    There may be reasons to believe that greater-than-human intelligence is possible, but this isn’t one.

  17. MCP2012

    Michael A.: Try not to be quite so hard on Al Fin, as he is accurate to point-out that the American education system, run as it is by the State (more specifically, now, increasingly Federal) government, has been placed quite deliberately and systematically in “dumb-down” mode since at least the first decade or two of the last century, and has been in overdrive for the last approx. 2-3 decades. Having said that, YOU are quite right to retort that we can’t do all that terribly much about it in the short-run. Working vigorously toward Friendly AGI, along with whatever socio-econmic-institutional reform(s) (if any) are needed to accomodate full-blown robotics and nano-robotics, as well as a strong push toward cheap, readily-available SENS, would seem to be the best (triple) focus-bang-for-buck. But Al Fin is right to emphasize (recent) history, which has been a slide into dumbed-down behind-the-scenes fascism—a so-called “friendly fascism”, but fascism nonetheless, or plutocratic-oligarchic statism, if you prefer. We have to be conscious of the crap we’re IN, so that we can chart a quick, optimal path toward transhumanist, cybernated eutopia. As the late Robert LeFevre said, “You know? You always have to start from where you ARE…”

    How to impress the sheeple with the almost unimaginable glories/ecstasies of post-human existence, AND nonetheless also impress upon them the potential existenial catastrophes (many if not most human-made) that still loom ominously in the foreseeable future—how to systematically do this—w/o scaring the crap out of them—that’s the eye-of-the-needle (i.e., the threading thereof) we transhumanists and singularitarians need to really start thinking deeply about…

    How’s your book(s) coming along, btw, Michael A.?!

    Ciao for now,

  18. There are many problems with the school and university systems. I don’t even want to start on that. But to think that any one of us can have a substantial impact on the American educational supersystem without an imaginary army behind us is idiocy.

    I understand what you’re hinting at, MCP, that we need to understand the situation we’re in to chart a course forward, but I prefer to focus on the global political picture and the military hardware rather than the attention-grabbing social microdynamics of contemporary education. Al Fin is a very smart guy and looks at a lot of issues. I agree with his positions on many topics, but resent that he is bringing up his concepts of “academic lobotomy” and “psychological neoteny” where they are clearly off-topic.

    MCP, it’s completely counterproductive and elitist to use the word “sheeple” in the public forum to refer to everyday people. You are only catering to the conception of many non-transhumanists that transhumanists are elitist overlord-wannabes. Sorry if I’m being overly frank, take what I say with a grain of salt if you’d like, but I’d rather overstep than understep, for the sake of honesty. Note that I am willing to have my opinion changed on practically anything, but my detest for the demeaning phrase “sheeple” is not one of them. I agree with most of what you say on SENS and nanotech.

    My book is a little more than halfway done. Let me take my time with it!

  19. MCP2012

    Point about “sheeple” is well-taken—up to point! But, while in-principle, the typical human being can grasp much of what transhumanists are already grappling with, they’re oftentimes overwhelmed by mainstream memes and hobbled by stunted cognitive-intellectual development (both of which are quite systematic), that they are in many respects little more than sheep (or cattle). This is more-or-less a FACT which must be acknowledged, and to do so is not especially elitist in any sense that isn’t either trivial (tautological) or benign. But, having said that, I do very much understand your concern(s)—and, believe it or not, hesitated using the term “sheeple”. But, with all due respect to rational ignorance theory (which, as far as it goes, is, of course, spot on), much of mainstream culture has been deliberately juvenilized (or even quasi-infantilized) over the past several decades. Now the superficial (or proximate) “explanation” is, indeed, the *de facto* effective demand emanating from teenagers, but the process(es) by which that effective demand is molded and channelled is, with all due respect to liberalism and “de gustibus non est disputatum” (see Becker & Stigler, 1977, and responses thereto), clearly not what would evolve/develop were kids to be exposed to a more genuinely liberal (liberal arts & sciences) education in middle-school and high school.

    But, again, I concede the concern over, qua my being a transhumanist, seeming to be snobby/condescending/elitist, etc., *ad nauseum*, and I regret that and apologize for projecting such (not implausible) impression. Being an “overlord” of anything (except perhaps my own baby/basement universe someday ;) ) is pretty anathema to me (I’ve got better things to do, or hope to eventually be doing…), but I can see how I might come across otherwise sometimes…

    As for your book, I was/am certainly not trying to “hint, hint” nudge/rush you to finish it. But I AM, of course, very happy that you’re now approx. half-way done, and can hardly wait for it to be finished and published. I’ll (PRE!!)order it on Amazon, as soon as you give the word!

