On 7 February 2011 00:01, Anand Manikutty <[email protected]> wrote:
> Technological systems, businesses and social systems work together. > Technology is not developed in a vacuum - it needs to be deployed somehow - > and it is at the point of deployment of technology that regulation by > government kicks in. That sort of regulation seems to be all that is needed, > the sort of the system that is already in place. I don't even to begin to understand this argument. The very definition of a singularity is that once it happens, things are fundamentally beyond out control. Once a singularity occurs, I don't see how holding businesses accountable for it will help put that genie back in the bottle. And if your position is instead that technologies that lead _towards_ a singularity are the ones that businesses would be held accountable for, it makes even less sense. You brought up the concept of "bounded rationality" yourself, which demolishes much of that one. To add to that, the consequences of such technologies (until the point where they spiral out of control) will be, almost invariably, positive. It would be very stupid of businesses to smother or ignore those, because if they do, they will be left behind by businesses that don't. I dislike bringing up the oft-used example of nuclear weapons, but I think it is quite relevant in this case. The difference (and one that makes the case for technological singularity every stronger) is that every country already knows the consequences of nuclear weapons. It is just that they are mostly helpless. If India ignores nuclear weapons technology, it will be at the mercy of Pakistan -- and vice-versa, of course. (It is for the same reason I remain sceptical of the possibility of complete nuclear disarmament -- at least until a more potent weapon is invented.) For the record, I'm not saying that a singularity _will_ occur. I don't know enough about AI or its possibilities to make that assessment. It is just that your arguments against it make absolutely no sense to me. Also, I don't think innovation should be regulated either. Not because I'm sceptical of the concept of a singularity, but because if a singularity is possible, regulation will do absolutely nothing to prevent it. > The fact that I could tell them about Noam Chomsky's response to my email > did impress the people at the Singularity meetup. Again, the fact that we > are both skeptical about the concept having arrived at our conclusions > independently should provide indirect evidence that there may not be much to > this. Don't you think dropping the Chomsky name twice in the same context in the same discussion is a bit much? :) Venky (the Second).
