Talk:Singularitarianism/Archive 1

Archive 1

New Talk

Technological Singularity will be created then, when there will be created intelligence, able to create higher intelligence than itself, and it must not necessarily be smarter than human a being. Any intelligence that could do that, would progress exponentially and create singularity Inyuki 18:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Imprecise opening statement

Singularitarianism is a moral philosophy based upon the belief that a technological singularity — the technological creation of smarter-than-human intelligence — is possible, and advocating deliberate action to bring it into effect and ensure its safety.

The opening statement of the article is imprecise as the belief in strong AI does not imply a belief in the possibility of a technical singularity nor does the belief in the possibility of a technical singularity necessarily entail a belief in the possibility of strong AI (although it usually does). As I do not believe that I would do a good job, I would preferably see that someone else rephrases the introduction. —C. lorenz (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it is much clearer now. —C. lorenz (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Old talk

Sp.

"Singularitarians are Technological Singularity activists, specially people who are dedicated to effecting a positive Singularity." I feel 'specially' is likely a typo here, but I will let Gordon correct it himself as he sees fit rather than put words into his mouth. --4.65.244.206 06:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Origins of term

Minority Report, you give the Singularity Institute too much credit. The term "Singularitarian" predates SIAI and many Singularitarians are not affiliated with them. There are Singularitarians who openly denounce SIAI. If you want to erase an article, please try not to replace it with such a misleading statement. I'm reverting to your previous edit. Also, I'm removing several more of the links, as most of them seem to be only distantly related to the topic of the article. — Schaefer 20:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I find it difficult to find any mention of this word online that isn't obivously directly from these same half dozen or so of people. I'm concerned about making this appear to be a major intellectual movement of some kind, when it has all the appearance of being some kind of coffee club. The ruritanian titles, vastly overinflated speculation based on no factual data, I'm not seeing signs that would enable me to endorse as confirmed the claims in the original article. Show me something that will make me take these people's claims seriously. Some references to papers published in peer-reviewed professional science or engineering journals would convince. --Minority Report (IT or PR enormity) 21:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You don't have to take their claims seriously. All of Singularitarianism could be one big delusional cult and it shouldn't matter as far as Wikipedia is concerned. The fact that some people believe it is what's being reported. As the article stands now, it doesn't take any stance on whether this singularity thing is going to happen. There are plenty of people that think the whole idea is absurd, and I and others have tried to represent their views in the criticisms sections of technological singularity and transhumanism (both of these articles, admittedly, have problems regarding unattributed speculation, which is possibly grounds for a neutrality dispute).

I see where you're coming from, and I agree that these articles may give unfamiliar readers the impression that more people subscribe to these ideas than actually do. The number of actual Singularitarians (that is, people who conciously and explicitly work to bring about the Singularity) is quite small. The number of people who believe in the Singularity, or at least the number of people who buy Singularity-themed futurist books like The Spike and The Age of Spiritual Machines, is many many times larger. I don't have actual numbers, so I don't supply them. However, I must object to the current method you're employing to counteract this possible miscommunication. You use qualifiers like "self-styled" and "so-called" which are, in my opinion, inherently and irredeemably POV. Please see Wikipedia:Words to avoid. The use of quotation marks also contributes to a discrediting tone, possibly more so than you intended. There must be better, more neutral ways to epxress what you're trying to get across.

Your most recent edit changes the meaning of the word "Singularitarian". A major purpose of this article is to clarify the distinction between Singularitarians and futurists: that futurists speculate about a singularity while Singularitarians work towards it. You changed "dedicated to effecting" to "believes that it is possible to achieve", which eliminates the distinction being stressed. I'm guessing you did this because you felt the original sentence seemed to take the POV that the Singularity is possible, which I don't believe it does. Defining a Frogglebobblist as a person who is dedicated to effecting a global ascension to spiritual oneness with treefrogs does nothing to validate those goals.

Finally, I'm changing the word "futurist" to the less-common "futurologist" to clear any confusion with the artistic/political movement. — Schaefer 23:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• "All of Singularitarianism could be one big delusional cult and it shouldn't matter as far as Wikipedia is concerned."

I beg to differ. An encyclopedia should try to maintain a separation from the beliefs (correct or incorrect) of others. When reporting, it should try to distinguish between its own standards of reasoning and that of those upon whom it reports.

On taking singularitatianism seriously, I'm afraid it really does come down to peer reviewed research papers published and cited, not popular books sold. I would be failing as an encyclopedist if I gave equal space and equal weight to every single human belief, however ill defined and poorly supported. The thoughts of Rene Descartes merit more time and space than those of George Michael. A movement that relies for its chief reasoning tool a misapplication of Moore's Law, well it doesn't merit as much time and space as serious AI research.

