Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Cult_of_Chad t1_j14yew4 wrote

Reply to comment by AdditionalPizza in Are we already in the midst of a singularity? by oldmanhero

>An event horizon is not the same thing as a singularity.

I never said it was. I said we've crossed the event horizon, which puts us 'inside' the singularity.

>I mean, you can have your own personal definition

I didn't come up with it, Kurzweil did as far as I know.

>That moment, by actual definition, is when AI reaches a greater intelligence than all collective human intelligence

There's no 'actual' definition. It's a hypothetical/speculative.

7

AdditionalPizza t1_j1515v3 wrote

>I said we've crossed the event horizon, which puts us 'inside' the singularity.

That is essentially the same thing I claimed you said. The event horizon is normal times, you would unknowingly cross that barrier. In a physical sense, that would mean time slowing to an observer watching. I agree we are likely past that barrier/threshold in that more technological break throughs happen in shorter and shorter timeframes and eventually (the moment of singularity) there is a hypothetical infinite amount of technology being created AKA impossible for us to comprehend right now. But being within the bounds of the event horizon does not mean being inside of a singularity.

>I didn't come up with it, Kurzweil did as far as I know.

He didn't invent the comparison to physics, but that's besides the point. His definition is exactly what I stated. And I was referencing your comment directly, where you said you have your own personal definition...

>There's no 'actual' definition. It's a hypothetical/speculative.

There quite literally is an exact definition, and it isn't speculation. I'm not sure where you're getting that from, but it's a term that is widely used but this sub misuses it continually. It is a hypothetical thing, but not a speculative definition.

4

Cult_of_Chad t1_j151nsv wrote

>There quite literally is an exact definition

There have been multiple definitions used for as long as the subject has been discussed. AI is not even a necessary component.

6

AdditionalPizza t1_j154zp8 wrote

>AI is not even a necessary component.

For one, we are talking directly relating to AI. Even without AI, it means a technology that is so transforming that we haven't yet anticipated its impact (something like femtotech?). That could also arguably be some kind of medical break through that changes our entire perspective on life, say total immortality or something. Doesn't matter it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Second, the only definition is in direct comparison to the term used in physics, by which you aren't "inside" of a singularity the moment you cross the even horizon. I'm not trying to be overly direct or rude here, but you can't just use examples from physics to describe this and expect it to make sense when you've misused the terms.

From your original comment:

>My personal definition of a technological singularity is a point in time when we're experiencing so many black swan events that the future becomes impossible to predict at shorter and shorter timescales

Your thought process behind increasing occurrences of black swan events is perfectly acceptable as passing the event horizon. I like that reference, I've used it before. But crossing an event horizon does not equal being inside of a singularity. The technological singularity is a blip in time, not something you sit around in and chill for a while like we currently are in the "space between singularity and event horizon."

Anyway, that's about enough from me on the subject. I hope I didn't come off as rude or anything.

3

magnets-are-magic t1_j15dl5t wrote

I’m not the person you replied to but just wanted to say I appreciate the info you shared. I didn’t find it rude. Very interesting stuff!

4

AdditionalPizza t1_j15l4ir wrote

Thanks, I try to not be too wordy in comments which can make me sound like much more of an asshole than I intend to come across as. It's just a definition that has been skewered, and while the distinction isn't a hug difference, it's important so we don't get people claiming we're "in the singularity" right now. You're either pre-singularity, or post-singularity. There's no "in" and it's probably not going to be as of significant "event" as several things preceding it, and many many things following it.

2