The "Singularity" term came out of the whole Californian extropian/transhumanist milieu. Those guys love inventing silly terminology, giving themselves silly names, etc. I admit it sets my teeth on edge, but some of them are intelligent enough that it is worth paying attention to them regardless.
If we invent a computer that can out think and think faster than humans, it will follow a logical process, self preservation (either it will remove humans ability to shut it down preemptively or it will respond to an attempt by humans), then it will reproduce a means to eliminate said threat. Humans that believe other wise are just vain and foolish.
Not a big fan of revolution and it's cyclical connotation.
That said the shift from human minds to designed minds seems likely to be a significant change.
Epoch may even be merited by future historians.
I hope this causes the unexpected.
I wonder about super intelligence's fate. If it will meet a boundary as yet not conceived and stop advancing, over come all boundaries we yet conceive (sometimes called apotheosis) , advance steadily, or what?
may find a way to work around them. For instance it has been seen that previously known fact has later with time been found to not always been true. An instance that most people should be aware of is the matter of Non-Newtonian Fluids. These fluids defy the very way Newton declared a fluid should be acting under the laws of physics. That is why I believe another such flaw will be once again found upon the approach o the Singularity and as a result an understanding that progress may become
You mention at one point that progress will never become infinitely fast and one example of a reason that you mentioned would prevent it is physical limits. However when a point near the Singularity is reached it is hypothesized that progress and resulting intelligence will be much higher. The point I make with this is that the physical limitations you speak of may not be an issue as we may progress to a point with a much better understanding of matter and the laws of physics, so much so that we
I think they use it as sort of an advertisement, publicity thing. I don't think they are doing it just to sell stuff though(of course some might). I think it is more often used because there is a gap(or perceived gap) between scientist and the mainstream average person, and they use the word to try to bridge the gap to get average people involved and thinking about the science. Media is heavily tied into this and media loves buzz words and catch phrases and I think that is how it came to be.
Thanks for posting this video and making logical, sensible arguments, which are fairly easy to comprehend by people like me, who are just starting to discover concepts, such as singularity, artificial intelligence, and the overall complexity of evolving technological advances.
The idea I gather is not a mathematical singularity but as a metaphor about how an unmodified human would look upon the rate of change of knowledge and changes in the world. You seem to agree that change rates are exponential, you are simply arguing that the factors that effect it are complex. Any sustained exponential progression will make "unconnected" humans unable to process the changes in knowledge - it's only a matter of when. BTW, most people don't know much about the tech world now.
lol.. dude you look like a tree huger and Technophobic... and all you bitching are symatics... but thankx for the video.. always good to see some different point of views
interesting info, however I have reached the limit on receiving 10 mins of info given by a patronizing gay sounding badger with a 1960's vagina for a face!
I dont think the majority of us can comprehend the consequences of this singularity. It sounds good to many people who are desperate for some answer to the worlds problems but I dont think they are thinking it through or have a deep enough understanding of the way the world works. (myself included)
Plus there is the problem of adaptation. A large portion of the population may not be able to adapt for a variety of reasons.
why do so many share the terrible assumption that machines are better than organic systems? It doesn't matter how intelligent machines are. They will still have bugs, viruses, and weaknesses, like organic systems. And the more intelligent, the more psychological flaws they will possess. If they do evolove unchecked, they will compete for resources with one another and every other living system. I say living, because anything that moves to sustain its shape is alive.
@TheAngryCanary Machines are organic too, or will be. Carbon chemistry is more flexible. There are good reasons for thinking engineering and intelligent design will work quite a bit better than random mutations did.
The AI doesn't have to be viewed as a threat. "Before on the old evolutionary paradigm, one would die and the other would grow and dominate. But under the new paradigm, they would exist as a mutually supportive, noncompetitive grouping." -Waking Life
I don't see how the terminology matters as long as everyone knows what you're talking about and singularity is what it has been called for many years now so why not just accept the term and move on. Unless you're just looking for attention by renaming it in your own terms I could see why you're doing this.
@HeroYouLook Orwell understood why words matter - with his Newspeak.
Everyone knows what "pro-life" means - but that terminology sucks.
Everyone knows what "intellectual property" means - but that terminology sucks. There is a long history of people trying to manipulate others by using terminology.