• "You use qualifiers like "self-styled" and "so-called" which are, in my opinion, inherently and irredeemably POV."

On the contrary, they are neutral. If Yudkowsky's qualifications as an AI researcher extend beyond the bounds of his imagination, then I will feel comfortable to stop calling him a "self-styled" AI reseacher. The use of the term "so-called" was in relation to the use of the term "futurists", which is well known to most educated people as a school of art.

• "You changed "dedicated to effecting" to "believes that it is possible to achieve", which eliminates the distinction being stressed."

You and I as encyclopedists cannot possibly know whether singularitarians are or are not capable of achieving such a goal. The most we can do is observe that they appear to have a sincere belief that it is achievable and are doing what they believe will achieve it. Having said that I have no objection per se to the use of the word dedicated, especially in the context in which it appears in the current version. If you go back to my version you will see that I made it plain that they not only believed that the benign transformation would be possible, they were attempting to bring it forward. --Minority Report (IT or PR enormity) 00:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"On taking singularitatianism seriously, I'm afraid it really does come down to peer reviewed research papers published and cited, not popular books sold."

Again, it doesn't have to be taken seriously. Futurology is by no means an established and respected scientific process, and concepts like technological singularities are obviously the products of futurologists' speculations. I'm not seeing any attempt to pass this off as real science. Upon reading the article Technological singularity, did you think it was real science? Did you read it and get the impression that everyone that's anyone in AI research believes all this? I should hope not. It's clear to everyone that all this is based on futurology, not on falsifiable science. If you think it isn't clear, maybe a few of the especially speculative articles need "In futurology," tacked on the first line. I wouldn't recommend it for this particular one, as it's mostly here to contradistinguish Singularitarianism with futurology.

"On the contrary, [terms such as "self-styled" and "so-called"] are neutral."

I strongly disagree, but this is now a non-issue since the word "futurist" has been changed and Yudkowsky no longer has an article.

"The most we can do is observe that they appear to have a sincere belief that it is achievable and are doing what they believe will achieve it."

Agreed, and that's all I intend to report. — Schaefer 12:19, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• "Upon reading the article technological singularity, did you think it was real science?"

No, but there is a clear attempt to pass science fiction off as science--perhaps because many of the participants are not really aware or don't care about science. My first impression was that this is a quasi-religious movement that uses some of the concepts of science with the language of religion. Perhaps "science fiction religion" fits best. --Minority Report (IT or PR enormity) 16:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As interesting as this discussion is, I think we've strayed a bit off topic for this talk page. If you'd like to discuss this further, please contact me at edmund.schaefer@REPLACE with the word "REPLACE" replaced with "gmail.com" (I'm paranoid about spam robots). --Schaefer 18:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Move to "Singularitarianism"

I'm moving this article to Singularitarianism, for the same reason there's redirects at Buddhist, communist, Nazi, etc. I'll obviously have to change some wording around to fit the title, but I'll try to keep everything fairly close to what it is now. --Schaefer 20:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Religion?

Do singularitarians believe in the Singularity, or do they simply think it is highly likely to happen and act accordingly? The difference between a religion, based on unshakable belief, and philosophical movement based on facts and scientifc method verification of those (i.e. allowing doubt and such) is both clear and important. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Depends. The meaning is not really fixed. As Yudkowsky would have it, the term would refer to those who believe that a Singularity is possible, a good thing, and will work towards making it a reality at all, and sooner rather than later at that. Some other people think it probably will happen, and that it is a bad thing (ie. it is more likely goo will eat us all or an UnFriendly AI will take over than it is likely that a happy ending will occur). As to the difference as to whether the term connotes a religion or philosphical movement: again, that depends on the person, whether they think it is a historical inevitability or the hand of god (in which case it is indeed the "rapture of the nerds") or simply a statistically likely possible set of scenarios, which like any should be preplanned and managed to maximise the benefits (The SI and supporters would fall in this latter camp). Hope this helps; I've been watching this movement almost from the inception of the SI, and this is the best I can explain it. --Maru (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Believing in the Singularity will happen is like a Conservative believing that we will remove all US National Debt someday given the right circumstances. It isn't a religious belief, but more of a secular one. Just as getting rid of all national debt sounds absurd these days, it is theoretically possible if we really try. That is the way to see singularitism... Not as a faith that the Singularity will happen and all our problems will be magically solved at that point, but rather if we put forth effort at (exscuse the term) an accelerating pace that we will see technological results taht will be so rapidly changing that every day will be a totally different scenario. (as it is now... we are a 5 year scenario... I remember shoping for cell phones in 2000 that had black and white screens... can you buy one today?) Rather, I think those who are unable to adapt to changing technologies at an increasing pace will have extreme problems adapting. I personally believe that in 5-10 years FiOS (Fiber to the Curb)will have a 75% market share in the States. It maybe a bit optimistic and unfounded numbers I'm pulling off the top of my head, but a religion in belief in a magic FiOS god it does not make. -James

