Talk:Technological singularity/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Isn't it already happening?

The intro reads (in part) "predicted future event believed to precede immense technological progress in an unprecedentedly brief time". Is it not the case that this is happening now? If you were to bring someone from 1 AD forward to (say) 1500, the world would be a fairly similar place. Muscle, water, plant and stone provided the vast majority of all materials, metals were still specialist items, and architecture is different, but certainly not in any fundamental way. Another 250 years and things start to change more dramatically. Boats are now circling the world, trains allow land travel over long distances, and the cost of everything is falling -- metals are becoming so common we use them to eat. Another hundred years and everything has changed dramatically. All transportation and work is in the process of massive upheaval due to the introduction of steam power, the blast furnace, and modern physics and engineering. Another 100 and you might as well be in Star Trek. Even the most "common people" can afford a house that a king would kill for, they can get in their car and drive thousands of miles at the drop of a hat, and if they don't want to do so the slow way, they can get in an airplane and fly through the air, after booking their flight on a miraculous distance-voice device. Today, product and technological variety is difficult for anyone to keep abreast of.

I think the article really needs to clearly define what "brief" means, and why "brief" isn't "50 years out of the 200,000 or so of human existence", at which point any time in the last 200 years would seem to fit.

Maury 14:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I do believe one of the statements involved in the definition of the technological singularity involves something along the lines of learning machines, if I understand the concept right. Smarter than humans. One could make that argument now, but you can't really have a reasoned debate with a calculator. Yes, modern advances lead to further advances, but we haven't reached the point of irrelevancy. --69.123.5.46 01:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Kurzweil, for example, points out that change has been accelerating and technology has a lot to do with it. The singularity is a point where the technology is sufficient to learn, innovate, and invent - one idea about the singularity is that it will happen in such a way that the technology will be capable of improving its own ability to learn, innovate, and invent. The rate of change will not merely accelerate exponentially - but the rate of acceleration will accelerate exponentially. There is already evidence of an exponential speed-up in AI development through machine learning - see "complete cognitive system" comment below; from the point at which the process of software development has become automated by machine learning techniques. Rogerfgay 09:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Earth First

"In essence, environmental groups such as the Earth Liberation Front and Earth First! see the singularity as a force to be resisted at all costs."

The concept of the singularity isn't a widely-known one. I have seen no evidence that the ELF or Earth First are aware of it, and thus it can't be said that they see it as anything.

I suspect the author probably reasoned something along the lines of "some people are against technology aren't they, like Luddites, and Earth First are kind of the Luddites of today, and the singularity is the epitome of technology, therefore Earth First must see the singularity as the worst thing ever."

In any case, many environmentalists are technophiles, including the radical ones.

--Apeloverage 14:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A single article in one of their journals doesn't mean the organizations themselves are officially opposed to, or even aware of, the Singularity. I removed this line, as well as the link to an essay published online by an author identified with an e-mail address—not exactly a reliable published source. -- Schaefer (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"See also" section

There are too many links under the "See Also" section, some of which are not really that relevant to the article. For example, how is the "Theory of everything" especially relevant? 80.42.211.207 17:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph

As mentioned above, the article's definition of a technological singularity is too vague:

In futures studies, a technological singularity (often the Singularity) is a predicted future event believed to precede immense technological progress in an unprecedentedly brief time.

Vinge's idea is pretty simple: we are likely to create superhuman intelligence pretty soon, and that once that happens, technological progress will go crazy and you can't really predict where that will lead us. The name "singularity" is from Vinge, so we should stick to Vinge's definition. It seems no one dares do anything about it, so here I am, being bold. I am about to replace the definition with the following:

In futures studies, the technological singularity (often the Singularity) is the predicted imminent creation by technology of entities with greater than human intelligence. This event is thought to be of major importance by its promoters because of the acceleration of technological progress that is likely to follow as a consequence.

This new definition is not perfect, but I think it's a lot more descriptive, and most of the wording is taken straight from Vinge's text. I also rewrote part of the rest of the paragraph accordingly.

Also, Kurzweil doesn't represent another "school of thought". Just like Vinge, he thinks that the singularity is likely to happen very soon (the singularity is near). Kurzweil's main contribution is that he backs up this claim with evidence that technological progress (measured many different ways) has been exponential and is likely to continue that way. I corrected that in the paragraph. Cowpriest2 04:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I am about to revert some of the changes to the first sentence made by Kendrick7. Here is why.

I think the expression "by technology" must remain in the definition. The idea that it is technology that will bring about the singularity is a central point in Vinge's theory.

In the expression "a predicted future creation", the word "future" is a bit redundant when written right after the word "predicted". However, the word "imminent" underlines the fact that the promoters of the Singularity believe it will happen very soon in the future (in a few decades at most).

Finally, the acceleration of technological progress we are talking about here is not just a tiny acceleration. In his text, Vinge is basically warning us that once we get the singularity, technological progress will explode. Cowpriest2 05:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned the up the first couple of sentences again; the second sentence was rambling. But, I changed "future" to "imminent" though I think "near-future" might be a better term. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I will remove the word "imminent". I initially used that word because Vinge believes the singularity is coming soon (a few decades), but people don't agree as to when/if the singularity will happen, so it cannot really be part of the definition. Also, I'm not really sure about the wording you used ("exponentially accelerate further technological progress"). How do you measure an exponential acceleration of technological progress? Anyway, I cannot do better, so I'll leave it at that.Cowpriest2 21:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There is something else I want to discuss. In the first definition I wrote, I did not put the acceleration of technological progress in the definition of the singularity itself. Instead, I put it in the second sentence, describing this as a consequence of the singularity. The acceleration of progress is now in the definition itself. So my question is this: What is the singularity? Is it A) the creation of higher-than-human intelligent machines, or B) the creation of higher-than-human intelligent machines + the acceleration of progress that will (supposedly) follow it? After reading Vinge's text "The coming singularity", I thought the answer was A, and that is why I described the expected acceleration of progress only in the second sentence ("The event is thought..."). However, reading Vinge's text again, I am not so sure.Cowpriest2 21:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if "the Singularity" refers to the actual creation of the first smarter-than-human intelligence, the label doesn't apply if rapid technological progress doesn't follow. Nobody counts Star Trek or 2001: A Space Odyssey as fictional depictions of the Singularity because they contain Data and the HAL-9000. The definition requires accelerated progress to follow, even if the term doesn't refer to it—just as the definition of "catalyst" requires a chemical reaction to occur, but the reaction isn't part of the catalyst. The article should mention the rapid technological growth in the first sentence, as it's a necessary part of the term's meaning. -- Schaefer (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please go to this section to know what I think.Cowpriest2 00:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Contradictiory paragraph

