Building high-level features using large scale unsupervised learning

Your reading skills seem to be up to par, since I have discredited a list of zero people.

"You're obscuring important results that newcomers might have found interesting to follow up on."

Not only have I obscured no results, but this isn't actually something I have the power to do.

What I was getting at was "you realize they're writing books to make people happy for money, not doing legitimate science on that day, right?"

.

"words - such as variety and polymorphism - have different context specific meanings."

Sure. All handwaving about the rules of language notwithstanding, though, none of The Singularities have merit or underlying measurement, even if you want to talk syntax and grammar to create a seeming of academia by proxy.

.

"The idea of infinite recursive Moore's law"

... is nonsense. What would "recursion" be in the context of Moore's law? Have you even thought this over?

What, Moore's Law solves itself by going deeper into itself until the datastructure is exhausted?

.

"fueled intelligence explosions"

The science fiction part. I mean, you might as well say "fuelled by warp drives," because there's no evidence they're going to happen either. Or unicorns.

.

"is something I assign a low probability to."

This suggests that you don't know what probabilities are. Probabilities are either frequentist, which cannot happen here because we have no knowledge of the rates here (this would be like calculating the frequentist probability of alien life - it's just making numbers up,) or Bayesian, where you draw probabilities from observed events, at which point the probability is exactly zero.

So, is it undefined or zero that you're promoting?

.

"I don't find it hard to believe that there is some point in the future - say 2131"

(rolls eyes)

.

"they would never be able to understand what was going on and everyone from that time would think circles around them."

It seems you don't even need to be transported into the future for that.

We disagree here. The singularity made measurable predictions, and not only has every single one that's come to pass failed without exception, but the remainder are no closer to happening than the day they were made.

Remember, originally, computers were supposed to be smarter than us back in the 90s, when people still thought The Simpsons was funny.

.

"I think that we might all be better off if we stopped using that term."

We agree, though I think for different reasons. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that we forego this term in favor of clearer, better defined ones, but keep the idea.

I think we should actually reject the concept.

.

"Campbell was a science fiction author (well mostly an editor but close enough) and Vinge was too, though Vinge was also a CS professor. The people I'd associate with the other schools of thought aren't science fiction authors, though."

Minsky, who associates with that school of thought, is. Kurtzweil, who originated this school of thought, is. Stanislaw Ulam, Damien Broderick, Hans Moravec, Greg Egan, Nancy Kress, Larry Niven, Dean Ing, Samuel Delaney, Ray Solomonoff, Pohl, Aasimov, Steele, other-Steele, Yudkowsky, the founder of Singularity University (which is not legally a university) Peter Diamandis, Aubrey de Gray, et cetera.

Sort of the germane understanding is to look at their work. Whose work do they all point to? Moore, Lanier, Holland, and Hawkins.

Guess what all four of them say they think?

.

"I should also point out that you're exagerating the link between the idea and science fiction authors."

I don't think that I am. Every proponent of The Singularity I am aware of writes speculative fiction for money, without exception. The list I gave above isn't even close to exhaustive.

And, again, that's not the actual point I'm making. This isn't about "the link between" The Various Singularities and speculative fiction; I'm asserting directly that every single Singular proposal is itself science fiction.

I'm not saying it's written by science fiction people. Aasimov did legitimate speculative engineering, for example, in the cases of geosynchronous orbits and the space elevator, and arguably in arcological discussion. I would not say that his work was science fiction, despite that he's a science fiction author.

Why?

Because there are real numbers involved. There's real math. There are real equations. He knew the fuel demands, the weight of the building, the energy requirements. He wasn't writing fun stories; he was doing real work.

Spend two weeks. You will _never_ find real work done around the singularity. It hasn't been done.

Earlier you suggested that all speculation about the future was so; I do not agree. We have several quite good designs for an arcology on Mars which would actually work. Seward's Folly is speculative, but it's actual legitimate work; it could be built.

The Singularity is just a cute story.

.

"The people I'd associate with the other schools of thought aren't science fiction authors, though."

Schools of thought is a great phrase to try to bring gravitas to a situation where it isn't warranted.

I'll pay more attention when I see a single work on The Singularity which could pass muster as a freshman thesis at a second string state school.

There's lots of material out there about infinite energy devices, too. Ask yourself a question: if you didn't have the Second Law of Thermodynamics, how would you tell the free energy devices apart from the legitimate ones?

How is it that you know Andrea Rossi doesn't really have cold fusion?

Try some skepticism. It's delicious, and low cholesterol.

Yes, for some problems it might be faster and better to code logic yourself, but there are also tasks (such as pattern recognition) where NNs might be more effective.