As it stands, I do believe Singularitarianism is a bit of a religion, and somewhat of a cultish one at that. Don't get me wrong, I rather suspect that there is no real scientific reason why many of these things could not actually happen. I mean, outside of the scientific discovery of a "soul", what's really to stop us all from someday downloading our minds into computer hardware? What's to stop us from doing all sorts of crazy stuff like that which Yudkowsky and the SIAI predict? I tend to agree with the quite succinct and pointed statement, "Believing in the Singularity will happen is like a Conservative believing that we will remove all US National Debt someday given the right circumstances." An excellent analogy. What I tend to take exception to with regards Singularitarianism is that they seem to be going way off the deep end with their futurisms. Computronium? Jupiter Brains? Omega Point theory? Some of these things are really far off, even by the standards of others who embrace the idea of Singularity, such as Transhumanists. Many prominent scientists have written about the possibility of the Singularity, or an event similar to the Singularity. The Universe in a Nutshell, the famous "physics-for-laymen" book by Stephen Hawking has a whole chapter describing an event similar to the beginnings of a Singularity, of course, without using that term in order to avoid a great deal of eye-rolling. Bill Joy described possible negative consequences of newer technology, including Singularity-related consequences, in his infamous Wired article Why the future doesn't need us. Leon Kass, who is on the President's Council on Bioethics, as well as the respected economist Francis Fukuyama, both wrote about and are opposed to many Singularity-based or Singularity-like technological developments, and Fukuyama has had an article published in the popular political magazine Foreign Policy regarding his opposition to Transhumanism as the world's most dangerous idea. Even John von Neumann and Stanislaw Ulam had serious discussion regarding a singularity-like event, according to a quote by the latter. But this is not the point. It's fully possible to believe in the probability of the Singularity, and it is even possible to work towards enabling it either politically or scientifically, directly or indirectly. However, what Singularitarians engage in is much greater than that. It must be remembered that futurism is purely philosophical; that is, it is purely speculation. It is the examination of current trends and the estimation of possible outcomes to those trends, minus any unforeseen or spontaneous events or interruptions. I believe the difference between a Singularitarianische-cult and a Singularity and/or Technophilial-themed group or movement is the conflation of futurism with the idea of Futurology, the "study" of the future. Singularitarians take reasonable, if somewhat grandiose, naturalistic speculation and turn it into a rapture in which the "God" of technology will finally save us and transform us into god-like beings after his own image, so long as we all help each other to help him to do so; A clearly religious scenario, whether or not Singularitarians actually see things this way. Ultimately, the distinction comes down to practicality: Reprogenetic engineering is possible, Artificially Intelligent machines are theoretically possible, nanotechnology is theoretically possible to some extent. Science currently deals with these things; Transhumanists and others engaged in futurism wish to see these technologies to their furthest logical conclusions. Singularitarianism crosses this line and overextends itself into the realm of Science Fiction. -jove