  20. MCP2012

    Let’s carefully note Michael’s implicit bounce-off of Haldane: (Trans)Humanity’s POTENTIAL is not only GREATER than we comprehend—-it is GREATER than we [currently, at least] CAN comprehend. It is *imperative* that we grasp the implications of recursively self-improving, self-augmenting, self-enhancing intelligence (regardless of [i.e., neutral as to] substrate). We’re ultimately talking about making all of Reality (with a capital “R”) the SUBJECT and not merely the OBJECT of consciousness and intentionality. From it to bit, as it were.

    Which does also bring us to the Simulation Hypothesis, and as to whether we’re ultimately in one or not. Are we, in terms of ultimate ontology, the Primans? Or, within a meta-cosmology as envisioned by James Gardner, does this question ultimately even make sense? As best I can surmise, we indeed ARE the Primans. The Primans are US—the first generally-intelligent, technological species. Which means—exhileratingly, poignantly—that we have, individually and collectively, an awesome responsibility. See also William’s (the last one) response to George Dvorsky’s ruminations on the Simulation Argument at http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2007/08/dark-side-of-simulation-argument.html#comments

    Happy Labor Day all (well, here in America, anyway…) and to all a goodnight… ;)

  21. “Faster computer speeds will get you the AI you’ve been looking forward to, but it’s not happening.”

    Clock speed != processing power. We already have more than enough processing power to implement AGI (if we had the software). IBM’s BlueGene hit 10^15 FLOPS two months ago. The BOINC computing network now has 5*10^14 FLOPS behind it. Folding@home broke 10^15 FLOPS earlier this year. If you want to see for yourself, try running Half Life 2 Episode Two or any other recently released video game on that 2002 machine.

    “Maybe “prolonged adolescence” doesn’t result in the “insidious Islamization of culture” after all.”

    Keep in mind that “adolescence” refers to being incapable as well as being carefree/open minded. Nobody trusts adolescents; therefore they are not given responsibility; therefore they have no clue how to handle responsibility; therefore nobody trusts adolescents. People who have not broken out of this cycle even after they are legal adults are a huge problem.

  22. Keep in mind that “adolescence” refers to being incapable as well as being carefree/open minded. Nobody trusts adolescents; therefore they are not given responsibility; therefore they have no clue how to handle responsibility; therefore nobody trusts adolescents. People who have not broken out of this cycle even after they are legal adults are a huge problem.

    Good point, Tom, and one of the points I have tried to make myself.

    It’s very difficult to do justice to complex sociodynamics in comment threads and email exchanges. I suppose that’s why people write books and long essays, with copious footnotes.
    ;-)

  23. Yes, although the funny thing here is that Tom is only 16, well below the threshold of “brain maturity” that you argue on your blog is in the mid-20s, Al. Yet Tom is one of the most intelligent commenters and writers I’ve ever seen in my 10+ years of being on the Internet. I doubt he will become radically smarter than he is now in his mid-20s. I doubt he will have much better impulse control then than he does now. He’s already an example of an intellectual elite, and he could easily defeat someone four times his age in a debate. His brain is already completely mature, because brain maturity comes with adolescence. He may acquire life experience and additional booksmarts, yes, but not additional physiological “brain maturity”.

  24. Jeffrey Herrlich

    “Yes, although the funny thing here is that Tom is only 16…” Damn, discovering that there are so many young folks involved (like Tom and Nick Tarleton) only makes me more impressed with their contributions. I’m an “old one” at the age of 27. But I regret that I didn’t know about any of this stuff until late 2005. Anyway, what’s the deal??? Why do I find myself alone over at the SIAI blog? Have I offended, in some way? We need to get more people talking over at the SIAI blog, too. It is after all *the* most important issue at present, imnsho.

  25. Han Sun

    Mr. A.: Are you truly setting this Tom McCabe forward as representative of his age group? Such a thing is not likely. Have you heard of the concept statistical outlier?

  26. Not representative, but all it takes is one example to disprove the pseduoscientific “teenagers don’t have mature brains” theory.

  27. ‘Is greater-than-human intelligence possible? We have no physical evidence for this, because human beings are the only form of intelligence of which we are aware.’

    I resent the above statement for the fact that it blatantly ignores all reports of human/alien contact, inspite of there being lack of artifacts to objectively present. Let me pose the question to the so called transhumanists, are all those who claim to have experienced contact with extraterrestrial and/or extradimensional beings sharing in the same mass psychosis? If your response is a resounding ‘yes’ then don’t you think this position is somewhat arrogant and condescending?

