Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you didn't realize this, but the science fiction author bit wasn't meant as a slander. Many high quality people, and also Kurtzweil, are science fiction authors. 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…
1.) Okay. 2.) Singularity as in breakdown not as in single. You purposely muddled the meaning to make your quip work. 3.) Moore's law fueled as in AI gets interest on their intelligence. Recursive as in AI makes smarter AI makes smarter AI... 4.) Science fiction or not i find it unlikely. 5.) Bayesian. Look up prior. 6.) 2131 was tongue in cheek. 7.) Thanks ;) You actually never address my main point though.
This is a blatant falsehood. I have solely and exclusively used it as a title for Kurtzweil's concept. It has no meaning; it's a name. I have muddled nothing. It is inappropriate for you to make accusations like this without evidence.
.
"3.) Moore's law fueled as in AI gets interest on their intelligence"
Yes, that's what I said at the outset: this whole thing is driven by the false belief that intelligence is a function of CPU time. There is no experimental evidence in history to support this, and there are 65 years of counter-examples.
Repeating it won't make it less wrong.
.
"Recursive as in AI makes smarter AI makes smarter AI..."
Oh.
This gets to a different false presumption, namely that the ability to create an intelligence, as well as that the power of the intelligence created, is a linear function of the prior intelligence.
This whole treating everything like it's a score, like it's a number you tweak upwards? It's crap.
You can't make an AI with an IQ of 106 just because you have a 104, and the guy who made the 104 had a 102.
This is numerology, not computer science.
.
"4.) Science fiction or not i find it unlikely."
I can't even tell what noun you're attached to, at this point. What do you find unlikely?
.
"5.) Bayesian. Look up prior."
What about bayesian, sir? I don't need to look up prior; I used it, correctly, in what I said to you. You're just telling me to look things up to pretend that there is an error there, so that you can take the position of being correct without actually having done the work.
There are zero priors of alien life, sir. That was my point, in bringing up what you're now blandly one-word repeating at me, in your effort to gin up a falsehood where none actually exists.
.
"7.) Thanks ;) You actually never address my main point though."
You don't appear to have one.
Maybe you've forgotten that you were replying to someone else, who already said that to you?