You can argue that singularitarians cross the line into Science Fiction, but remember the cliché about the Moon landing being way out in the realms of sci-fi once. I don't think singularitarianism is that way out. Let's look at its three parts. 1 - thinking that the technological singularity is possible in theory. If you accept that machines may one day become intelligent enough to redesign their own hardware and software to become ever-more intelligent, you accept the singularity as being possible. Is it really so far-fetched? We are intelligent enough to make computers that become ever-more powerful along with Moore's Law. If you think that an AI could, in theory, become as intelligent as a human being (where it will inevitably be able to re-design itself and other machines), you have accepted the singularity as possible. 2 - the singularity is good and desirable. Well, this is a moral issue and comes down to the individual. Some anti-singularitarians and neo-Luddites specialize in horror prophecies about technology becoming "too" advanced, while other futurists concentrate on the possible positive outcomes. I take the pragmatic view that, good or evil, the singularity (or something like it) is probably inevitable at this point. As an atheist and an advocate of transhumanism, I tend to see it as a positive outcome anyway. Which leads us to 3 - working towards the singularity. This can be a much more simple and humble thing than you seem to imply by describing singularitarians crossing a line into sci-fi. It could mean working to further the science of AI in some way. It could mean donating to AI research. You could even just spend time chatting to a jabberwacky bot, growing and refining its database in the hope that it may one day pass the Turing Test. Or it could simply be trying to get your friends and people you know interested in the field, to generally encourage a public appetite for futuristic technology. The Great Wall of China was built one humble brick at a time. In this case even helping to construct one fragment of a brick is a step in one particular evolutionary direction. -Neural 12:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Due to the lack of reliable independent sources cited in the article, I believe this article should be merged into Technological singularity. The academic article cited by Nick Bostrom discusses moral issue surrounding the Singularity, but never actually uses the term "Singularitarianism". A search of his site for the term reveals only two trivial mentions in self-published essays, with no real discussion. Also note that all of the links I recently removed from this article were self-published, with the exception of an article on CNNMoney.com that doesn't mention Singularitarianism. With such a paucity of reliable sources to establish notability, I strongly doubt this article could withstand an AfD. Its content is likely notable enough for a section on Technological singularity, and if there are no objections I'd like to begin moving it there. -- Schaefer (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. The sentence about originally being defined to be this, now being redefined to be that was a red flag to me as to whether "singulatarianism" was really anything in remotely common usage with agreed upon meaning. I might put it under Singularity Institute as co-founder Yudkowsky's term for the position. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose to Merge with Singularity Institute. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 13:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Making an argument for why the articles shouldn't be merged is helpful, but just saying "oppose" isn't. Decisions on Wikipedia aren't made (or shouldn't be made) through votes. -- Schaefer (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the founder's general guide line is to try and achieve consensus and vote whether not possible. some local wikipedias got so beurocratical and hypocritical about it that they actually have inner politics and lobbies erasing each other's debate, trying to achieve as much admins as they can....anyways, your' right, I'm sorry. I thought my position was obvious in this article.

I oppose this merger, since the singularity, as a concept, or a belief system/framework does not stem and should be affiliated or monopolized by a single institute. They do not claim such monopolization, as can be seen in previous comments. I beleive this to be like trying to merge Veganism with the World Vegan Institue..:) --Procrastinating@^talk2me 18:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

fact tag

Thx to all for the great work. I added the fact tag after "(now partially obsolete)" because Singularitarian Principles and it's ideas make up a lot of the definition (and the other definitions overlap greatly). I'm pretty familiar with the topic, but still wanted details re in what ways it's obsolete. A newcomer (for whom the article must be written) would be justifiably confused: What parts are obsolete, how much of it? So i think this needs to be explained -- or at least cited. Hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed "(now partially obsolete)", since no one sourced or explained it for almost 3 months. I left the Singularitarian Principles stuff, because it is a historically significant document and definition. If anyone can say and source what about it is obsolete (or for whom), please add that in. Hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability tag

Why's there a notability tag? There are hundreds of labs, institutes, and nonprofit organizations around the globe devoted to the singularity, and hundreds of thousands of people who qualify as singularitarians. 24.252.195.3 (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing. If the person who put it up is still here, can we have details please? Hrcolyer (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Hillis Quote

It feels like something big is about to happen: graphs show us the yearly growth of populations, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, Net addresses, and Mbytes per dollar. They all soar up to form an asymptote just beyond the turn of the century: The Singularity. The end of everything we know. The beginning of something we may never understand.

— Danny Hillis, The Millennium Clock (1995, Wired magazine)

This famous quote about the Singularity keeps getting deleted so I've restored it with the proper contextualization:

In the 1980s and 1990s, prior to Singularitarianism being articulated as a coherent ideology, belief in the coming of the Singularity was adopted and expressed by a growing minority of computer scientists and technical journalists

If you have any objections please express them here rather than deleting this quote without explanation and triggering an edit war. --Loremaster (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Theology Navbox

It is usual but not essential for navigation templates (Navboxes) to be added to each of the articles that they list. As it stands {{Theology}} is quite wide ranging and includes the topic Eschatologys and hence Singularitarianism, so it was added to this article. Another editor has objected and removed it. Is this the consensus?

