Huawei Prepares For Robot Overlords and Communication With the Dead (bloomberg.com) 114
An anonymous reader shares a report on Bloomberg: Chinese technology giant Huawei is preparing for a world where people live forever, dead relatives linger on in computers and robots try to kill humans. Kevin Ho, president of its handset product line said his company used science fiction movies like "The Matrix" to envision future trends and new business ideas. "Hunger, poverty, disease or even death may not be a problem by 2035, or 25 years from now," he said. "In the future you may be able to purchase computing capacity to serve as a surrogate, to pass the baton from the physical world to the digital world." He described a future where children could use apps like WeChat (Editor's note: WeChat is a popular instant messaging app in China and other Asian markets) to interact with dead grandparents, thanks to the ability to download human consciousness into computers.For those unaware, Huawei is a major Chinese conglomerate. The company, known for its network equipment, last year got some spotlight for its Nexus 6P smartphone.
Re: (Score:2)
This will never happen (Score:2)
thanks to the ability to download human consciousness into computers.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. We'll never be able to download someone into a computer. Best case scenario, we'll make a copy of someone's brain patterns and to us, externally, it will appear as the same person. But it won't be.
Re: (Score:2)
It's questionable whether consciousness would even work in a real computer, in the sense of the computer duplicating a neural net.
Consciousness is a real phenomenon, and therefore arises out of real world physics, real atoms and energies, somehow. This is separate from the brain as data processor.
You could duplicate the processes and still thus lack consciousness. Depending on how necessary consciousness is to intelligent thought, the virtual brain may not turn on at all.
One thing is certain, though, cons
Re:This will never happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course I'm not all that certain that at this point in our social evolution as a species, that we should even be trusted with knowing all the secrets of how our brains work; I'd be afraid of the knowledge being misused.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, though to be fair to the GP that was essentially a black box experiment.
They connected devices up to specific inputs and outputs without knowledge of the inner workings of the eel brain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could duplicate the processes and still thus lack consciousness.
Bingo
Re: (Score:2)
If it's doing the same processes, following the same logic, making the same choices based on its same internal logic and memories, and producing the same output then how could it not be conscious? We already construct small systems that work on the same spiking neural network model that the brain uses. The system works without ghosts.
https://www.elen.ucl.ac.be/Pro... [ucl.ac.be]
What many people here are advocating is that there is some kind of magic ghost that rides on top your brain pulling switches and making everyth
Re: (Score:2)
But the Spiking Neural Network works. It can be programmed with Genetic algorithms to perform logical tasks like follow a maze etc. It even makes choices and dare I say when genetic algorithms are used they seem to almost have a kind of personality. Once the network weights are found then it can be copied at will. This word Consciousnesses seems increasingly like a bus token given to a particular running instance of a neural network.
Consciousness? (Score:2)
Actually, there is some debate in the field as to whether consciousness actually exists at all - it may be simply a perceptual illusion created as a side effect of our brain doing purely mechanistic information processing.
Not that I'd buy that personally, it seems even more unlikely (and irrelevant) than free will being an illusion, but it's good to keep in mind that at this point there's essentially *nothing* certain about the mechanisms by which the mind operates. Certainly there's no evidence whatsoever
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So, then, I'd invoke prior art from two thousand years ago, and ask Huawei the natural follow-on question regarding their hypothetical product:
"On the day when you were one you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"
(Thomas 11)
Re: (Score:2)
If the parts are interchangeable, yes, this will work. The real challenge is ensuring equivalent functionality when you replace neurons with something electronic. We may be able to eventually simulate complete neuron function in electronics, but it may require much more to do that with electronics than with biological components.
I'm more of the mind that the real revolution could involve electronics for having minds in static locations, but mobile platforms will need to make use of much more space and pow
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I guess we'll only really know once we're able to try it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would it matter if it was continuously functioning. Your brain may not always be functioning. At least not all of it while in a coma or when sedated. You could copy a brain but it needs to be diced first. Then each cube shaved and scanned layer by layer. Then put the digitized form is reconstructed in the computer and remapped to appropriate hardware. Make multiple copies if you want to. Perhaps read a bunch of books and remap back to a common image. It could get interesting.
Anyway logic is interchangea
Re: (Score:2)
The Wikipedia page is terrible this link is better.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/C... [wolfram.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Except, when is a neuron not being used? It may not be firing, but we're not talking about neural network nodes here, each neuron individually possess memory and processing power, so even when apparently quiescent they may very well be recording and processing the signals they are receiving. Even in a deep coma the individual neurons are all still operating, it's only the large-scale patterns that break down.
Still, that's probably the best bet to "upgrade" someone to an artificial mind. It's probably poi
Re:This will never happen (Score:4, Funny)
thanks to the ability to download human consciousness into computers.
Why not? My brother-in-law's consciousness would probably run just fine on a Commodore 64.
Re: (Score:1)
Immortality (Score:4, Insightful)
"Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon."
(Attributed to Susan Ertz [wikiquote.org])
I imagine that immortality would become quite a bore unless there were things to do in the eternal digital afterlife. Hopefully there would be some cool VR games that would be worth playing for a century or two.