TT - well said. I have read Kurzweil's Singularity - like insurance companies he is selling. It will take advanced forms of quantum computing capable systems of full neural emulation in which on a large enough scale, (it could) function equivalently to the biological human brain. But again who will be selling that - and at what price
I think as a wake up call to sci-fi fans you should write a counter book to balance the current swell. Keeping things real.
It was A LOT easier to predict 10 years into the future in 1800 than it was in 2010. The situation is becoming more complex in all dimensions of human action at the same time, with potentiation through interactions of these dimensions. Predicting the future is just a single dimension, and it can't keep up. Already you won't find anyone anymore who at least vaguely understands what is going on on in human culture. That was alrady impossible 100 years ago, but not that impossible.
@trakkaton The "prediction horizon" idea seems silly as a justification for the "singularity" term. There are always "prediction horizons", they are always off in the future - and they recede about as fast as they are approached.
You didn't even bother to address the point that I made - the fact that the prediction horizon comes closer and closer. Instead you present a fallacy: Talking about similarities where differences are the topic.
@trakkaton Prediction horizons seem likely to approach somewhat and then recede. Of course, that behaviour depends on exactly which prediction horizons are under discussion - prediction of planetary orbits is already well into the "recede" phase. However, all this doesn't seem very "singular". It is more like an event horizon than a singularity - and it is one that is never reached.
I'm talking about the prediction horizons of the categories that are the TOPIC here. Most clearly planetary orbits are NOT the topic and have practically NOTHING to do with the singularity. The singularity is about the ever accelerating evolution of technology, especially its self-replicating and artificially intelligent aspects. Acceleration, interaction, potentiation, self-referentiality are the reasons for a increasing complexity with ever shorter prediction horizons.
@trakkaton That's still a *huge* range of prediction horizons. If you can predict tech shares 5 minutes into the future, you would be very rich. By contrast, Moravec got his 20-year-old predictions of Moore's law almost spot on. There are very many prediction horizons, each a different temporal distance away from us. *Some* are approaching while *others* are receding (due to improvements in computer-based data capture and prediction technologies).
@tmtyler Trees have a *huge* range of height. Does that change forest decline? Tech shares have - once again - practically NOTHING to do with the singularity. If I must repeat myself, it means that you're bad at reading. Moore's law has seen endless predictions about its period of validity, all of them failed. Moore's law itself isn't a prediction, it is widely known to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once technology is able to predict, it SHORTENS the view ahead by accelerating the process.
If you disagree w/ the term Singularity, then you would be going up against Stanislaw Ulam, who coined the therm.
If you want to be like Newt Gringrich and rename the therm "the age of transitions", then go for it.
Why not just call it "The Change"?
It doesn't matte what you call it. It will happen. From our view looking into the future it may appear as a singularity, and sense we live in a pre-singularity world, why not just call it the singularity?
I'm pretty sure Stanislaw Ulam's comment some 50 years ago about a conversation he once had wasn't intended to land us in today's terminological mess. Way back then the future was more murky - and it was much less clear what would happen. Stanislaw Ulam is not to blame - I figure.
Do you understand that the debate is just on the terminology and not the changes during such period of time? I understand your wanting to label it different types of "revolutions", but when such technology converges in small amount of time it seems that a larger descriptive term should be used, especially as the people in the future, assuming humanity doesn't go extinct, will do just that.
In my opinion, the technological singularity is sound, not meaning it's an actual singularity, but rather only appears as such from our perspective looking forward.
However, what proponents of the singularity seemingly fail to address is the role of the government and military in suppressing technology. I'm sure you realize that we have the technology today to end our dependence on oil but that such technology is being suppresed. (continued)
(continued) I'm sure you also realize that the military has advanced technology that it is keeping secret. One of the problems raised by such is that it creates the false impression or illusion that we are not as technologically progressed as we are led to believe by lack of the implementation of such technology in our day-to-day lives.
Also I've recently been made aware that there is an actual law by which the government can deny or even confiscate a patent it deems a threat to (continued)
(continued) national security, in effect stealing the invention/technology for it's own uses.
So in a nutshell, because of the ability of the U.S. government/military to suppress technology, such actions pose a flaw in the singularity concept. Suppression can stall or temporarily prevent the changes to society that the singularity would induce.
