I think the advocates of the singularity see it as coming from an explosion of the possibilities of technology rather than an explosion of science in general. Kurzweil himself mentions how to the average research scientist, science appears slow and linear (with jumps most coming when a scientist gets a different set of tools to work with). > Let’s have a hypothetical AI that researches artificial intelligence, and th…
You don't understand intelligence. Doubling the circuits doubles the speed of the intelligence, but it has no effect on it's quality . You are assuming the existence of not just an intelligent parallel algorithm but an infinitely scalable one (i.e. one that could actually take advantage of more circuits)! Because without that, you don't need to double the circuits - you could just give them more time. Concepts that a…
Uh the singularity may be a crack-pot idea in the end but it seems like brings out a whole of slew crackpot refutations.
No, I don't understand flexible human intelligence or even animal intelligence fully and neither do you or other human. That's why it's not been programmed.
I do know that doubling circuit size doesn't double speed.
People have a really hard time admitting that some people are truly fundamentally smarter than others.
And you'd have a hard coming up with any evidence for this "fundamental" rather than relative intelligence difference.
The singularity, crackpot or not, is based on the hypothesis that there is a single "neocortical algorithm". It may indeed be dubious theory but it's cobbled together from some real evidence. If you're going to have counter-arguments to this, why not do the same?