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.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (676)
I would like feedback on my recent blog post:
http://www.kmeme.com/2010/07/singularity-is-always-steep.html
It's simplistic for this crowd, but something that bothered me for a while. When I first saw Kurzweil speak in person (GDC 2008) he of course showed both linear and log scale plots. But I always thought the log scale plots were just a convenient way to fit more on the screen, that the "real" behavior was more like the linear scale plot, building to a dramatic steep slope in the coming years.
Instead I now believe in many cases the log plot is closer to "the real thing" or at least how we perceive that thing. For example in the post I talk about computational capacity. I believe the exponential increase is capacity translates into a perceived linear increase in utility. A computer twice as fast is only incrementally more useful, in terms of what applications can be run. This holds true today and will hold true in 2040 or any other year.
Therefore computational utility is incrementally increasing today and will be incrementally increasing in 2040 or any future date. It's not building to some dramatic peak.
None of this says anything against the possibility of a Singularity. If you pass the threshold where machine intelligence is possible, you pass it, whatever the perceived rate of progress at the time.
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.