What would be great is to be able to put your consciousness into a drone-body or something where you could go off and do something useful and/or interesting, ala the Iain Banks uber-powerful and capable drone entities.
Re: (Score:1)
Why a drone body? I've played RTS games, give me a dozen robo-servitors, one or more overhead viewpoints and a lag-free control UI.
But also give them a programability factor for repetitive activity, no way I'm going to have a digital copy of myself stuck in trivial task micro-management hell.
Re: (Score:1)
We can give you a C compiler and you write your own afterlife.
Re: (Score:3)
Segmentation fault, soul dumped.
Re:Immortality (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Imagine someone like Donald Trump, except he never ages, lives forever, is essentially unkillable, and he's getting really, really bored as the centuries roll by; what do you think he's going to do?
I don't know, but that would be SO COOL!
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine someone like Donald Trump, except he never ages, lives forever, is essentially unkillable, and he's getting really, really bored as the centuries roll by; what do you think he's going to do? Don't know about you, friend, but the thought makes my blood run cold.
Its not just Trump.
Really how this will play out is those who can afford to "live forever", will.
This will be a very small group of people who will get that opportunity.
Those with that power, to see their agenda fulfilled, due to the fact that they will stick around much longer than "normal" sociopaths do, will try to shape the world as they see fit.
Just imagine if someone like J Edgar Hoover or Stalin had stayed physically and mentally healthy, much, much longer than they did.
Re: (Score:2)
J Edgar Hoover or Stalin
Why stop there? How about Vandal Savage [wikipedia.org]? Fictional character, I know, but we're more-or-less talking fictional things right now anyway (until if-and-when there's such a thing like 'boosterspice', so you can stay young forever -- or at least as long as you can afford the stuff). Been covered in other things I've read over the years, though, yeah. I don't think that immortality would necessarily be a good thing for humans, not as we are socio-politically right now.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that immortality would necessarily be a good thing for humans, not as we are socio-politically right now.
Tru Dat.
The technological change we are seeing now far outpaces the level of civil discourse, and most importantly, how human beings treat each other.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I don't think that comics do a very good job of modeling the life that a "real-life" Vandal Savage might have. A real immortal could end up dead or evil, or he could just as easily be really good.
However, there is just as much possibility that a person like that could have a "blue/orange morality" as oppose to black and white, and be completely unpredictable.
Re: (Score:2)
It will only temporarily be an expensive thing, if it even is. Mass demand and production will make the price drop rapidly.
A cabal of ultra rich hogging it eternally for themselves (much less keeping it pricey) is the stuff of dystopia fantasies and idiot shows like Family Guy.
Re: (Score:2)
It will only temporarily be an expensive thing, if it even is. Mass demand and production will make the price drop rapidly.
Yeah, just like owning Teslas and Learjets and mansions, the price will come down until every bum and ne'er-do-well will be awash in them.
Sorry, but I think the idea of "a cabal of ultra rich hogging it eternally for themselves" is far more likely than every Joe and Jane Sixpack having access to it. Most people can't afford a hip-replacement, what's the chance of them being able to pay for life extension treatments?
Re: (Score:2)
magine someone like Donald Trump, except he never ages, lives forever, is essentially unkillable, and he's getting really, really bored as the centuries roll by; what do you think he's going to do?
Very little Trump's ability to do anything depends entirely on people willing to go along with him because of his celebrity or his Daddy's money. I say his Daddy's because Trump could have got better ROI just buying the DOW and holding than he has with his 'empire'. I say this as a Trump supporter (well since Cruz dropped out).
No I would be much much more afraid of things really smart people who are content not being household names as long as they get pull the strings might do. Like say Trump's latest a
Re: (Score:2)
"Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon."
I long for a world in which death is purely an option for the bored and unadventurous, thereby selecting them out of the population.
Re: (Score:2)
You could easily find yourself bored, and that is a real danger, not simply with immortals, but with any leisure class. We've already seen the shit that aristocrats can get up to when they're bored and don't need to work to maintain their lifestyle.
Of course immortality could also be an eternal life of everlasting drudgery. You're never bored, per se, but you're working on things you dislike, just to maintain your immortal existence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure I could entertain myself for all eternity given a sufficient supply of 4X games, at least, judging from the "played" time on some of them on my steam profile...
I understand this is meant to be humorous, but you're probably not even 50 years old, right? You can't imagine five thousand years of conscious existence (I know I can't). Get back to me after the first 100,000 years of doing whatever and let me know if boredom might just possibly be an issue.
I'm rarely bored, but just thinking of 10,000 years of existing seems like a living hell.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you going to pay your your downloaded great -great-grandmother to exist in the Immortality Net?
I doubt I'd cough up the money for my own mother, frankly.
Also, how many generations back are you going to pay for people who have little to nothing in common with you beside some DNA?
For example, I doubt my great-great-great-great-grandfather and I would have a single common point of reference for anything.
And the same goes for my great-great-great-great-grandchild. I'd be as alien to them as a creature from deep within the Magellanic Cloud.
Re: (Score:2)
I already spend my whole life on a computer connected to the internet, spending the afterlife doing the same thing doesn't sound bad at all!