For what it is worth, Category:Singularitarianism is in Category:Eschatology which is in Category:Theology. -Arb. (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a huge difference between theology (the study of a God or, more generally the study of religious faith, practice, and experience, or of spirituality) and eschatology (a part of theology and philosophy concerned with what are believed to be the final events in the history of the world, or the ultimate destiny of humanity, commonly referred to as the end of the world). Singularitarianism falls more within the realm of philosophy then theology... --Loremaster (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Singularitarianism may well "...fall more within the realm of philosophy then theology.." as you say but it is certainly part of eschatology which is itself, as you also say "...a part of theology...". So perhaps the (very discrete) theology navbox is not quite so out of place as you first thought? And perhaps we should add {{Philosophy topics}} as well (although, curiously, it lists neither Singularitarianism nor eschatology) for good measure? Transhumanism is of course dealt with by the sidebar. -Arb. (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

My point is that although Singularitarianism falls under the philosophy part of eschatology it doesn't fall under the theology part of eschatology therefore it would be misleading to suggest that it does with a theology navbox. That being said, I'm not opposed the addition of {{Philosophy topics}}. --Loremaster (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha, you've made me actually go and read the eschatology article. Fair enough. -Arb. (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wall-E

In the movie, doesn't the AI control the human race? Perhaps it is similar.209.129.112.6 (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You would need a reliable source that explicitly states that the film WALL-E explores singularitarian themes and scenarios to mention this film in this article otherwise it is nothing more than original research on your part. --Loremaster (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

WALL-E is a real stretch. The AI is barely human-level, if that, and by no means does it depict a Singularity of any sort - look at how comprehensible it is to us... --Gwern (contribs) 20:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gwern. --Loremaster (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Utopian ideology

Hi there, how are you?

I notice you undid a edit I made to the Singularitarianism article regarding it being a utopian ideology. Can you can explain why you undid it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.131.168 (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Although I agree with you that Singularitarianism is an utopian ideology, that claim is nothing more than our opinion unless it is supported by reliable sources since there can be no original research in Wikipedia article. By the way, if you are interested in editing Wikipedia articles, I encourage you to create a user account since it is is extremely useful for an editor (such as giving him or her the ability to more easily watch over pages he or she is interested in) but it also contributes to a culture of relative accountability on Wikipedia. --Loremaster (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. Sadly there are hardly any reliable sources regarding Singularitarianism at the moment, but hopefully that will change in the not too distant future. I prefer a free-style lack of accountability thus I have not created a user account. I don't edit Wikipedia too often. I also feel I log in to too many accounts already. Take care. The intelligence explosion is coming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.35.39 (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Result, success. I have discovered this page. I am tempted to quickly reinsert the Utopian aspect but I shall wait for you approval, or maybe if you agree the reference is valid you could do it? Here is a quote from the page I intend to reference: "The Singularity holds out the possibility of winning the Grand Prize, the true Utopia, the best-of-all-possible-worlds - not just freedom from pain and stress or a sterile round of endless physical pleasures, but the prospect of endless growth for every human being - growth in mind, in intelligence, in strength of personality; life without bound, without end; experiencing everything we've dreamed of experiencing, becoming everything we've ever dreamed of being; not for a billion years, or ten-to-the-billionth years, but forever... or perhaps embarking together on some still greater adventure of which we cannot even conceive."

Since these are the words of a leading Singularitarian (as opposed to an unreliable critic of Singularitarianism), it is a reliable source for the claim that Singularitarianism is utopian. However, I think the word "techno-utopian" would be more accurate so I will add it instead. --Loremaster (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The article is looking better now. I am also going to add the above quote by Eliezer Yudkowsky. People coming to the concept of Singularitarianism for the first time can perhaps feel at a bit of a loss regarding what it is all about. The above quote will help clarify matters. I hope you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.38.68 (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Singularity Principles (Version 1.0.2) is a document tha thas been marked as wrong, obsolete, deprecated by an improved version, or just plain old. So unless the content in the quote can be found in the latest version, it would be unfair to quote it in the article and make it seem as if this is an opinion that Yudkowsky still holds. From what I know, some singularitarians (and transhumanists) try to tamper their views in order to be taken seriously by the public but also because they realize that some of their earlier views of a coming “intelligence explosion” were naive to say the least... --Loremaster (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Yudkowsky webpage is an old version (year 2000) but there is no new version, therefore his statement (the quote) made in the year 2000 should stand as a definition regarding Singularitarianism, but perhaps the date needs to added regarding when Yudkowsky made the statement? Considering that Yudkowsky continues to leave the page live, and he has not posted a redirect or any new updated page, I feel the 'outdated' aspect is merely there to alert people to the fact that the page has not been updated for 10 years but the data continues to be valid. I have emailed Yudkowsky for clarification regarding the outdated aspect but as you will see in his contact section he does not encourage individual correspondence therefore I fear he may not reply. We cannot be sure what Yudkowsky currently thinks because there is a lack of information regarding his current Singularitarian views but we can be absolutely sure what he thought in the year 2000 because it is there on his website in black and white. Personally I don't think his views seem naive, but it is irrelevant what he, you, or I think; we should simply include the quote as a definition made in the year 2000 by a prominent researcher in the field of AI. Don't you agree?