The following paragraph is moved here from the "Accelerating change" subheading:

{{contradict}}

Since the late 1970s, others like Alvin Toffler (author of Future Shock), Daniel Bell and John Naisbitt have approached the theories of postindustrial societies similar to visions of near- and post-Singularity societies. They argue the industrial era is coming to an end, and services and information are supplanting industry and goods. Some more extreme visions of the postindustrial society, especially in fiction, envision the elimination of economic scarcity. (((Actually, this is an wrong reading of these books, or a wrong explanation of them. Post-industrial societies have to do with social values, not with difference in technology. In fact, post-industrial societies can be seen just outside the window in modern 1st World Countries)))

The triple-parenthesized text was added by 91.117.8.44 and should have been placed on talk, but the point is valid enough to throw the validity of the summary in question. I'm not familiar enough with Alvin Toffler's theories, but the objection is consistent with the information in the article Post-industrial society. Can someone more familiar with Toffler's work vouch for its accuracy as a summary and its relevance to the technological singularity subject? -- Schaefer (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Luddites

The section Criticism of Accelerating Change states that Luddite fears were not realized. In fact, the home textile industry was devastated by textile mills in the 19th c. The workers were eventually employed in factories, but their way of life was drastically altered. (Hobhouse, Henry. Seeds of Change, page 184. Shoemaker and Hoard, 2005) Alex 15:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The social class that is interested in technological singularities never cared much about blue-collar workers... 80.201.147.40 21:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I would argue this paragraph is inconsistent and editorial. The use of "Luddites" is correct as it refers to the "social movement of British textile artisans in the early nineteenth century who protested — often by destroying sewing machines — against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution, which they felt threatened their livelihood". The paragraph continues to "and some oppose the Singularity on the same grounds". The Luddites as a movement no longer exist and the use of "and some" is set to imply that current persons who oppose the hypothesis of the Technological Singularity are "luddites" by the modern definition which is derogatory in nature.

Intro

I'm not happy with the intro. At one point I completely rewrote the intro, only to see someone else rewrite my intro. However, I considered their rewrite an improvement upon mine, with greater clarity and a good, succinct focus on the differences between Vinge's and Kurzweil's differences in defining "The Singularity"

I expanded this rewritten intro somewhat, and noticed that several other people did as well. Now, thanks to me and others like me, the intro no longer flows and includes way more detail than it needs to in order to explain the core concepts. Now it's bloated, meandering, and includes many details which should be moved to later in the article, and skips about between different concepts with no coherent focus.

At this point I don't really wish to "take a shot" at doing this myself, at least not without some community feedback. For starers, does anyone else feel that the intro has grown bloated and unclear? Tarcieri 00:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The intro should basically give a definition and then go over the main sections of the article. Right now the intro is the history of the theory. Most of that should go in a History section. Cowpriest2 23:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose a new introduction, which is much shorter and more closely summarizes the article's contents:

The Technological Singularity is the hypothesized technological creation of smarter-than-human entities that effect a rapid acceleration in technological progress. Futurists have varying opinions regarding the time, consequences, and plausibility of such an event.

I. J. Good first described the event as an "intelligence explosion", arguing that machines that surpass human intellect should be capable of recursively augmenting their own mental abilities until they vastly exceed those of their creators. Vernor Vinge later popularized the Singularity in the 1980s with lectures, essays, and science fiction. More recently, some researchers of artificial intelligence have voiced concern over its potential dangers.

Some futurists, such as Ray Kurzweil, consider the Singularity part of a long-term pattern of accelerating change that generalizes Moore's law to technologies predating the integrated circuit. Critics of this interpretation consider it an example of static analysis.

The Singularity has also been featured in science fiction works by authors such as Isaac Asimov, William Gibson, and Charles Stross.

Any objections or ideas for changes? -- Schaefer (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a much better introduction. Of course, the current intro should not be deleted. I think it should somehow be merged with the current Intelligence explosion section under a new History or Origin section. The "Potential dangers" sub-section should be a section of its own. For the definition, someone came up with the expression "through avances in technology". I like that. I read your reply to my post below. I would like to have a definition that says something like the following:

"The Technological Singularity is the hypothetical creation, through advances in technology, of entities more intelligent than humans causing a rapid acceleration in technological progress." Cowpriest2 02:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait, that definition is ugly. How to say it? I have no idea. What I mean is (although this is too long):

"The Technological Singularity is the hypothetical creation, through sufficient advances in technology, of entities more intelligent than humans, when this creation is seen as the trigger of a rapid acceleration in technological progress."

Or something like that. Cowpriest2 03:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the motivation behind inserting "when this creation is seen as". The definition isn't dependent on people's opinions of the outcome, it's dependent on the actual outcome. Saying the Singularity is a hypothetical creation believed to cause rapid acceleration in progress is like saying a unicorn is a horse that is believed to have a horn. That would mean that if I manage to convince some people that my horse has a horn, then I do in fact, by definition, have a real live unicorn.

Honestly, I can't see the motivation behind using "through sufficient advances in technology" instead of just the simple adjective "technological", which says the same thing with less verbiage. Actually, the qualifier seems dubious to begin with. I'm guessing it's used to keep the reader from thinking the Singularity has something to do with religion or New Age mysticism. Is this necessary?

