Submitted by oldmanhero t3_zrsc3x in singularity
AdditionalPizza t1_j151hra wrote
>Are we already in the midst of a singularity?
No. That violates the definition of a singularity.
When/if we reach that moment, it will have already been behind us in an instant. You don't experience it, it is just a hypothetical way of describing our (all collective humanity) ability to predict what is to come. We may never reach a moment of singularity in the future, while at the same time having already surpassed that moment by today's standards. It will not be an event, at least not by the actual definition of the technological singularity.
Some timeline where an ASI instantly synthesizes the entire universe (unlikely but whatever) is not "the moment of singularity" but rather just some bizarre outcome that would have nothing to do with what we mean by the term technological singularity.
The singularity is not an event. I understand romanticizing it, it's fun to think about. But it's just not what it is, the term has a very real and concrete definition. Though it is hypothetical, it's still a real term that has a widely accepted definition.
oldmanhero OP t1_j15h97a wrote
You're right, the term does have a definition, and that's not it. A technological singularity is defined by the pace of progress outstripping the human ability to keep up.
Hence, if our institutions cannot keep up already, they are definitionally in or beyond a singularity.
AdditionalPizza t1_j15jzjd wrote
No, the technological singularity is by definition a moment in time. You don't live in the singularity as a timeframe. It is an instant moment when it happens, a single point in time that passes as quickly as it happens. Again, it's a hypothetical point in time, meaning you can live pre and post singularity, not within. Not within even briefly. It's a single dimensional moment. The post singularity events could very well be eventful (I imagine it will be) but the actual snap of the finger when the singularity passes will not be anything monumental at that moment.
We are not even close to our institutions and humanity as a whole not being able to keep up with technological innovation at the moment either. I'm an optimist, and I can't wait. But unless we have sudden AGI next year and it takes control of our progress and future, we aren't "in" a singularity. I believe we are in the elbow of the curve, and things are about to take off. But I don't believe we've passed the moment of singularity because my life still feels very much predictable.
oldmanhero OP t1_j15plre wrote
I don't agree that a technological singularity is definitionally a single point-like moment in time. Certainly that's not the sense I've gotten over the years from reading various discussions about it.
AdditionalPizza t1_j15v2gw wrote
If you can (or care to), I'd be happy to see some references stating it isn't a moment in time but a period of time.
oldmanhero OP t1_j162x4e wrote
An example from The Singularity is Near:
> What, then, is the Singularity? It’s a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed. Although neither utopian nor dystopian, this epoch will transform the concepts that we rely on to give meaning to our lives...
oldmanhero OP t1_j162zsx wrote
Note the use of "period" in this definition.
AdditionalPizza t1_j16fsvk wrote
I don't have physically have access to Kurzweil's book, but here's a YouTube link [7:39] where he agrees it's a point where everything is different after than it was before. An epoch is usually a distinctive period of time following an event that sets it off. The singularity being the "event" and post-singularity being the era. We often call it "The Singularity" but you can also refer to it as "a singularity" which further shows it is a single event, not a span of time. There will certainly be many many events that lead to that moment.
When I say event, I'm under the assumption we will probably retroactively note the approximate time (or exact time who knows, future tech could be crazy) that it happened. When either one extremely significant transformative technology makes and impact that in hindsight we couldn't predict; or several technologies converge over time and at some moment in time humanity is changed. We can only predict that time now, but it's impossible to know until it has already passed and things are different.
​
Honestly at this point though let's just agree to disagree. I don't see any possible convincing arguments that haven't already been made from either side.
oldmanhero OP t1_j18mt7b wrote
I'm happy to live and let live, but I wanted to piint out that NdGT used the phrase "cutural moment", which is not normally interpreted as a literal instant but rather a period of timw with common cultural features. Like, say, exponential technological advances.
AdditionalPizza t1_j18rq98 wrote
All I'm saying is there's events that lead up to the point of singularity, and then we are beyond it. As we've discussed it more I've cared less about the semantics haha.
Kurzweil's view of the singularity will absolutely be wrong. The process he came up with for the prediction time is solid, but he's wrong on so many levels about his expected outcome and the reality when the time comes. But his timeframes are pretty good.
He also has consistently described bldck holes incorrectly over the years, so I don't think he really went too far in depth over why people before him used the word singularity.
But either way tech is moving at an exciting pace.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments