Live data from Hacker News

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

11–20 of 27 posts

Re: undefined

#11

I actually think that the “singularity” in the broad sense that there will come a time in the next century or so where technology will develop too fast for human beings to keep up with it without radical changes to our way of life is almost a foregone conclusion, I don’t see how you can look at the past century and not think there will be radical changes ahead of us. It’s the idea that these changes will be necessari…

> is almost a foregone conclusion

I agree. I think an economic singularity should be a given, based on the fact that all economic ROI is at least exponential (pe^(rt)) and has consistently performed exponentially for over 100 years.

The notion that this will mean a happiness singularity, complete freedom of choice for everyone, or even human survival are up for debate.

Re: undefined

#12
There is no way to tell.

It is hard to foresee the consequences of a paradigm shift.

People creating electronics with vacuum tubes never suspected that transistors and IC would change things within a few decades.

Same with flight. Couple of years before the first flight people were flying in baloons. Couple of years later, in airliners.

Re: undefined

#13
This article is lazy, superficial mockery. (So, it's totally on-brand for the modern Salon.)

* Knocks Vinge as having "lacked the business savvy to fully exploit the market potential of his ideas" – as if he'd tried, and failed, instead of just been a successful professor & award-winning SF author. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_Vinge)

* Sneers at Kurzweil as if he's one-act Singularity huckster – when in fact his notoriety stems from a long, successful career as a inventor/technologist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil). The exponentialism is an important part of his later writing & speaking, and perhaps a motivating/unifying theme for his other work and overall optimism, but hardly the whole Kurzweil.

A funny thing about Kurzweil is despite the far-out nature of his projections & predictions & prescriptions, in his tone and presentation, he's still really understated – a mild-mannered professor making interesting observations.

If there's even an outside chance he's right, he (or someone else) would be justified with a far more emphatic, 'evangelical', alarm-raising presentation. "Big changes are coming, we'd better get ready!"

Re: undefined

#14
post #9

I was hoping to see some well-cited figures and facts supporting the author's viewpoint, but instead was greeted by a cacophony of hyperbolic, smugly-worded, opinionated ranting of an ad hominem nature. Not sure why people on Hacker News would buy this noise. I can understand that there are arguments against the Singularity, but this ain't it.

> a cacophony of hyperbolic, smugly-worded, opinionated ranting

I expect the author's brief was "1000 words slagging off silicon valley".

Re: undefined

#15
The Singularity is a logical result of mixing fear of death with atheism and love of technological progress. There's nothing to suggest infinite life extension is impossible, but there's also nothing to suggest humans are capable of developing it.

Re: undefined

#16
This article comes off too strong, but it's welcomed conversation.

My take: Kurzweil is missing the mark to suggest unabated growth in computing or anything like a true "singularity" where a curve goes to infinity. However, I think his overall insight into exponential effects and how unintuitive they are is brilliant and basically true. All of us who have been around for a few decades can clearly see the world changing dramatically in some dimensions, and the general expectation is that it will continue to do so. Some of the developments this century will probably be quite mind bending.

Kurzweil is definitely a strong optimist, and my feeling is he's a bit too optimistic, but I suspect that he may be right in the rough sense that the technologies discovered this century will help more than they hurt.

The commentary on the religiosity of technology is an interesting one, deserving more thought.

Re: undefined

#17

I actually think that the “singularity” in the broad sense that there will come a time in the next century or so where technology will develop too fast for human beings to keep up with it without radical changes to our way of life is almost a foregone conclusion, I don’t see how you can look at the past century and not think there will be radical changes ahead of us. It’s the idea that these changes will be necessari…

>technology will develop too fast for human beings to keep up with it

so, I mean, what's the business model.

Re: undefined

#18
post #2

Hmmm. Kinda fly's right over the many, many correct technological predictions that Kurzweil has made over the years...and comparing singulitarians to scientologists is rather absurd I think.

I know a Scientologist and a former government employee who started a new techno-religion decades ago. It kind of operates as a conspiracy directed against the US Government.

The CIA has declassified documents where they suspect certain people known to them may had been Scientology agents; specifically the remote viewing psychic Pat Price who died under mysterious circumstances.

These members of this esoteric deep state worked with Pat Price at the CIA in the 1960s. [0] Thus they've held the highest security clearances for decades and several are current CIA contractors. [1]

Although it appears sinister, it's more like an optical illusion. Most of them are just scientists who have a legitimate interest in the unknown. Yet somewhere there is some grand secret with a subtle or covert force at work. Deciphering it is almost impossible though.

This techno-religion is affiliated with several former military and CIA employees. The US Government views it as a long-term, persistence kind of 'paranormal deep state' conspiracy which threatens national security. And, of course, the government considers their claims regarding remarkable secrets held by the government and exotic technology as false. (And they are false.)

One person involved in this is a Stanford professor who was recently in the NY Times discussing exotic and controversial research. His partner is the one who said (in the 1980s) that he was starting a new religion with the Scientology scientist; and ostensibly these people either have or are on the direct peripheral of "Singularity-type" radical technology.

Yet the only person affiliated with the group who actually works for the US Government is a JASON scientist. Some say he is the mastermind of it all but that's unlikely. JASON's an interesting group of elite scientists who meet once a year to work on various problems and topics for the federal government.

My point is there's interesting conspiracy-like actions happening, whether they are self-organizing and random, or some cosmic force of deception. If you think of the Stoic's idea of Amor Fati, then a first principle like 'deception is a force of nature' makes a lot of practical sense.

Resist the temptation to get angry, have faith in chaos and unlock mysteries of life.

[0] https://mikemcclaughry.wordpress.com/2017/06/29/pat-prices-d...

[1] https://thetanetworkersscientology.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/...

Re: undefined

#19
Have to agree that this seems like a lot of name-calling and rhetorical suppressive fire which fails to address any actual arguments.

Giving the devil his due, Kurzweil has been proved wrong on almost every single prediction he's made up to the current day--at least from my reading of his 'Singularity' book. Mostly as a consequence of the bottom falling out of Moore's Law.

But like most articles addressing the singularity thesis, the author completely fails to understand it even in the most rudimentary way. The singularity hypothesis depends on several plausible but not guaranteed steps of cause and effect; the author could have discussed anyone, and, as other commenters have mentioned, there are valid reasons to think the singularity highly unlikely. But like so many bloggers, their thought process only went as far as 'sounds weird to me personally--must be a religion!'

More generally, it's both lazy and extremely dangerous to dismiss an idea simply because it seems unusual to you. This is called the Absurdity Bias, and is fairly well demonstrated.

Just for example, there are comments in this thread saying that while some of the radical predictions of technologists are possible, there's 'also nothing to suggest humans are capable of developing it.' Sounds a lot like something Lord Byron would have said about antibiotics or powered flight a few years back.

Re: undefined

#20
I saw the Paypal CEO give Rutgers commencement today. He talked about how in 10-15 years the world will be entirely different because of AI and computers with trillions of transistors. He didn't mention how it would be different though.

I struggle to see how life could really be so different. I haven't read of any concrete examples of how faster computers will lead to a singularity. Wealth will change hands and economic inequality will continue to increase, but that's about it. Maybe it'll be different if research in genetics, nanotech, and energy are driven by advanced algorithms. There's still a lot we don't know about the human brain.

Post reply on HN