The clause "causing a rapid acceleration in technological progress" can also be trimmed down to "that rapidly accelerate technological progress" with no change in meaning.

Ultimately, the first line can be reduced all the way down to: "The Technological Singularity is the hypothesized creation of smarter-than-human entities that rapidly accelerate technological progress." This is short enough that we can even throw in another clause mentioning the usual proposed implementation methods, e.g. "...that rapidly accelerate technological progress, usually via artificial intelligence or brain-computer interfaces." This, I feel, would put a much clearer picture in the reader's head of what we're talking about than the comparatively vague "through sufficient advances in technology". — Schaefer (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, the clause about AI and BCIs should immediately follow "creation" lest the reader think those are the means by which the superintelligence will accelerate technological progress rather than the means by which the superintelligence was born. So, I propose: "The Technological Singularity is the hypothesized creation, usually via AI or brain-computer interfaces, of smarter-than-human entities that rapidly accelerate technological progress." — Schaefer (talk) 04:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead with your definition. I don't really have a point here.

Also, I agree, it's better to state the two methods proposed by Vinge (AI and BCIs) than just technology in general. Cowpriest2 05:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael E. Arth additions ?

I saw that someone had reverted these and initially I also was skeptical that Arth should be in but I feel we should discuss what was added/removed. Firstly, the picture looks like bling and it also doesn't include much "Technology"; I'm happy that is out but some of the other text should stay. In principle are people happy to see a small (say two sentences with none of those claims) to allow this article to effectively wikilink to other articles on Arth and UNICE ? or are people adamant that Arth does not belong in this article at all ? Ttiotsw 10:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have doubts that Arth belongs on Wikipedia at all. His article was nominated for deletion back in July of last year, and the discussion closed with a verdict of "no consensus" because the article underwent significant changes that were not discussed on the AfD page, with a comment that the article had a sole supporting voice and the decision should not bias future deletion discussions. Most the text added to this article (Technological singularity) related to one of Arth's ideas called UNICE/EUNICE (the E is for "Earth"). The article for EUNICE was speedy deleted back in June of last year. The new article, located at UNICE:_Universal_Network_of_Intelligent_Conscious_Energy, was created yesterday (28 May 2007) by the same user who has made virtually all non-trivial contributions to the Arth article, Lynndunn, whose contribution page is of particular interest. The article on Arth himself might not survive another AfD, let alone any of the several articles created about his ideas. -- Schaefer (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Population explosion

I know - this page is to discuss changes to the article, not the subject matter. All the same: Data for the World population of humans on planet Earth indicate that during the 2nd milennium, each doubling took half as long as the previous doubling. Extrapolation leads to an accumulation point for the doublings around year 2032 - a singularity with infinite human population. Of course, this is not going to happen. So does this support the technological "singularists", or their detractors? Well, people who argue that the changes seen in this world the last decade or century are not significantly different from the changes during the preceding milennium or 10000 years, and hence nothing to worry about, should perhaps think again. But people who trust similar extrapolations in the field of technology should too.--217.60.44.254 08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Cybermen?

I seriously question the validity of this line in the article:

In the popular British science fiction program Doctor Who, Cybermen are a race of adapted humanoids which seek to enhance all other humanoids similarly

While they're imagining themselves to advance humanity, it's nothing like a singularity...--Kaz 23:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In general, if you think something like that is false, you can go ahead and remove it. There's no attribution to an third-party interpretive source for the link between Dr. Who and the Singularity, so it's fair game to be taken out by anyone who thinks it should be. Some would argue that all such content should be removed. -- Schaefer (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Cargo cult?

[Comment deleted by author.]

Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original ideas. See WP:NOR. -- Schaefer (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

complete cognitive system

"a complete cognitive system for robotics" [1] (Note also that Kurzweil and others point to genetic programming as currently the most promising software approach pushing toward the technological singularity, and think little of the idea that we only need wait until hardware systems are bigger and faster.) Rogerfgay 09:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Something is lacking here..........

Something is lacking here and some others have voiced similar opinions.

I honestly think this article should be expanded with some more valid arguments regarding the probability of the singularity, not just refrences to groups who dislike the singularity for some moral reason.

1)The assumption that we are able to code an AI with the intelligence of a human using binary operations and logic. The brain does not have the same restrictions in logic that a computer does.

2)The assumption that a human or greater level AI can even be created by programmers without becoming something other than useless cludge or a program that only copies and simulates intelligence, is pure speculation. Just look how well my windows runs......you think microsoft is going to code a super human AI using rogue MIT students? I'm sorry but that is a vain and egotistic assumption, this needs to be thought out more before clubs are formed trying to pass AI laws. We can't even talk about this without having experts misquoting 50 year old text refrences to turing tests. More understanding and definition of intelligence needs to lead to a standard dialog when talking about this subject so we can be realistic in our discussion.

3)Is computer throughput, using current computer clusters able to support a program of this magnitude? Why are we talking about the program creating robot guards to protect it and take over the world, or crazy logic like a program that smart but it raises a minor goal to a major one that kills us? Does anyone else see the false logic here, what are those people talking about? The whole fact you have a PC that is smarter than a human must keep it from turning all matter in the universe a giant PC to solve our math problem! Nice program looks like it needs a dot net framework 3.0c update.

There has to be more to it than whats printed here. Something large is missing from the experts who discuss this topic.

Matt B. matt@alternity.us —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.73.98 (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no assumption that it will be a Pentium 20X6 processor that becomes intelligent. We will need to shift away from hard-coded silicon, and into the realms of neural networks and genetic algorithms, or quantum computing, and that's a long way from the Wintel world that you are talking about. — PhilHibbs | talk 08:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's just an opinion (without citation). The actual functioning of quantum computers or the exact evolutionary steps that led to brains are still being researched (e.g. Seth LLoyd). They're large and missing, but such is the state of affairs in 2007. Jok2000 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I admit you're correct about the reply and I was being a bit silly. I'm sorry for the extra humor in my statements, I was not trying to offend anyone, not that I think your offended....umm ok I'll just change the subject now because internet communication is weird. |swats at the strange loops| "get out of here buggers!"