The webpage in question was actually last updated 05/14/2001 I was slightly incorrect regarding stating the year 2000. Perhaps it will be merely enough to put this date in the reference text (which I will now do) or should the date feature more prominently in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.38.68 (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If the document wasn't explicitly marked as wrong, obsolete, deprecated by an improved version, or just plain old, I would agree with you. However, since it is, I do not think it would be appropriate to quote it. (And, between you and me, anyone who takes the content of that quote seriously enough to wait around for this fantasy to happen when the world is heading toward an ecological catastrophe, needs to see a shrink...) --Loremaster (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The statement: "wrong, obsolete, deprecated by an improved version, or just plain old" is a catch all statement and considering the webpage is 9 years old at least (it was last updated 05/14/2001) then I am inclined to go with the last part of the clause: "just plain old". There is definitely no new version therefore regardless of your views about the world going to an eco-hell in a handcart the quote should be included as a valid description of the Singularity circa 2000/2001. Let's assume something happened tomorrow which would make the Singularity impossible, such as aliens coming to Earth and stealing all our metals and other resources essential for building AI (not likely to happen but it could); then what about all the quotes regarding Moore's Law or quotes regarding the likely occurrence of the Singularity? It doesn't matter whether or not a quote or forecast is true or likely to occur. The important thing is that the quote HAS been made AND it was made about the Singularity (The Singularitarian Principles in this case) and it was made by a prominent AI researcher. Yudkowsky has not retracted his statement and he has not provided and updated webpage for this issue (as far as I am aware) and the page continues to be live, therefore the quote is worthy of inclusion: it is a view from the year 2001. Yes the quote is just 'plain old' but until a newer quote comes along I think the quote will more than suffice. Many people disagree the forecasts and expectations of Singularitarians but we shouldn't let such personal anti-singularity opinions inhibit the inclusion of a perfectly valid quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.38.68 (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced. Therefore, to avoid an edit war, it is better this disputed quote remains off this article. Futhermore, my alleged anti-singularity opinions would actually make me want to add this quote since it makes Yudkowsky look foolish but I prefer not to give in to that temptation for the sake of fairness. --Loremaster (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

How do I get someone independent to resolve this dispute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.38.68 (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ask around. However, it really is a trivial issue to have a dispute over. So let it go or, better yet, get a life. --Loremaster (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see why you are now resorting to insults, I have been polite in my discourse and for your information I do already have a life. Furthermore don't think the quote by Eliezer is foolish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.38.68 (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for being insulting but if you truly believe the quote by Eliezer is a realistic scenario I regret to inform you that you are foolish and need to get a life. --Loremaster (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not whether or not the scenario presented by Eliezer is realistic. Our personal opinions are irrelevant. The quote should stand because it is his quote regarding Singularitarianism. It is not our task to review quotes or ideologies. It is merely our task to provide an accurate/verifiable article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.38.68 (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The only reason why I am opposed to the inclusion of this quote is because it comes from a document that has been explicitly marked by its author as being wrong, obsolete, deprecated by an improved version, or just plain old. Period. End of discussion. --Loremaster (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.134.241 (talk)

I'm reading through this dispute and if I understand it correctly then you are arguing about whether to draw material from a deprecated document. I don't understand why you would not, since even though it is deprecated it is still reliable as a source on itself at least and anything by Yudkowsky on the singularity has a certain minimal level of notability due to his status as a well known writer. Therefore by all means qualify that the document is deprecated, old, and whatever, and probably keep the material limited in length to what is especially significant, but don't just throw it all out forthwith. Red Bulls Fan (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing has been completely thrown out since the Singularitarianism article already quotes the most pertinent content from The Singularity Principles. That being said, if a document has been explicity marked "wrong, obsolete, deprecated by an improved version, or just plain old" by the author, it would only be fair to quote content from it if we simultaneously mentioned that disclaimer. --Loremaster (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not see that Loremaster’s objections represent Wikipedia policy. Singularitarianism is, obviously, a utopian ideology. It would be fair to excise the adjective if there were no explicit corroboration, but there is. The precise status of the corroboratory statement really is not relevant insofar as the document referenced is “notable”. Why exactly is so much effort being spent objecting to, and justifying the objection to, a reasonable, informative, and documented description of the topic? Strebe (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* Fine. Do whatever you want with this article. I do even know why I bother watching over it anymore. --Loremaster (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent improvements

Since Wikipedia guidelines encourage us to be bold, I've significantly improved the Singularitarianism article resulting in this version I am quite happy with. Does anyone have comments or suggestions? --Loremaster (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

