21–30 of 84 posts
What does that mean "it's not coming". Isn't pretty much everything "coming" eventually?
If the Singularity is defined as intelligence explosion following the creation of strong AI, and if intelligence explosion is impossible, then the Singularity is not coming, even in the far future. Progress will just carry on linearly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I agree with you that the rate of paradigm shift increases over time, I argue that their average impact/scope decreases. Newtonian physics opened more room for technological progress than quantum mechanics, etc. Earliest inventions have the most impact (the invention of the scientific method having the most impact of all?). So my point is that if you look at paradigm shift rate not in volume but in impact, you'…
Transistors couldn't have been designed without understanding Quantum Mechanics. Bye, bye modern computers.
I've always found the concept of singularity naive.
Greatest discoveries haven't been done by the most intelligent persons.
Science isn't just a question of intelligence or will, it's also a question of timing, luck and duration.
Everything has a limit. Ants have limits. We have limits. And the supposed "all mighty AI" will have limits if it ever exists.
Great article. I've always found the concept of singularity naive. Greatest discoveries haven't been done by the most intelligent persons. Science isn't just a question of intelligence or will, it's also a question of timing, luck and duration. Everything has a limit. Ants have limits. We have limits. And the supposed "all mighty AI" will have limits if it ever exists.
Logistics curves are a favorite concept on HN relating to resource usage, so imagine that intelligence follows a logistic curve, and humanity is way above ants, but still very close to the bottom. Once an AI gains the ability to iteratively improve its own mind, first software, and then hardware, it could accelerate up the curve and the separation between our intelligence and AI, if measured, would be approximately exponential until it's so far ahead of us it doesn't matter whether there's a hard limit (logistic curve) or not (true exponential curve).
Just another naysayer. At least he's not one of those "but H+ is unethical/against god's will" guys.
But I suppose you did not read past the title? Sorry for hurting your faith in the Singularity...
Proponents of singularity have a broken understanding of "intelligence". We already have computers that perform plenty of intellectual tasks better than humans. Even learning itself, or coding and reprogramming itself. But this is not "intelligent" yet according to them. They'll only be satisfied when "intelligent" means mimicking a human being for no other reason other than mimicking a human being's sake. They don't want an intelligent computer, nor actual practical solutions to real problems. What they really want is a really complex fart app.
This seems like arguing with a door. The whole concept of the singularity is absurd. Taking your time to construct arguments of why such absurdity would happen slow instead of fast, if it happened. Is just like trying to come up with scientific explanations why unicorn poop couldn't be technically as magical as rainbows. Reminds me of those nerdy arguments we all had, debating whether superman's clothes would burn up…
This seems like arguing with a door. The whole concept of the singularity is absurd. Taking your time to construct arguments of why such absurdity would happen slow instead of fast, if it happened. Is just like trying to come up with scientific explanations why unicorn poop couldn't be technically as magical as rainbows. Reminds me of those nerdy arguments we all had, debating whether superman's clothes would burn up…
What computers do is not intellectual. Intelligence is probably just a stochastic random process of clawing one's way up a hill, but even with enormous computational power, it took the solar system 4.5 billion years of not-well-directed effort to produce us... (and to produce whatever creature that blotch was on the curiosity camera :). Only once we existed could the universe, through us, produce the works of art, literature, culture, and scientific knowledge that we've accumulated very rapidly.
Many discoveries come about by improving on and combining previous discoveries, so what needs to be improved to speed up science is better access, categorization and distribution of discoveries. And this is where I think a human-level AI would have an advantage over a human. Even if the AI is unable to retain more things in memory than a human it could clone itself and have an army of scientist AIs in charge of analyzing each new discovery and seeing how it might fit in with all other discoveries. Depending how resource-hungry the AI is we might be able have millions of brains working on every potential far-fetched hypothesis to see if it leads anywhere. It would be an industrialization of science.
That seems like it would have to lead to faster discoveries.
Great article. I've always found the concept of singularity naive. Greatest discoveries haven't been done by the most intelligent persons. Science isn't just a question of intelligence or will, it's also a question of timing, luck and duration. Everything has a limit. Ants have limits. We have limits. And the supposed "all mighty AI" will have limits if it ever exists.
And yet, what are ants to us? Limits of an AI may be incomprehensible to us, and the point of singularity is not that intelligence might increase without bound, but that it will reach our level and appear be increasing at an exponentially beyond us. (Any increase in intelligence beyond our level may be obvious but unquantifiable, so the question of exponential vs simply "beyond us" may be unanswerable.) Logistics cur…
My point is that intelligence isn't everything.
An AI may become more "intelligent" than a human being, but it doesn't mean any singularity will happen. It does not mean it can self-improve. It does not mean it can find solutions we did not think of.
It's a bit hyperbolic to say "we don't know what greater intelligence can do" and conclude "it will therefore do incredible things".
And to bounce on your answer, are we more intelligent than ants? Does it even make sense to say "we're more intelligent than ants"? Our differences with ants go far beyond intelligence.