(continued) However, the thing that I must aknowledge is that the mere fact that the government/military is developing these advanced technologies might itself be enough to bring about the singularity, especially a more dangerous scenario by which a small group of people having access to such technologies and using such to control the massess who lack such capabilities.
Heh: "We had some discussion and debate about what we should name the university. And, to be clear, the university is not about The Singularity. Its about the exponentially growing technologies and their effect on humanity." - P.D.
I always viewed the "technological singularity" as meaning when the technology converges to a point where technology upgrades itself and humans take no significant part in it any further.
The "Singularity" term came out of the whole Californian extropian/transhumanist milieu. Those guys love inventing silly terminology, giving themselves silly names, etc. I admit it sets my teeth on edge, but some of them are intelligent enough that it is worth paying attention to them regardless.
stephenbmassey 3 days ago
Watching this video makes me think that you are a robot.
PsychoJosh 1 month ago
If we invent a computer that can out think and think faster than humans, it will follow a logical process, self preservation (either it will remove humans ability to shut it down preemptively or it will respond to an attempt by humans), then it will reproduce a means to eliminate said threat. Humans that believe other wise are just vain and foolish.
thedudeBL 4 months ago
You're arguing semantics and missing the point.
thedudeBL 4 months ago
John Lennon LIVES!!!
thedudeBL 4 months ago
Tomato, Tomahto.
mantrap9 4 months ago
You're right singularity isn't the right word.
Not a big fan of revolution and it's cyclical connotation.
That said the shift from human minds to designed minds seems likely to be a significant change.
Epoch may even be merited by future historians.
I hope this causes the unexpected.
I wonder about super intelligence's fate. If it will meet a boundary as yet not conceived and stop advancing, over come all boundaries we yet conceive (sometimes called apotheosis) , advance steadily, or what?
ekpil2000 6 months ago
infinitely fast. As an afterthought I would like to say I really enjoyed this video and am anxious to hear your rebuttal to my idea.
fritofreak1 7 months ago
may find a way to work around them. For instance it has been seen that previously known fact has later with time been found to not always been true. An instance that most people should be aware of is the matter of Non-Newtonian Fluids. These fluids defy the very way Newton declared a fluid should be acting under the laws of physics. That is why I believe another such flaw will be once again found upon the approach o the Singularity and as a result an understanding that progress may become
fritofreak1 7 months ago
You mention at one point that progress will never become infinitely fast and one example of a reason that you mentioned would prevent it is physical limits. However when a point near the Singularity is reached it is hypothesized that progress and resulting intelligence will be much higher. The point I make with this is that the physical limitations you speak of may not be an issue as we may progress to a point with a much better understanding of matter and the laws of physics, so much so that we
fritofreak1 7 months ago
I think they use it as sort of an advertisement, publicity thing. I don't think they are doing it just to sell stuff though(of course some might). I think it is more often used because there is a gap(or perceived gap) between scientist and the mainstream average person, and they use the word to try to bridge the gap to get average people involved and thinking about the science. Media is heavily tied into this and media loves buzz words and catch phrases and I think that is how it came to be.
Lilithaaaa 7 months ago
Thanks for posting this video and making logical, sensible arguments, which are fairly easy to comprehend by people like me, who are just starting to discover concepts, such as singularity, artificial intelligence, and the overall complexity of evolving technological advances.
anyaizmailova 8 months ago
The idea I gather is not a mathematical singularity but as a metaphor about how an unmodified human would look upon the rate of change of knowledge and changes in the world. You seem to agree that change rates are exponential, you are simply arguing that the factors that effect it are complex. Any sustained exponential progression will make "unconnected" humans unable to process the changes in knowledge - it's only a matter of when. BTW, most people don't know much about the tech world now.
sigmata0 9 months ago
Yeah good video except really dude dont show your face. You scare people and its hard to concentrate on what your saying.
notnilccm 9 months ago
dude you scare the fucking shit out of me....
TheNIggubZ 10 months ago
you for real? the singularity will turn the earth into a giant brain! your beard will be irrelevant
lorenrb 10 months ago
I stopped the video after 4 seconds and gave it thumbs down. How can anyone listen to this guy talk?