JackBlack's comments

Do whatever you want if it makes you happy. It seems you are the only person persistantly editing this and the techno-utopianism article. Despite previous discussions here where your views where countermanded by the majority of editors (in fact countermanded by all editors), and despite your avowal that you will no longer contribute to this article, you are nevertheless continuing to persist with your biased editing. I have more important things to spend my time on, so please edit your articles however you see fit. 86.184.157.224 (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)JB

1. The only view I had that was opposed by a majority of editors was my objection to the inclusion of a quote from a document that has been marked by its author as “wrong, obsolete, deprecated by an improved version, or just plain old”. However, I admitted my error and I now accept the inclusion of this quote which I've placed in the most appropriate location in the article since, according to Wikipedia guidelines, the lead section should be a general overwiew of the entire article (including criticisms) and large quotes should be avoided in the lead section.
2. It is true that I had decided to no longer contribute to the Singularitarianism article because of frustration and lost interest. However, I have the right to change my mind and I now have a renewed interest in improving this article.
3. I have radically improved this article following Wikipedia guidelines and making sure that it is written from a neutral point of view. You would be able to see and appreciate this fact if you actually took the time to read my improvements rather than knee-jerkingly rejecting them because of the animosity between us.
4. Despite the fact that I think you are a bad editor, I am actually happy that you tried to contribute to both the Singularitarianism and Technological utopianism articles since it has renewed my interest in improving them both. So thank you and goodbye.

--Loremaster (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've continued improving this article since that last version. --Loremaster (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Diza's comments

Hey. Seeing by your repeated self-justification I assume some sort of an edit war enfalmed this article.

From a first glance the very first sentence Does seem biased, reffering to the social-movement as "small". who writes like that in wikipedia? That's an Opinion, not even a relativity. The very definition of biased.

So, can you please specify the boundires of your imporovemnt of the article (Beyond your personal beliefs or disbelief's on the subject)? What was removed? --Namaste@^? 16:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Diza. There was nothing biased in the use of the word "small". I was simply using the descriptor that someone else wrote in the History section of the article: "Many people believe a technological singularity is possible without adopting Singularitarianism as a moral philosophy. Although the exact numbers are hard to quantify, Singularitarianism is presently a small movement". Furthermore, most supppoters and critics of Singularitarianism describe it as a “small movement” without any negative connotation implied (unlike the word "fringe" for example) so I don't understand how the use of this term can seen as biased. That being said, if you want to be able to judge my improvements, I invite you to compare the current version of the article with the one from November 1. --Loremaster (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I have removed the word "small" since it was never important to me that we use it. --Loremaster (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Gwern's comments

I've been looking through the edits. First, you make way too many edits - using the preview button and breaking up your work into logically separate chunks would not hurt at all. Second, you have a remarkable lack of edit summaries. Not helpful at all.

Some observations:

• You make some suspicious wording changes. eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Singularitarianism&diff=next&oldid=402571122 Why does it go from 'various experts' attending (an obvious and correct description) to 'several Singularitarians'? And then to them participating? 'A psychology conference on measuring skin conductivity was held' -> 'Several Scientologists attended a psychology conference' -> 'Several Scientologists participated in a psychology conference'.
• The quote from David Correia keeps on growing. Also, why are we quoting him? He doesn't even have an article. The rest of his sentence feels like puffery (do we put after every 'Eliezer Yudkowsky' something like 'Research Fellow of the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence in San Francisco'?) or editorializing - his quote is perfectly comprehensible, there's no need to repeat it.
• I also wonder whether it is really common practice to duplicate the criticism section inside the lede.
• 'however' usually implies the writer is trying to point out a contradiction between the preceding and succeeding bits; I hope I don't need to enlarge on why this is bad. (Again, you did remove it. But again, pattern forming here.)
• Why is apparently every Kurzweil accompanied with a prediction of his? His projections are far from universally accepted, and one mention, max, would seem to suffice unless you were building a section of specific predictions and date ranges from dates in the 2030s (from Shane Legg) to the 2300s or later (Marvin Minsky)
• I already mentioned the small part; not actionable since you removed it, but still part of the pattern - all the wording changes which are either positive or negative seem to be negative.
• Here's another: suggested -> speculated. Which has negative connotations? Which did you change it to?
• Or almost immediately thereafter, warned. Do we really need to be 'warned' that computer viruses are widespread or rather tenacious? Welcome to the 20th and 21st century, Loremaster. And why are some parts of the conference 'noted, others 'warned', and still others 'asserted'? In that sort of context, the virus thing was likely to have been raised as informal support for an argument; 'I will note that even the highly-regulated oil extraction of Canadian tar-sands has resulted in significant environmental degradation; thus, from previous assumption X, follows Y...'.
• What's with the removal of the link to Neo-Luddite? Seems like a perfectly appropriate link; surely there are those opposed to technological change which aren't also Greens?
• Apropos this edit, declinist theories aren't really interesting. Better would be coverage of more classic theories like The Decline of the West or more recent economic arguments against Kurzweil centering on S-curves and diminishing marginal returns. (Although any good article would have to be careful to distinguish the various kinds of Singulitarianism. Slowing economic growth has little to nothing to say to the possibility of a Vingeian Singularity, obviously, while it has major problems for Kurzweil's ideas and predictions.)
• Is it Rapture of the nerds or Rapture for the nerds? You switch so much.
• Not sure this Takahashi quote is adding value similar to its size. --Gwern (contribs) 03:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Loremaster's reply to Gwern

