Hank, On 10/10/06, Hank Conn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The all-encompassing definition of the Singularity is the point at which an intelligence gains the ability to recursively self-improve the underlying computational processes of its intelligence.
I already have that ability -- I'm just very slow at exercising it ;-) Seriously: From a **marketing** perspective, I think it may be sensible to boil the Singularity down to simplified definitions.... But from the perspective of deeper understanding, I don't see why it's critical to agree on a single definition, or that there be a compact and crisp definition. It's a complex world and these are complex phenomena we're talking about, as yet dimly understood. -- Ben G
On 10/10/06, Michael Anissimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Singularity definitions being presented here are incredibly > confusing and contradictory. If I were a newcomer to the community > and saw this thread, I'd say that this word "Singularity" is so poorly > defined, it's useless. Everyone is talking past each other. As Nick > Hay has pointed out, the Singularity was originally defined as > smarter-than-human intelligence, and I think that this definition > remains the most relevant, concise, and resistant to > misinterpretation. > > It's not about technological progress. It's not about experiencing an > artificial universe by being plugged into a computer. It's not about > human intelligence merging with computing technology. It's not about > things changing so fast that we can't keep up, or the accretion of > some threshold level of knowledge. All of these things *might* indeed > follow from a Singularity, but might not, making it important to > distinguish between the likely *effects* of a Singularity and *what > the Singularity actually is*. The Singularity *actually is* the > creation of smarter-than-human intelligence, but there are many > speculative scenarios about what would happen thereafter as there are > people who have heard about the idea. > > The number of completely incompatible Singularity definitions being > tossed around on this list underscores the need for a return to the > original, simple, and concise definition, which, in that it doesn't > make a million and one side claims, is also the easiest to explain to > those being exposed to the idea for the first time. We have to define > our terms to have a productive discussion, and the easiest way to > define a contentious term is to make the definition as simple as > possible. The reason that so many in the intellectual community see > Singularity discussion as garbage is because there is so little > definitional consensus that it's close to impossible to determine > what's actually being discussed. > > Smarter-than-human intelligence. That's all. Whether it's created > through Artificial Intelligence, Brain-Computer Interfacing, > neurosurgery, genetic engineering, or the fundamental particles making > up my neurons quantum-tunneling into a smarter-than-human > configuration - the Singularity is the point at which our ability to > predict the future breaks down because a new character is introduced > that is different from all prior characters in the human story. > > The creation of smarter-than-human intelligence is called "the > Singularity" by analogy to a gravitational singularity, not a > mathematical singularity. Nothing actually goes to infinity. In > physics, our models of black hole spacetimes spit out infinities > because they're fundamentally flawed, not because nature itself is > actually producing infinities. Any relationship between the term > Singularity and the definition of singularity that means "the quality > of being one of a kind" is coincidental. > > The analogy of our inability to predict the physics past the event > horizon of a black hole with the creation of superintelligence is apt, > because we know for a fact that our minds are conditioned, both > genetically and experientially, to predict the actions of other human > minds, not smarter-than-human minds. We can't predict what a > smarter-than-human mind would think or do, specifically. But we can > predict it in broad outlines - we can confidently say that a > smarter-than-human intelligence will 1) be smarter-than-human (by > definition), 2) have all the essential properties of an intelligence, > including the ability to model the world, make predictions, synthesize > data, formulate beliefs, etc., 3) have starting characteristics > dictated by the method of its creation, 4) have initial motivations > dictated by its prior, pre-superintelligent form, 5) not necessarily > display characteristics similar to its human predecessors, and so on. > We can predict that a superintelligence would likely be capable of > putting a lot of optimization pressure behind its goals. > > The basic Singularity concept is incredibly mundane. In the midst of > all this futuristic excitement, we sometimes forget this. A single > genetically engineered child born with a substantially > smarter-than-human IQ would constitute a Singularity, because we would > have no ability to predict the specifics of what it would do, whereas > we have a much greater ability to predict the actions of typical > humans. It's also worth pointing out that the Singularity is an > event, like the first nuclear test, not a thing, like the first nuke > itself. It heralds an irreversible transition to a new era, but our > guesses at the specifics of that era are inextricably tied to the real > future conditions under which we make that transition. > > The fact that it is sometimes difficult to predict the actions of > everyday humans does not doom this definition of the Singularity. The > fact that "smarter-than-human" is a greyscale rather than > black-and-white does not condemn it either. The Singularity is one of > those things that we'd probably recognize if we saw it, but because it > hasn't happened yet it's very difficult to talk about coherently. > > The Singularity is frequently associated with technology simply > because technology is the means by which agents that can't mold their > environments directly are able to get things done in a limited time. > So by default, we assume that a superintelligence would use technology > to get things done, and use a lot of it. But there are possible > beings that need no technology to accomplish significant goals. For > example, in the future there might be a being that can build a nuclear > reactor simply by swallowing uranium and internally processing it into > the right configuration. No "technology" required. > > The Singularity would still be possible if technological process were > slowed down or halted. It would still be possible (albeit difficult) > if every computer on the planet were smashed to pieces. It would be > possible even if it turned out that intelligence can't exist inside a > computer. > > A Singularity this century could easily be stopped, for example if a > disease wiped out half of humanity, or a global authoritarian regime > forbade research in that direction, or if a nuclear war ejected > sufficient dust into the air to shut down photosynthesis. The > Singularity is far from inevitable. > > The Singularity can be a bad thing, resulting in the death of all > human beings, or a good thing, such that every single human being on > earth can explicitly say that they are glad that it happened. There > are also different shades of good: for example, a Singularity that > results in the universal availability of "genie machines" could > eliminate all journeys of value, by taking us right to the destination > whether we want it or not. > > As we can see, this definition of the Singularity I'm presenting > encompasses a lot of possibilities. That's part of the elegance of > it. By making a minimal amount of assumptions, it requires the least > amount of evidence to back it up. All it requires is that humans > aren't the smartest physically possible beings in the universe, and > that we will some day have the ability to either upgrade our brains, > or create new brains that are smarter than us by design. > > -- > Michael Anissimov > Lifeboat Foundation http://lifeboat.com > http://acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog > > ----- > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ________________________________ This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