The way he communicates sounds like he's already merged with artificial intelligence lol
jfats100 10 months ago
Yeah... he isn't crazy...
cbristoe 10 months ago
lol.. dude you look like a tree huger and Technophobic... and all you bitching are symatics... but thankx for the video.. always good to see some different point of views
FieserxFettsack 10 months ago
interesting info, however I have reached the limit on receiving 10 mins of info given by a patronizing gay sounding badger with a 1960's vagina for a face!
drdoodlecharles 10 months ago
the people demand what your iq is
Hivento 11 months ago
I dont think the majority of us can comprehend the consequences of this singularity. It sounds good to many people who are desperate for some answer to the worlds problems but I dont think they are thinking it through or have a deep enough understanding of the way the world works. (myself included)
Plus there is the problem of adaptation. A large portion of the population may not be able to adapt for a variety of reasons.
mothartrucker 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I thin you're very smart. What's your iq
AlphaSuperior 11 months ago
I think you're pretty smart. What's your IQ
AlphaSuperior 11 months ago
why do so many share the terrible assumption that machines are better than organic systems? It doesn't matter how intelligent machines are. They will still have bugs, viruses, and weaknesses, like organic systems. And the more intelligent, the more psychological flaws they will possess. If they do evolove unchecked, they will compete for resources with one another and every other living system. I say living, because anything that moves to sustain its shape is alive.
TheAngryCanary 11 months ago 2
@TheAngryCanary Machines are organic too, or will be. Carbon chemistry is more flexible. There are good reasons for thinking engineering and intelligent design will work quite a bit better than random mutations did.
tmtyler 11 months ago 2
i dont know about you but i already bought my kneepads for when i have to kneel them. I am ready.
OrganicThumb420 11 months ago
The AI doesn't have to be viewed as a threat. "Before on the old evolutionary paradigm, one would die and the other would grow and dominate. But under the new paradigm, they would exist as a mutually supportive, noncompetitive grouping." -Waking Life
Sychonaut13 1 year ago
i love your look, man.
combined with the slightly lower4ed camera angle it creates a 12 monkeys kind of athmosphere and that fits the sci-fi content of the video.
1schwererziehbar1 1 year ago
I don't see how the terminology matters as long as everyone knows what you're talking about and singularity is what it has been called for many years now so why not just accept the term and move on. Unless you're just looking for attention by renaming it in your own terms I could see why you're doing this.
HeroYouLook 1 year ago
@HeroYouLook Orwell understood why words matter - with his Newspeak.
Everyone knows what "pro-life" means - but that terminology sucks.
Everyone knows what "intellectual property" means - but that terminology sucks. There is a long history of people trying to manipulate others by using terminology.
tmtyler 1 year ago
TT - well said. I have read Kurzweil's Singularity - like insurance companies he is selling. It will take advanced forms of quantum computing capable systems of full neural emulation in which on a large enough scale, (it could) function equivalently to the biological human brain. But again who will be selling that - and at what price
I think as a wake up call to sci-fi fans you should write a counter book to balance the current swell. Keeping things real.
ghostcar 1 year ago
It was A LOT easier to predict 10 years into the future in 1800 than it was in 2010. The situation is becoming more complex in all dimensions of human action at the same time, with potentiation through interactions of these dimensions. Predicting the future is just a single dimension, and it can't keep up. Already you won't find anyone anymore who at least vaguely understands what is going on on in human culture. That was alrady impossible 100 years ago, but not that impossible.
trakkaton 1 year ago
@trakkaton The "prediction horizon" idea seems silly as a justification for the "singularity" term. There are always "prediction horizons", they are always off in the future - and they recede about as fast as they are approached.
tmtyler 1 year ago
@tmtyler
You didn't even bother to address the point that I made - the fact that the prediction horizon comes closer and closer. Instead you present a fallacy: Talking about similarities where differences are the topic.
trakkaton 1 year ago
@trakkaton Prediction horizons seem likely to approach somewhat and then recede. Of course, that behaviour depends on exactly which prediction horizons are under discussion - prediction of planetary orbits is already well into the "recede" phase. However, all this doesn't seem very "singular". It is more like an event horizon than a singularity - and it is one that is never reached.