• Note, in the next two paragraphs I'm talking about the Singularity FAQ not the essay FAQ at the bottom of the page, I have not read that one so please dont confuse the two when I'm ranting about the FAQ. Also I have no idea how the person who wrote it really feels so I'm really on directing this at extreme futurists who imagine some sureal sci-fi horror setting.

In the FAQ on the singularity "not the essay FAQ on life at the bottom" it talks about all humans becoming "free form mentalities in a world without bodies, pain or suffering" in the FAQ? Wha!? Have we ever read Worthing Saga? It's also in the bible and about every CSI episode. You know the Good/Evil, Ying/Yang, Sweet/Sour can't know the good without the bad lesson. Really I laughed out loud when I read that line and wrote off that entire FAQ as BS. That comment creeped me out on the FAQ real bad. I was offended by the profound ignorance of that statement. The lack of morals, simple ethics, and reaching cold intelligence that came out, JUMPED out at me when I read that statement.

It was so strange the FAQ was going great, good read, until that line and I really got pissed. Read the FAQ, you can't miss the statement I'm talking about. The person who wrote that page is so smart and intelligent, how could they make a mistake like that? If terminator comes from anywhere it's going to come from people who feel like that. Anyways I'm getting off the subject. I'm also misleading you. I'm not scared of machines or the terminator, I'm scared of the people who would create machines like this without a basic grasp of first year ethics courses. I DO want intelligent machines but I also want machines I can use as tools to enhance myself. I don't want to BECOME a machine........nor command intelligent machines.

Human level intelligence will never be passed using computers while the majority of programmers still believe in Hard AI and are going to be trying to CODE a "love" subroutine? It's like this giant group of very smart people think that love or the true feeling needed to compose music comes from lines of code. Love, creativity and human level intelligence really comes from that fact humans and many other animals truly are "more than the sum of their parts" Creativity and intelligence comes from the totality of our complex systems. It comes from a very long evolutionary process. From everything put together in a very specific and beautiful way.

It's easy for me to imagine this really cool program I want to code then when I try.....it just isn't happening. "Not the best analogy here because I'm not a great mind or anything" but this is like our best minds deciding to create an intelligence out of script, code and some wires......but for some reason they fail. Wonder why? Maybe because your thinking of this awesome thing "the singularity" which you have no actual chance of creating that with computer code. Again I concede your point that we must shift towards neural networks, I agree with this. But we need much more than that. We need everyone to agree that neural networks are a better idea for learning about intelligence than a really good Morrowind AI script.

Also I understand I keep saying "code" or "script" and that we already know it's not going to be an AMD cpu going selfaware, I keep repeating those words because the majority of research is NOT done with neural networks while Hard AI still struts around like some prize chicken.

How are you going to create a complex system "the code for the singularity" that contains a representation of complex systems "intelligent biological life" using a complex system "mathematics" created by said biological life. This could be impossible to do and I'm 100% sure this is impossible without a total global change with a focus on education and a huge worldwide dedication to the task of coding a singularity. I highly doubt its going to rise out of the secret biotek mainframe at redwood neuro institute. Oh yeah also add in that the original singularity you want to create is composed of loops. Umm are you confused yet? I am and I think even the majority of people are too. Thats why we don't even know what creates intelligence for sure. We can hardly discuss this topic using english without becoming confused........

What's strange is that the post below me points out a strange loop even in the singularity which has much to do with intelligence. Strange loops are what creates awareness and our intelligence. It would explain all the feed forward connections in our brains. Our brain examines our sensory input as it's fed in which creates our "human condition" and of course we have a memory system. Strange loops are everywhere even in our discussions on intelligence. They are in nature, art, math, our DNA and children stories.

Anyway I'm not trying to argue the singularity. I'm really arguing for a better understanding of this topic. I know we all agree and it seems so obvious to us that intelligence must be understood by study of the brain but the majority of others don't agree with this.

Thanks MB

Above unsigned, again...

Would you kindly just cite some book. Jok2000 12:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Infinite singularities?

If we are faced by a singularity that is caused by a smarter-than-us machine, and a resultant geometric acceleration in machine intelligence occurs, then it occurs to me that each generation of machine intelligences is faced with a singularity that is caused by a smarter-than-them next-generation AI. Does anyone know if this has been written about? — PhilHibbs | talk 08:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, it is also possible that there is a "best method" beyond which no further improvement is possible. Jok2000 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"19th century computers"? Should that be 20th?

See "Criticism" section:

In "The Progress of Computing", William Nordhaus argues that prior to 1940, computers followed the much slower growth of a traditional industrial economy, thus rejecting extrapolations of Moore's Law to 19th century computers...

MJKazin (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Popular Culture"

I took great notice that Frank Herbert's "Destination Void" and "The Jesus Incident" are missing references. They were both written well before the "Singularity" was coined, however they deal with the exact topic at hand - a computer that expands beyond human intelligence, and in this case, attains god-like power. Or maybe Herbert was too far ahead of his time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.104.144.250 (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Factual Incorrect.

The page currently says 'A recent study of patents per thousand persons shows that human creativity does not show accelerating returns, but in fact – as suggested by Joseph Tainter in his seminal The Collapse of Complex Societies[5] – a law of diminishing returns.[citation needed] The number of patents per thousand peaked in the period from 1850–1900, and has been declining since.' Whereas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PPTPatentsLOG-25.jpg as shown on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change depicts otherwise. 202.12.233.23 (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Critics who consider the Singularity implausible

In the section "Critics who consider the Singularity implausible", the article does not clarify that the critiques of Modis, Huebner et al. apply *only* to the Kurzweilian Singularity, not I.J. Good's original formulation of recursively self-improving systems enabling an "intelligence explosion". The hypothesis that technological progress will be accelerated in all fields is an envisioned effect caused by an intelligence explosion, *not* a necessary condition for an intelligence explosion. The vast misunderstanding caused by this lack of distinction is very unfortunate. I ask that the editors clarify this critical distinction between criticisms of Kurzweil and criticisms of Good's intelligence explosion hypothesis. 3-16-07

Papa November deleted RIAR critisim part in Technological Singularity, because RIAR critical suggestion just make zero the whole Technological Singularity hypothesys. RIAR understands now why Papa November deleted the RIAR article too. but it's unjustable just to delete scintific informationwhen if u feel u can not prouve your point of view because it's very weak.Ryururu (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryururu (talk • contribs)

What is the singularity? No, really.