Re: (Score:2)
And we already know who's going to be featured in those ads: Haley Joel Osment.
"You were always a disappointment" (Score:2)
Everyone dead.
The phone rings, a voice says "No John, you are kill".
But then WHO WAS PHONE?!! [wikipedia.org]
Great, I get to be immortal. So I can have my grandma call me up and grill me as to why I haven't found a nice girl for all eternity.
"..you may be able to.." (Score:5, Interesting)
..but it's not very likely any of those things will happen.
Hurr, you have no imagination!
On the contrary, I have a huge imagination, it's one of the things that makes me good at what I do -- but I also have a firm grip on reality and know the difference between it and fantasy -- and this guy from Huawei is spinning fantastic-sounding stuff just to get some attention. I rate it's credibility just slightly above things you hear out of North Korea.
Fun to think about such things though. And, you never know.. but I'm not holding my breath, either; I recommend others do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I guess I missed the point also. If anyone says those things on the list are reasonable in the near future, I agree they are farfetched. But some are within the general realm of existing technology.
For example, we can scan a very small selected portion of a brain in detail to study the neurons and their state, but not on a large scale. Extrapolating to an entire brain is a scaling problem, not an ability problem.
On the other hand, faster-than-light travel may require a physics breakthrough to achieve rathe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2 billion move out of extreme poverty over 25 years, says UN report [un.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These things are not all equivalent.
Human consciousness at what point in life? (Score:2)
Will it have version control so you can talk to young grandpa about things that matter rather than old grandpa, who can't remember who you are? Will you turn them off between interactions, or leave them running all the time so they can reflect all alone? How about interaction between these AI bots? would we allow them to talk with each other so they can plot the overthrow of meatspace? How about the next serial killer? Would you download his consciousness too so we can continue their incarceration? Wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This. It will be Hell, any way you slice it. Why? Because at the end of the day, the people taking care of your mind...possibly your 'soul'...are going to outsource it / cut corners. Rows and rows of databanks / uploaded human minds, and the corporation running it is still trying to make their stock price 'sizzle' for Wall St.; at first you may have well-paid / caring beings who want to help out / fix things, but over time...they will be replaced with those who follow a script.
Allow me to give you a scenari
Re: (Score:2)
Locked in is execution of the consciousness with no inputs or outputs. There could still be something there thinking 'I exist', 'how did i get here' and 'now what?' over and over, conscious and aware (but without sensory input), with no loss of cognitive function. Forever, until someone shuts down the computer'.
Huawei will never get any where near a us launch s (Score:2)
Huawei will never get any where near a us launch site. And what good will that cell network be after some nuclear winter?
Executives (Score:2)
It must be nice having one's job responsibilities be naming off science fiction movie concepts, rather than analysis and practical application of actual science.
We have not even the broadest notion of how to "download human consciousness into computers".
Corporate focus is wrong... (Score:2)
I wish they would focus on their phones. My Ascend P7-L10 has NEVER had an update. A once flagship phone is still running Android 4.4.2.
I don't need time travel. I need a reasonably up to date cell phone.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.carbontesla.com/201... [carbontesla.com]
Of course, i am not responsible for lost data, emoticons, spyware or your phone playing Justin Bieber nonstop. Use at your own risk.
math will still be a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
"Hunger, poverty, disease or even death may not be a problem by 2035, or 25 years from now,"
What kind of an idiotic statement is this? Are they telling us that it is 2010? Any normal person (if a "normal" person were to say such a stupid thing) would say "by 2035 or 2040" or "by 2036 or 2041" or "twenty or twenty five years from now". Mixing dates and durations in the same sentence for different milestones just makes you come across as confused.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also idiotic because it patently won't or can't be true. So long as the world carries on broadly as it has done there will still be all those things for a large proportion of the world's population. Or was he just referring to himself and his kind who will have fucked off to some Elysium-style space station world?
Hunger (Score:2)
We have the "technology" to end hunger today. We just don't have the will. The question is, are we somehow going to improve our character by 2035? I doubt it. Probably by 2035 there will be even better technology to end hunger, yet somehow there will be more of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly true. What we don't have is an infrastructure necessary to get food to places that need it the most via a means that is economically sustainable. This is, at least in part, owing to limitations in technology... but more related to how expensive those technologies are to sufficiently deploy in areas that are inadequately served by them than because the technologies do not exist at all. Theoretically, as technology advan
I remain to be convinced... (Score:2)
Firstly, that a digital computer contained within this universe can accurately replicate the behaviour of a brain in real time, let alone the behaviour of the brain coupled with its body.
Secondly, even if one comes up with a passable approximation, I remain to be convinced that my conscious experience will be transferred into the digital version so that the 'digital me' will not be a simulated prediction of who I am. The 'experts' tend to handwave around the difficult parts of matters like this, saying that
Re: (Score:2)
Well okay (Score:2)
Because all you are is a bunch of chemical reactions and mechanical synaptic firing, occurring in a miraculously organized soup of random intelligence, that can be decoded and "downloaded" to a computer.
When you treat the human being as a machine, you end up with a dead world.