Cross-posted from Where
There’s a William… 
Ok, I’ll bite.
Al Fin asks the tautological question; “Can the Singularity
save us from ourselves?” What follows is by way of my attempt
to answer as fully as I’m able, within the limits of my
understanding of the issues and concepts involved.
The abstract concept of a Technological Singularity (TS) was
made most famous in the recent past by inventor Ray Kurzweil. The
concept has several overlapping meanings, but I like George
Dvorsky’s definition best: The Singularity is a a blindspot in our
predictive thinking.
I personally define the Technological Singularity as: The
Singularity is that point in human technological development beyond
which we do not currently possess sufficient knowledge upon which
to base an extrapolative prediction. I certainly appreciate the
evocative imagery of Mr. Dvorsky’s proposition, not to mention it’s
economy, but I believe the concept of a singularity is too complex
to be adequately captured in such a brief phrase.
For one thing, a TS must be regarded as a moving target. As our
ability to understand the technological processes that could lead
to a singularity increase, the point in time regarded as being TS
onset must be pushed further off into the future. Remember, the TS
is that point in our technological development beyond which we can
no longer extrapolate a further possible advance (or even say with
any assurance what probable effect(s) might result). This doesn’t
mean we can’t guess, of course (engineers even have a technical
term for doing so; W(ild) A(ss) G(uess)), but that isn’t quite the
same thing. (cont.)
Continue Reading
When exploring the possible futures ahead of us one sooner or
later encounters The
Singularity memeplex, a concept with multiple meanings that
people now generally associate with exponentialist Ray Kurzweil’s
definition, “technological change so rapid and profound it
represents a rupture in the fabric of human history”. He and others
argue this will come about as the result of human-trumping or
super-human-enabling artificial intelligence that fundamentally
transforms our system and ourselves. 
While the notion of a big-ass capital-S singularity is a very
important concept, especially for future interested noobs
attempting to comprehend the general ramifications of runaway
technology growth, I agree with the likes of
Eliezer Yudkowsky that it’s become a most un-scientific mash-up
of several different schools of little-s singularity thought,
something he appropriately calls “Singularity paste”.
The result is a huggable yet identity-torn memetic Frankenstein
far more reminiscent of spirituality structures than of the
scientific method which fundamentally violates the cardinal
commandment of rigorous futures studies: Thou shalt not worship
one single future, but the myriad possible futures ahead of
us. (Note the plural. There’s solid reasoning behind it.)
Thus, it should come as absolutely no surprise when blogs like
Wired Science label the Singularity a faith,
thinkers such as Ted Modis call it a myth,
and sci-fi authors including Warren Ellis dub it a religion.
Such competent voices are being forced into adopting a contrary
position to a Big-S singularity because it’s difficult for them to
find the logical middle ground that they would naturally occupy.
(cont.)
Continue Reading
Built on a faulty definition of intelligence, the Singularity meme is an informal fallacy with limited utility that constricts our view of the future if we rely on it too heavily. As we continue to refine our collective model of a rapidly accelerating future dominated by convergence, we should look to more comprehensive scientific models to take its place.
Let me start off by saying that Ray Kurzweil’s The Age of Spiritual Machines is one of the most important books I have ever read. It ably makes the case for accelerating change and a resulting Singularity, so I highly recommend it to those interested in exploring the possible futures ahead of us.
Similarly, Vernor Vinge’s 1993 paper, The Coming Technological Singularity, which argues that the appearance of superhuman intelligence could mark an end to the human era and create unimaginable conditions, and I. J. Good’s statement on ultra-intelligence are must-reads for future-interested persons.
Each definition contains valuable nuggets about how the future may unfold. Yet I have come to believe all three are fundamentally flawed due to their reliance on the vague term: “intelligence”.
Intelligence Remains Undefined: There is no objective, comprehensive, scientifically valid description of the term. Though it’s easy to believe we understand what intelligence is and how it works, we humans have not yet achieved consensus on an overarching definition nor its constituent properties. There are many theories, but an objective law has yet to emerge.
According to an APA report titled Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, “when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen somewhat different definitions.”
The Wikipedia definition reflects this vagueness:
Intelligence (also called intellect) is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn. There are several ways to define intelligence. In some cases, intelligence may include traits such as creativity, personality, character, knowledge, or wisdom. However, most psychologists prefer not to include these traits in the definition of intelligence.
At the same time, the bulk of the AI theorists working to create Strong AI/AGI that matches or exceeds human intelligence are either 1) applying a very narrow definition of intelligence that equates one human brain or personality to a discrete unit of intelligence, or 2) building logical or neural processes step-by-step and refraining from venturing a concrete definition.
Definitions of the Singularity Rely on Vague Definitions of Intelligence that Don’t Hold Up: Singularity proponents and detractors alike go about making their arguments without questioning the underlying assumption that human intelligence is composed of discrete units. By and large, they either overtly or tacitly equate intelligence to the functions of an individual brain or system. This is not surprising considering how the brain likes to simplify subject and object so that we can go about living our lives. But that fundamental assumption appears to be wrong, and at the very least is far from verifiable.
Continue Reading