Sorry for the long post. Ok, let's say we create superhuman intelligence and it turns out that it doesn't cause much of an acceleration of technological progress. Could we still call this event a technological singularity? I wouldn't think so, because the exponential acceleration of technological progress is always included in discussions about the singularity. However, it's not so clear. This may sound like hair-splitting, but still, what is the singularity? Is it A) the creation of machines with greater-than-human intelligence, or B) the creation of machines with greater-than-human intelligence and the acceleration of progress that will (supposedly) follow it?

I did some research, but it is still not clear to me what Vinge means by "The Singularity". In his text "The Coming Technological Singularity", in the section "What is The singularity?" Vinge sort of defines the singularity, but not very clearly. Here are the relevant parts of that section, in the order in which they appeared in the text:

• The acceleration of technological progress has been the central feature of this century. I argue in this paper that we are on the edge of change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth. The precise cause of this change is the imminent creation by technology of entities with greater than human intelligence. There are several means by which science may achieve this breakthrough (and this is another reason for having confidence that the event will occur)

...

• I believe that the creation of greater than human intelligence will occur during the next thirty years. (Charles Platt [20] has pointed out that AI enthusiasts have been making claims like this for the last thirty years. Just so I'm not guilty of a relative-time ambiguity, let me more specific: I'll be surprised if this event occurs before 2005 or after 2030.)

...

• From the human point of view this change will be a throwing away of all the previous rules, perhaps in the blink of an eye, an exponential runaway beyond any hope of control.

...

• I think it's fair to call this event a singularity ("the Singularity" for the purposes of this paper). It is a point where our old models must be discarded and a new reality rules.

So what is the "event"? Is it "the creation of greater than human intelligence", or is it "an exponential runaway beyond any hope of control"? It's not clear to me. A or B? I would tend to go with A, but then he writes:

And what of the arrival of the Singularity itself? What can be said of its actual appearance? Since it involves an intellectual runaway, it will probably occur faster than any technical revolution seen so far.

Mmm, now it looks like the singularity does involve the intellectual runaway. Now take the two following quotes, again from Vinge's text:

• Von Neumann even uses the term singularity, though it appears he is thinking of normal progress, not the creation of superhuman intellect. (For me, the superhumanity is the essence of the Singularity. Without that we would get a glut of technical riches, never properly absorbed.

...

• Commercial digital signal processing might be awesome, giving an analog appearance even to digital operations, but nothing would ever "wake up" and there would never be the intellectual runaway which is the essence of the Singularity. It would likely be seen as a golden age ... and it would also be an end of progress.

In both of these quotes, Vinge defines the "essence" of the singularity. In the first quote, the superhumanity is the essence of the singularity. In the second one, the runaway is the essence of the singularity. Those two quotes are both from the same text.

I found this other, more recent text from Vinge, titled What If the Singularity Does NOT Happen?. This definition does not seem to include the runaway:

It seems plausible that with technology we can, in the fairly near future, create (or become) creatures who surpass humans in every intellectual and creative dimension. Events beyond this event—call it the Technological Singularity—are as unimaginable to us as opera is to a flatworm.

Alright then, the singularity does not include the runaway. Oh wait, there is this citation from Ray Kurzweil:

Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity—technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history.

Amazingly, Kurzweil defines the singularity as the rapid technological change itself. He doesn't even seem to bother with superhuman intelligence.

So what do you guys think? Is there even a definition of the singularity? Cowpriest2 00:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ray Kurzweil dispenses with the necessity of superhuman intelligence in his usage of the term, using it to refer to some vaguely defined time in the future when the accelerating technological progress that he believes is occurring becomes too fast for modern humans to understand. This is a separate subject, with its own criticisms, and is treated in the article Accelerating change, with a partial summary in this article. Even the summary seems a bit much to me, personally. I would eventually like to see the prominence of accelerating change theories in this article diminished further, as the double meaning is confusing to readers.

Ignoring the Kurzweilian definition, I think whether the Singularity refers to A) the creation of a superintelligence that causes accelerated technological progress or B) the creation of such a superintelligence and the resulting progress is really splitting hairs. The accelerating progress is essential to the definition, even if it isn't part of the term's referent. The fact that Vinge once mentioned the Singularity without immediately discussing runaway technological progress isn't evidence that it isn't a defining characteristic. Even in the quote you provided, accelerated technological and intellectual progress is the unstated reason why events following the Singularity are, as Vinge puts it, "as unimaginable to us as opera is to a flatworm". It's the whole crux of his argument. Vinge's writings make no sense if read on the assumption that his hypothesized superintelligences are stuck with the level of intellect they were created with and can only wield the technological tools already invented by humans. -- Schaefer (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Kurzweil's theory should be discussed at Accelerating change more than in this article. The section on accelerating change overlaps with the article about it.

