
The original singularity paper - anirudh
http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html
======
donaq
_Computer/human interfaces may become so intimate that users may reasonably be
considered superhumanly intelligent._

In a limited way, this has already happened. Imagine talking to a human of
average intelligence with the best education we could provide now sans all
knowledge of and reference to the computers and the internet. S/he will be
amazed by your seeming omniscience, even if the only site you had access to
was wikipedia.

------
pj
_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. Developments that before were thought might only happen
in "a million years" (if ever) will likely happen in the next century._

We are already seeing this happen because of the use of computers. Computers
allow us to violate the economic laws and collapse the financial system.
Computers have been the cause of more than one financial collapse in the past.

I have read words like, "AIG didn't factor in the probability of these things
happening, because they were so remote." Isn't that the same as "happen in 'a
million years'?"

Computers are allowing us to do things today, that we thought only decades ago
would only be possible in a million years -- or never. Many thought we'd never
get to the moon. We probably wouldn't have without computers.

~~~
ujal
"We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and
underestimate the effect in the long run." - Roy Amara

------
swolchok
_The first three possibilities depend in large part on improvements in
computer hardware. Progress in computer hardware has followed an amazingly
steady curve in the last few decades [17]. Based largely on this trend, I
believe that the creation of greater than human intelligence will occur during
the next thirty years._

Yes, well, single-core clock speeds are a dead end now, and it's not at all
clear how to take advantage of multiple cores in the same way. Why are we
still excited about this?

~~~
russell
The human mind is highly parallel. Anything that approaches it in intelligence
will also be highly parallel. Even if clock speeds were a million times
faster, parallel would be the only way to manage the complexity. The clock
speed of a neuron is only 5ms and we do pretty well.

~~~
goodside
"The human mind is highly parallel. Anything that approaches it in
intelligence will also be highly parallel."

Birds fly by flapping their wings. Any man-made object that approaches the
flying ability of a bird will also flap its wings.

~~~
Confusion
That analogy fails, because man-made objects have not yet approached the
flying ability of birds (or insects). Man-made flying objects are highly
energy inefficient and slow and clumsy as a result. We cannot make something
that flies like a bird or something that flies like an insect.

------
radu_floricica
What if we are culturally programmed to refuse singularity?

The key in the article is that constructing a higher intelligence will enable
us to get to the next level faster - by using our new found capacities. But
all we see around us makes it pretty obvious this is not the case. Whatever
means we have of improving ourselves, they're woefully underused. We actually
have ways to make intellectual work better. Not science fiction, but simply a
trip to the pharmacy. They work (there have been several articles on HN about
provigil or ritalin), and they can be made safe - they mostly are, all we need
are some proper guidelines. But what do we do? We talk about outlawing them.
And they are definitely not publicly acknowledged.

And before you say that this is not the same: how exactly is it not? Can you
imagine a way to improve a human being which would be socially acceptable? Not
curing handicaps, but making better for the sake of making better. Just
imagine the public reaction if a company offered implantable headphones.
Cutting a human for no medical purpose is social suicide.

Now of course this can not stop progress forever. But it can make it a good
deal slower.

------
Quiark
Now I see what Steve Yegge was talking about in his sci-fi story...

[http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/05/programmers-view-
of-...](http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/05/programmers-view-of-universe-
part-3.html)

------
helium
The original anti-singularity book:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach>

~~~
Quiark
Actually this book is not anti-singularity. It defends the idea that
intelligence and self-consciousness can be attained by a machine, but says
that we're still quite far from it (more than 1993+30 as the paper predicts).

