Honestly? I define it as a sci-fi fantasy concept that's not worth taking seriously.
Ask HN: How do you define the singularity?
11–20 of 59 posts
Re: Ask HN: How do you define the singularity?
#12At some point, the material correlates we use for compute, have to match what the human brain uses for consciousness. Probably those correlates are quantum mechanical in essence. And every quantum computing experiment gets us closer to that harmonious unity. But I don't believe it's a "given". We still use YBC oxide type superconducting qubits and not lab grown neural tissue itself ;)
Re: Ask HN: How do you define the singularity?
#13Honestly? I define it as a sci-fi fantasy concept that's not worth taking seriously.
This is the right answer.
Re: Ask HN: How do you define the singularity?
#14I'm bearish on AI. The human brain does far more than just learn things. AI still has no ability to reason or think creatively. So we're not even in the ballpark. The space has been worked on for 50 years. I'm not sure why people think the field will now start to progress rapidly.
That's why the singularity is theoretical. Going back to the OP, that's the point where a system is able to improve itself better/faster than the humans who designed it can. Maybe 30, 100 years or never.
Another point on the way there is when AI chat is indistinguishable from humans. People are going to be scammed or influenced all over the place. Scams, influence campaigns, radicalization, which are already industrial in scale are gonna explode. I think this pretty soon, 5-10 years
Re: Ask HN: How do you define the singularity?
#15The rapture for nerds.
Re: Ask HN: How do you define the singularity?
#16I'm bearish on AI. The human brain does far more than just learn things. AI still has no ability to reason or think creatively. So we're not even in the ballpark. The space has been worked on for 50 years. I'm not sure why people think the field will now start to progress rapidly.
AI systems can search through millions of molecules to find a drug. How is that different from Thomas Edison trying 1000 filaments for a light bulb?
Re: Ask HN: How do you define the singularity?
#17Well, it's a spectrum to me. Glasses are already humans and machines merging together, and I feel that people in the 1500s would think the singularity had already happened to us, given how smartphones are available everywhere. If I had to choose an event, though, I think it would be the first time that human intelligence is enhanced by AI in some way (imagine offloading numerical computations on your mind). When that…
We already have calculators and spreadsheets for enhanced mathematical ability, and rich people have had assistants and advisers to enhance their knowledge and help them work more efficiently. The interesting thing about AI and machine learning is it's actually becoming available to everyone very democratically. We all have access to Siri and Google Assistant because the best way to extract value is through massive s…
You've made some fair points, but there's an underlying assumption: that we are only going to be able to do what we are doing today. Of course, my example is not that good, but imagine things like increased spatial sensing, instant data analysis, better (supervised) sleep, bigger muscle and organ efficiency.
Are those in your opinion still more of the same?
Re: Ask HN: How do you define the singularity?
#18I think its when software gets 'better' at writing AI-software than humans, and when AI-software is capable of writing an AI-software that is better than itself.
The point being that the quality of AI software has some sort of 'exponential' (maybe not numerically but conceptually due to compounding effects) growth in its quality, and that during this growth it crosses the point where it is better at 'general intelligence' than humans.
Re: Ask HN: How do you define the singularity?
#19when machines can beat us at all "games"
Re: Ask HN: How do you define the singularity?
#20When generally intelligent machines have been improving the intelligence and capabilities of intelligent machines for a while, presumably better and faster than humans could.
I’m open to the idea that this might not make technology or society completely incomprehensible, or incomprehensible over a short period of time.
I’d expect the world to become increasingly surprising and confusing as we approach the time when machine intelligence is developed, but a successful, safe advent of machine intelligence might conserve enough of the fabric of society that humans can understand it. I’d expect dramatic and explosive developments to be more associated with borderline or unsafe (heaven forbid) AI that ends up doing its own thing.
This is still all in the realm of philosophy, so it would be very surprising if we were able to predict the details.