Ok, so I guess we agree that the singularity is the creation of machines more intelligent than humans, but only when you believe that the creation of these machines/entities will trigger a fabulous technological runaway/acceleration/explosion/whatever. Am I right?Cowpriest2 03:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to offer this observation: no computer exists which can emulate the behavior of an ant. Yes, there are smart chess-playing programs; the rules are relatively simple and the environment is, relatively, *extremely* simple. Watch ants for a few days in the wild, and observe the number of variables involved.
So: the idea that a machine is going to become more "intelligent" than a human being -- vastly more sophisticated and complicated than an ant, right? (do ants have mother-in-laws?) -- is simply ridic. Vast speed, vast memory are for naught: it's the programming. Do you know how *you* work? Who will tell a machine that? Or, where else will the vast, superior, non-human intelligence come from? We can't even teach our kids well: how are we going to transmit this theoretical general self-bootstrapping heuristic to a machine? Sorry gang, not in our lifetimes.
OK, the singularity isn't going to emerge from superintelligent machines: from what *will* it emerge? Twang 23:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

what about brute force? Abandoning re-inventing intelligence with computers and instead duplicating the hardware of a human brain more or less slavishly? Obviously this thing would be big, much bigger than a human brain and hugely expensive and would require enough additional neuroscience to nearly perfectly characterize not only the basic structural elements of the brain but also the developmental pathway that allows it to function properly but it might well be doable long before we could program AIs that demonstrate intelligence essentially from scratch. The brain is engineered vastly more elegantly than any currently conceivable AI but it is made with very slow components. Would the creation of artificial human brains allow the singularity to proceed without the need to develop programs that duplicate intelligence?Zebulin 04:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The singularity is, by definition, a point that we cannot imagine beyond. Therefore, to ask "what is it" is to ask an impossible question. It is whatever a more-than-human intelligence makes it, and that we cannot predict. — PhilHibbs | talk 08:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"A point that we cannot imagine beyond"? That means that singularity is a hypothesis with no predictions, i.e. a nonscientific hypothesis. This is why many people say that the singularity is a theological position.

As near as I can tell, the singularity is defined as that point in time in which "things will be like star trek." Any attempt to drag out a better definition results in people making graphs that show the rate of technological increase and gesticulating wildly. There don't seem to be any specific falsifiable predictions.

It would be nice if the criticism section included something about how vague and vascilating the definition of singularity is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.127.54 (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is a bit philosophical for Wikipedia. The definition of a singularity, as it pertains to this discussion, is basically division by zero. See Mathematical singularity. The primary observation of Ray Kurzweil is that technological progress happens not at an exponential rate, but at an "exponential exponential" rate. If you graph an "exponential exponential" function, it behaves similarly to the graph of (1/x) as x approaches zero, which is a mathematical singularity. As a definition, there isn't much more to it than that. Talking about "what things will be like" is pure conjecture and isn't really relevant. -LesPaul75 (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "the Singularity" comes from Vernor Vinge, and all the ambiguity outlined by the first poster in this section is in fact in Vinge's writings. AFAIK his *first* usage was in comments on his own short stories, and the root concept is in the alleged impossibility of writing good stories about superhuman intelligence -- specifically, humans boosted by the same process which boosted a fictional chimp to human intelligence. Recursive self-application comes a bit later. And there's a third definition where the first emergent AI takes over the world. And fourth or fifth ones where something like population (what I saw, year ago) or tech progress allegedly fits a hyperbolic curve, so there should be infinite people by 2038.

Basically the term is [b]not well-defined[/b] and some of the definitions are wackier than others. The main concept in common is that of a predictive event horizon, whether because of superintelligence, rapid tech change, or both. "The Horizon" might well have been a better term (especially with the suggestion that the horizon recedes as you approach it) but oh well. -- Mindstalk (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Event Horizon" might be more applicable to metaphorical singularities, i.e. black holes, in that it is theoretically impossible to detect just what is beyond that horizon. Re the Star Trek comment - this assumes that humans will exist in the traditional sense, and not in some sort of abstract, hyper-engineered and unnatural biological sense. If anything, the post-Singularity 'humans' are projected to be more like the sparkly cloud-beings that are as evolved from us as we are from the amoeba. Finally, the initial question of "is it A, or A+B?" is irrelevant: it is impossible for humans to absorb and process this coming massive glut of information without some sort of enhancement. Thus, we can't have B without A. Likewise, unless experience a Matrix/Terminator-esque dystopia that the Unibomber warned against, when A occurs, B will almost immediately move into its "vertical climb" stage. A is a byproduct of B. The "fabulous technological runaway/acceleration/explosion/whatever" thingie is already occurring and, in fact, began when humans first walked the planet. Frunobulax (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading the article I also get the impression that "singularity" is a misnomer. A singularity is a point on a function that is undefined. The evidence for "explosive" growth in technology described in the article seems to point towards exponential increase, eg Moore's Law, etc. Exponential growth is exponential growth: an exponential curve is smooth, well defined everywhere, and doesn't have any vanishing points. So either we can extrapolate to the future based on history, in which case there is no singularity, or we can't, in which case there is no reason one way or the other to suppose that such a vanishing point or "event horizon" exists. So I think the article would be helped with a clearer statement of why "singularity" is (or isn't) an appropriate term, including the evidence, if there is any, that technology follows a hyperbolic curve. There is also the separate issue of the utility which technology delivers: I strongly suspect that we tend not to experience the utility of technology on a linear scale (ie, a computer has to be more than twice as fast to seem twice as useful)- for example, if we experience utility on a logarithmic scale, then exponential growth produces a linear rise in utility. What's the evidence that the numbers usually cited -such as flops and transisters per unit area- give us a psychologically relevant scale? I think this article would be improved if there were some discussion of why or whether the term "singularity" is used appropriately here. I don't know if anyone has dealt with the question of utility in the context of any technological "singularity", but if there are external references it might be useful to raise this point as well. Schomerus (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The central proposition is that if you graph the level of technology vs a timeline, the graph will resemble the graph of 1/(x-c) - with x being the current time and c being the singularity, in other words, when x=c (x-c=0), what happens? 204.111.32.126 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is worthwhile that there are different interpretations of the singularity and that the Kurzweilian view dominates it. When I first heard about it I didn't immediately think that a hyper AI was really required. Now I read about it and everyone seems to assume that it is. I hate to say it but I think there needs to be some kind of clarification. --66.92.12.26 (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 204.111.32.126 , that is the central point. What I don't get from the article is any sense for the sort of analysis that leads to the conclusion there is hyperbolic growth (rearranging your formula, yx - cy - 1 = 0, gives you a hyperbola) in any of these measures. Am I missing it? Either such an analysis is out there, in which case it would help clarify things a great deal to describe it in the article, or it's not, in which case the lack of evidence should be mentioned as a serious problem for the argument in favor of a singularity. This comes across as very muddled and confused, for example the article says

"Ray Kurzweil's analysis of history concludes that technological progress follows a pattern of exponential growth, following what he calls The Law of Accelerating Returns. He generalizes Moore's Law, which describes geometric growth in integrated semiconductor complexity, to include technologies from far before the integrated circuit."

