On 7 February 2011 08:55, Anand Manikutty <[email protected]> wrote: > Have you gone through the points I made on my List?
Your "List" being? If you mean silklist or to a list of points you made there, yes. (And you should re-check my previous message where I quoted the parts of your message I was responding to.) If you are referring to some other "List", no. > My claim is : there is just no reason to believe (based on the evidence > presented by Yudkowsky, Vinge and Kurzweil) that a singularity could happen. > A singularity is still very hypothetical (more or less in the realm of > science fiction). Again, I don't claim to be able to assert whether a singularity is _technologically_ possible. If your stand is that technology to achieve a singularity belongs in the realm of science fiction and will never come to fruition, we have no argument. But your point (unless it was extremely well disguised) seemed to be that government regulation will ward it off. (Quote: "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 makes absolutely no sense to me, and in fact makes me think you don't understand the "hypothetical" concept of a singularity. Venky (the Second).