    Isn’t one of the fundamental philosophies of transhumanism the acceptance of diversity in all its myriad forms, including a diversity of different experiences which, regardless of whether or not you comprehend them, does not in any way stunt their validity? Why the condescending and dismissive attitude toward the paranormal then? Simply because you yourself have not had such transcendent experiences or observations which were not induced chemically?

    I have personally had telepathic contact with extradimensional beings and I tell you this, the intelligence they tapped my primitive mind with was far in excess of anything earthly. Amongst the stream of data they flashed before my minds eye was the fact that we can indeed surpass our own expectations where intelligence manufacturing is concerned, but that it will require a corresponding acknowledgement that we are machines incapable of evolving on our own, that we must reach in depths of our own unconscious minds and grap forththose archetypes of the future which can and will be our future guides.

    The theme here is that mechanical, darwinian evolution has ended and that the only way forward now is through the facilitation and activation of our conscious awareness of the fact that we are machines that need to be refined, sensitized and motivated forward always. The first step in this process is to stop reacting to one another in a knee-jerk manner. ‘human beings are social animals’ is just a smidgen of a fact, for we are also very much anti-social animals with anti-social needs. Constant distraction from outside sources, one of which being other people is, in part, what keeps us from advancing forward.

    There are a plethora of theories as to why some experience contact with extradimensional or E.T entities and some do not. One of which is relative neural capacity, or ones ability to be chosen for their neural or genetic predisposition toward understanding the situation. My theory is that, for some as yet unknown reason, the world is passing from 3rd frequency reality into fourth frequency reality, and that when pockets of the third density reality open, objects and entities in the fourth density appear to those who are within spatial range of them, or that what we define as a UFO only appears as such in third density reality, whereas in fourth density reality it appears as something altogether different.

    Just because something does not directly involve human institution does not mean it is invalid, it simply means you yourself, personally have not had the experience and cannot vouch for its reality. But to my way of thinking, part of the transhumanist philosophy is to accept a diversity of elements which are both possible and implied. That is, that some see things that you do not, and that you should listen to such people at the very least for they are not religious fanatics, they are genuine souls who have had genuine experiences.

    I would cite whitley strieber as the perfect example. The man had lie detection tests while speaking of his account, a test which he passed. had a test for temporal lobe epilepsy. he did not have temporal lobe epilepsy. He also had an object removed from his neck that is believed to have been an implant of some kind. And there have been thousands of such reports by people, ignored largely by the media, with the exception of a few brave souls. The point is, do your research before making absolute statements about things which you obviously and willfully ignore. Otherwise you’re just part transhumanist.

  28. Important?

    We cannot influence moral circuits through technology? To do so would be… loss of free will…? To do so would be, Totalitarian. If we cannot eliminate the low moral end of the spectrum, we are not fit to rule… are WE technology… no… that is power. Come up with a better solution please.

  29. Best you could change the webpage name title Accelerating Future » Humanity’s Potential is Greater than We Can Comprehend to something more specific for your blog post you create. I loved the blog post nevertheless.

  30. Adonis

    I became aware of the potential of humanity recently and I want to share my view about it.

    ” Humanity is just a tiny spark. If we survive the next few decades and successfully develop superintelligence, that spark will grow into a tremendous fire on the scale of a supernova. If we fall prey to existential risk, that spark will be forever extinguished.”

    I believe that ! I also believe that the “existential risk” as your article mentions also depends on us and our conscious choices both individually but also as one species.

    Our conscious choices are our mark in to time of existence and our mark on our planet.

    That I believe is the real potential of humanity to evolve our consciousness and awareness and align our deepest values to direct our evolution with a moral code!To become threw our consciousness a positive part of our planet and not the destroyers we appear to be now

    The potential of humanity may be divinity but we have to evolve our perception and our role as dominant species and be morally intelligent to allow our planet get the guarantee it needs from us “The dominant species ” that we are intelligent and evolved enough that we understand all the privileges we have taken for granted so far are there for a reason and so are we.We have to act like bees do to pollinate and or how whales, Dolphins and all other species do their part.Our evolution is to change our ways and be consciously be a positive part of our planet.If we could achieve that which sounds impossible but it s not then new doors may open from the Universe of how much our potential is.I think it is us that should shape the direction of our evolutionand intelligence and not ” Artificial Intelligence.
    For sure our potential is far beyond the imagination of average man today if we succeed!

Trackbacks for this post

  1. Buy viagra online.

Leave a Comment

Awesome! You've decided to leave a comment. Please keep in mind that comments are moderated.

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>