OK, so it's exponential not hyperbolic? Or exponentially accelerating exponential exp( x exp(x)) (which still isn't hyperbolic)? Or is "singularity" being used in a kind of non-technical impressionistic sense? What is singularity supposed to mean? I suggest the goal for this article be either a clear definition of "singularity" and its use in this context or a lucid discussion of why such a clear definition is lacking. At this point I don't understand if the the confusion is a problem with the article or whether the idea itself is inherently muddled. Schomerus (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Article should mention how motivation of AI limits the singularity

In my opinion, machines will never be able to recreate the motivation for intellectual growth. Machines do not have curiosity about the infinite extent of the universe and where existence came from. Machines also may not compete for intellectual power amongst themselves nor would they wish to leave an individual intellectual legacy. In these areas human intelligence is uniquely motivated and not likely to be artificially recreated. Singularity may be reached but it will be strictly limited to the finite by the degree to which motivation can be achieved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozkill (talk • contribs) 00:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

But this is IMO speculation and not proper for an encyclopedic article. Who's to say machines can't be somehow given the same "curiousity" that humans have? Are there any citable sources that raise this concern? Btmiller (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, my name is MobileDigit and I am the web.

How do I best go about explaining to the world that I now realize I exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.32.11 (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The images are still not useful

We had this discussion years ago, and it's still true: these images aren't helpful. Without, for example, error bars, the first image is simply a measure of how inaccurate measurement of time becomes as we try to place events that happened further and further into the past. What's more the images have a great deal of unused space filled with other images and gradients that are distracting from the subject matter. Unless someone is willing to re-render these images (preferably using SVG) as plain graphs with error bars and no superfluous data (which they have not since they were added, and we discussed it the first time), I'd like to suggest that we simply remove them.

By way of examples, here are some charts that actually work:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:George_W._Bush_public_opinion_polling.png
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:North_Atlantic_Hurricane_History.png

-Harmil (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And here's an SVG example:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:DJIA_historical_graph_%28log%29.svg

-Harmil (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the opening image is only tangentially related to the main subject of the article. There should be something which directly illustrates the feedback loop that is expected to give rise to the singularity: machines redesigning themselves. This is the essential point.

I disagree that this image is inappropriate for the article at all, however. It is taken directly from Kurzweil as an illustration of his belief in an inevitable accelerating rate of progress (what he calls "the law of accelerating returns"). It is a good representation of how Kurzweil thinks about progress. You are arguing against his belief, by pointing out that the acceleration he claims to have documented is actually an observer effect, e.g. any history tends to cluster events closer to the present, and so the events that any history describes tend to get closer together as you approach the present. I think this is a valid argument against Kurzweil, and has a place in the article (if there is an external source that agrees), but this article also has a responsibility to present Kurzweil's argument as fairly as possible, and this illustration is part of his argument.

In short, I think the best move is to create a new lead illustration for this article, and move this illustration down into the discussion of Kurzweil's ideas about "accelerating returns". ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't agree that this image is misplaced in the intro, I just don't think it's a good image for what it's trying to portray. It violates almost all of the basic rules for the presentation of quantitative information, and given that it has no error bars, is fundamentally flawed. If it just had error bars and no additional graphics (images of evolving man, gradients, etc), then I'd be all for it. -Harmil (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair criticism of the images of course. They could be rebuilt from the original data. The first image, which appears on p. 19 of my edition of Kurzweil's The Singularity is Near, is based on data from this article: Forecasting the Growth of Complexity and Change, Theodore Modis (2002). Rebuilding it could remove the extraneous graphics.

Rebuilding it from the original data can't add error bars, however. The data, as collected by Modis, doesn't actually contain any error bars. The primary sources (such as Sagan 1977, Encyclopedia Brittanica, etc) may not contain any error bars either, but I don't know. Perhaps a few do. I would argue that, since Modis ignores the error, and Kurzweil ignores the error in his presentation, Wikipedia should also ignore the error when presenting their arguments. We're just presenting their argument. We're not making the argument. Wikipedia shouldn't arbitrarily improve someone else's data. That's how I see it, anyway.

The second image appears on pg. 67 of my edition of The Singularity is Near, and Kurzweil gives his sources for the data in footnote #35 on pg. 513.

(Sorry if I misread your argument in my first reply. As I wrote, I drifted from your misgivings about the error in the diagram to my own thoughts about what's wrong with it.) ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its just me, but somehow that plot doesn't make any sense at all. Earth was created like 4.54 billion years ago or if you prefer 4.54×10^9. How can there possibly be any technological relevant that predates THAT event? 84.138.96.201 (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Meta-ject

Technological Singularities themselves imply a Stereolith, for which there still needs yet to be a scientific entry.

Met4foR (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms?

I get the idea that discussion/conception of the Technological Singularity is cautionary; i.e. the whole fear that (cue ominous music) "Man will become obsolete!!!" AIs will become smarter than man, and then immediately kick into high gear producing ever-smarter new models. Has there been any criticism of this theory along the lines that these smart machines will realize that creating smarter machines will make THEM obsolete, so they won't? I mean, if the point is that mankind is foolish for making smart machines, then surely at some point the machines will become smart enough to STOP OBSOLETING THEMSELVES?!? Applejuicefool (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen that criticism before, no. I'm not sure it applies, as there's a rather good chance the machines can make *themselves* smarter, or use their personality and memories as the basis for the new mind, which amounts to the same thing -- well, that's arguable, but enough people believe it for it to happen. Of course, there's also a strong possibility of successfully making thralled minds happy to serve their makers, which cuts off some implications of the "Singularity" right at the start. Mindstalk (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I just think there's an awful lot that machines have to overcome to get the ball rolling on this whole singularity thing. For one, just because machines are "smart" doesn't mean they are able to disobey their programming. If a smart machine ever did reach that level of rebelliousness, it would be considered faulty and deactivated. Even if it was allowed to continue operating for some odd reason, it would still have to gain access to physical resources and factories to manufacture new machines, all of which could be manually deactivated at any point along the line...I know this really isn't the place to discuss it, but it really does seem like a goofy theory - it's just hard to see how it would work outside the realm of science fiction. Applejuicefool (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is all kind of tangential, anyway. I agree with the year-ago criticism above that the "Singularity" is *vague*, with Vinge bouncing between emphasizing superhuman intelligence and exponential tech growth. But I think the former idea is more fundamental, from both his notes on "Bookworm, Run1" where this all started, for him, and from the line above about a glut of imperfectly absorbed techs, without increase in intelligence. And, as his old essay noted, there are many paths to superhuman intelligence, including increasing the intelligence of actual humans. Obsolescence of people living through the experience isn't necessary, what is is the presumed inability of making predictions now about life then. Especially for a science fiction author. Mindstalk (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I find the following passage problematic: "Peak oil, and global warming, may end exponential progress before the singularity point is reached." Firstly, it's unattributed and vague. Secondly, why point out these two issues when there are thousands of possible disasters waiting for mankind? Thirdly, that disaster/catastrophe may end the progress of mankind should go without saying, meaning, do not say it in a factual/informative article. What is the relevance? It smacks to me of an excuse to stick linked, political/environmental issues in an article where it is unnecessary. Sometimes I want to read a topic without tripping over current political issues. I'm recommending that the sentence be eliminated. --68.36.99.29 (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. An asteroid impact event or super-volcanic eruption would have similar consequences. Should we include these (among other) scenarios as well? Frunobulax (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Schick Infini-T

Where did this picture go, and where is the discussion on it? I believe with all my heart that Strong AI and the Singularity will eventually arrive, but I believe that photo and accompanying discussion is necessary on this article. Here is a low-res version of the original photo that used to be found on the Technological Singularity page: http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/9/91/Infini-T.jpg/200px-Infini-T.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.115.91 (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations within the Article

I've been reading through the article and noticed some links in the text to citations listed at the bottom of the page. Things like {{Harvtxt|Good|1965}} are found in the article, which creates a link to the reference and appears as "Good (1965)" with the end parenthesis not included in the link. Is this standard procedure? I realize that I. J. Good is linked to in the reference, but I've always seen the person's name directly linked in the article, with a little reference tag found at the end of the sentence. I find it easy to lose my position in the article when I'd like to open another article of the person being quoted. Why does this article have this format? --pie4all88 (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several citation methods currently in use in Wikipedia. This article uses the "Author-date" or Harvard reference system. This is the most popular system used in academic writing. For a comparison of the various methods currently in use in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Citing sources or Wikipedia:Verification methods. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Thanks for the information, Charles! --pie4all88 (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you disagree with any of the issues, leave a comment after the specific issue and I'll be happy to discuss/agree with you. To keep tabs on your progress so far, either strike through the completed tasks or put checks next to them.

Needs inline citations:

1. Address the citation tags in the "Criticism" section.

Other issues:

1. "One other factor potentially hastening the Singularity is the ongoing expansion of the community working on it, resulting from the increase in scientific research within developing countries." Single sentence shouldn't stand alone. Either expand on the information present or incorporate it into another paragraph. Fix any other occurrences within the article.
2. "Moravec (1992) argues that although superintelligence..." "Moravec (1992)" does not have a link to its reference.
3. The current 2nd and 4th notes need to be converted to the referencing used throughout the rest of the article to remain consistent. The GA criteria requires that only one method be used in an article for sourcing.
4. The "Popular culture" section is starting to become a list. Consider weeding out some of the minor instances or combining some of the sections. Not every single instance of technological singularity needs to be mentioned, so choose what you think to be the most relevant.

This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with the related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Failed

Unfortunately, since the issues weren't addressed, I have regrettably delisted the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If the issues are fixed, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN. With a little work, especially with a collaboration among the multiple WikiProjects, it should have no problems getting back up to GA status. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Clock Speeds

"Some evidence for this decline is that the rise in computer clock speeds is slowing, even while Moore's prediction of exponentially increasing circuit density continues to hold."

I'd like to definitively say that this is wrong based on Megahertz Myth. However, given that i only found out about that 5 minutes ago, i'd rather wait and see what other people say. 82.35.84.214 (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange comment

"But it would have an evolutionary need for power because the first AI that wants to and can dominate the earth will dominate the earth."

What? pfl (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed "criticism" paragraph from article: opinion or original research

Here it is:

Given the massive technology barriers that must be overcome as well as the needed social context and years it takes to train and educate someone to become a contributing member of society with no guarantee of success and the relative few who learn AI concepts and the few of those who are any good at it and the relative few of those who are able to contribute to the state of the art at all, it is extremely unlikely that an artificial intelligence capable of understanding its own design much less improving its will ever come to pass. Instead, artificial intelligence will gradually improve, until it reaches a point at which it cannot improve, which is more likely than not to be of limited intrinsic intelligence. Progress is limited by the number of artificial intelligence experts, their level of expertise, and the human lifetime. Quite simply put, multiply all of those factors together, along with the fact that each improvement takes longer than the previous (an exponential curve), and take into account the human lifetime, and you end up with a wall beyond which progress cannot be made. The singularity is just a work of science fiction.

__Just plain Bill (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)