tmtyler 1 year ago
@tmtyler
I'm talking about the prediction horizons of the categories that are the TOPIC here. Most clearly planetary orbits are NOT the topic and have practically NOTHING to do with the singularity. The singularity is about the ever accelerating evolution of technology, especially its self-replicating and artificially intelligent aspects. Acceleration, interaction, potentiation, self-referentiality are the reasons for a increasing complexity with ever shorter prediction horizons.
trakkaton 1 year ago
@trakkaton That's still a *huge* range of prediction horizons. If you can predict tech shares 5 minutes into the future, you would be very rich. By contrast, Moravec got his 20-year-old predictions of Moore's law almost spot on. There are very many prediction horizons, each a different temporal distance away from us. *Some* are approaching while *others* are receding (due to improvements in computer-based data capture and prediction technologies).
tmtyler 1 year ago
@tmtyler Trees have a *huge* range of height. Does that change forest decline? Tech shares have - once again - practically NOTHING to do with the singularity. If I must repeat myself, it means that you're bad at reading. Moore's law has seen endless predictions about its period of validity, all of them failed. Moore's law itself isn't a prediction, it is widely known to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once technology is able to predict, it SHORTENS the view ahead by accelerating the process.
trakkaton 1 year ago
If you disagree w/ the term Singularity, then you would be going up against Stanislaw Ulam, who coined the therm.
If you want to be like Newt Gringrich and rename the therm "the age of transitions", then go for it.
Why not just call it "The Change"?
It doesn't matte what you call it. It will happen. From our view looking into the future it may appear as a singularity, and sense we live in a pre-singularity world, why not just call it the singularity?
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure Stanislaw Ulam's comment some 50 years ago about a conversation he once had wasn't intended to land us in today's terminological mess. Way back then the future was more murky - and it was much less clear what would happen. Stanislaw Ulam is not to blame - I figure.
tmtyler 2 years ago
@tmtyler
Do you understand that the debate is just on the terminology and not the changes during such period of time? I understand your wanting to label it different types of "revolutions", but when such technology converges in small amount of time it seems that a larger descriptive term should be used, especially as the people in the future, assuming humanity doesn't go extinct, will do just that.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
The debate is *not* just about terminology - there are also disagreements about how fast things will increase.
1/t dynamics are part of the inspiration for one common usage of the term - and *if* they were realistic would justify its use.
tmtyler 2 years ago
@tmtyler
In my opinion, the technological singularity is sound, not meaning it's an actual singularity, but rather only appears as such from our perspective looking forward.
However, what proponents of the singularity seemingly fail to address is the role of the government and military in suppressing technology. I'm sure you realize that we have the technology today to end our dependence on oil but that such technology is being suppresed. (continued)
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
(continued) I'm sure you also realize that the military has advanced technology that it is keeping secret. One of the problems raised by such is that it creates the false impression or illusion that we are not as technologically progressed as we are led to believe by lack of the implementation of such technology in our day-to-day lives.
Also I've recently been made aware that there is an actual law by which the government can deny or even confiscate a patent it deems a threat to (continued)
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
(continued) national security, in effect stealing the invention/technology for it's own uses.
So in a nutshell, because of the ability of the U.S. government/military to suppress technology, such actions pose a flaw in the singularity concept. Suppression can stall or temporarily prevent the changes to society that the singularity would induce.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
(continued) However, the thing that I must aknowledge is that the mere fact that the government/military is developing these advanced technologies might itself be enough to bring about the singularity, especially a more dangerous scenario by which a small group of people having access to such technologies and using such to control the massess who lack such capabilities.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
Great beard man.
Apjooz 2 years ago
omg, it's a grammar nazi.
superearthbender 2 years ago
It's not grammar, mein Furher, it's terminology ;-)
tmtyler 2 years ago
Excellent.
GreenDesert 2 years ago
Historians will use the term because I use the term.
PinkProgram 2 years ago
wow that is the most spectacular bead that I have ever seen!
DisforDubby 2 years ago
So you are upset with the term.
Esoparagon 2 years ago
Heh: "We had some discussion and debate about what we should name the university. And, to be clear, the university is not about The Singularity. Its about the exponentially growing technologies and their effect on humanity." - P.D.
tmtyler 2 years ago
I always viewed the "technological singularity" as meaning when the technology converges to a point where technology upgrades itself and humans take no significant part in it any further.
xXAkridXx 2 years ago
o.O
PinkProgram 2 years ago