= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ABranco comments on Open Thread, August 2010 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (676)
My essay on the topic:
http://alife.co.uk/essays/the_singularity_is_nonsense/
See also:
"The Singularity" by Lyle Burkhead - see the section "Exponential functions don't have singularities!"
It's not exponential, it's sigmoidal
The Singularity Myth
Singularity Skepticism: Exposing Exponential Errors
IMO, those interested in computational limits should discuss per-kg figures.
The metric Moore's law uses is not much use really - since it would be relatively easy to make large asynchronous ICs with lots of faults - which would make a complete mess of the "law".
I would love to see an ongoing big wiki-style FAQ addressing all possible received critics of the singularity — of course, refuting the refutable ones, accepting the sensible.
A version with steroids of what this one did with Atheism.
Team would be: - one guy inviting and sorting out criticism and updating the website. - an ad hoc team of responders.
It seems criticism and answers have been scattered all over. There seems to be no one-stop source for that.
Here's a pretty extensive FAQ, though I have reservations about a lot of the answers.
The authors are - or were - SI fellows, though - and the SI is a major Singularity promoter. Is that really a sensible place to go for Singularity criticism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity#Criticism lists some of the objections.