I am fully aware that I have a bad habit of making too many edits and not adding edit summaries. It is something I am working on. However, I resent the notion that my changes are “suspicious”.

If I wanted to modify an article in a POV fashion, that is exactly how I would do it. I would make scores of edits over weeks, scattered all over the article, sometimes undoing myself, and all without explanation. The consolidated diff would be utterly unreadable, preventing that shortcut, and the scores of edits would make it a real chore to sit down and see what was actually done. Is it proof you have ill intentions? Of course not. Neither is carrying around lockpicks. But it is a tad disingenuous to claim to have no idea why it looks suspicious. --Gwern (contribs) 03:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow... You have quite a paranoid imagination. In light of the fact that I have expanded and improved a few Wikipedia articles enough for them to meet Good article criteria and Featured article criteria by making scores of edits over weeks, scattered all over these articles, sometimes undoing myself, and all without explanation while my work was praised by several contributors to these articles, I can honestly say that there is nothing disigenuous about me claiming that I have no idea anything I have done looks suspicious. Furthermore, what I've done only looks suspicious to you because you became prejudiced against me in reaction to the wild accusations of an anonymous user that he has since taken them back and disappeared. --Loremaster (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

And still you claim to not understand why it looks suspicious! And you accuse me of being paranoid, to boot; as if Wikipedia had never had problematic contributors and never seen year-long trolls become administrators and then strike. Where do you think I learned that sort of tactic? By watching people use it, by watching them carefully make the controversial or POV edit first and then burying it under a flurry of minor improvements. I'm not ingenious enough to think of it on my own. Paranoid indeed. --Gwern (contribs) 17:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Despite contributing to Wikipedia for over 6 years now, I have never dealt with trolls who became adminsitrators nor people using the “tactic” you describe since I watch over articles often enough to quickly catch controversial or POV edits before they are burried under a flurry of minor or major improvements. Furthermore, since the controversial edits I have made on some articles were always caught by someone, it occured to me a long time ago that such a tactic would not be effective if I ever decided to use it. Ultimately, even if a controversial or POV edit is burried under a flurry of minor or major improvements, people might not realize that someone is using this tactic but they can still read the current version of the article and see a word or sentence that is POV and dispute it. --Loremaster (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Futhermore, you conveniently ignore all the edits I made that were umambigiously positive which debunks the notion of a “pattern”.

'But your honor, on the days when Billy wasn't out murdering people, he was a perfect gentleman! Isn't it rather convenient to ignore all those days?'

Positive edits are the expected edits to make on Wikipedia, the sine qua non of participation. It's not something special or praise-worthy. You make positive edits or you get banned as a vandal - it's very simple. If I thought you were 100% POV-pushing such that a positive edit is something amazing, I wouldn't be here but over on AN/I or AIV. --Gwern (contribs) 03:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside that you really need to drop your sarcastic and snide tone if you want us to have an amicable and constructive discussion, my point is simply that if you look at all my edits rather than the ones you consider “suspicious” you would grasp the bigger pattern, which is an entirely positive one. By the way, in a court of law, unless Billy confessed to murdering people, a lawyer would never admit that his client murdered people and he would in fact argue that Billy's reputation in the community as a perfect gentleman undermines the notion he could possibly be a cold-blooded serial killer. --Loremaster (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That being said, I will respond to all the specificic issues you have raised.

A) I think it is important to specify that Singularitarians attended this conference otherwise there is no reason to mention this conference in this article (unless we expilcity mention that the Singularity was a topic explored during the conference). However, you are right that we should keep the mention of “academics and technical experts” in that first sentence.

B) David Correia has written an insightful critique of Singularitarianism in an article that can be read online. The reason why his quote keeps growing is because his critique is the most substantive of the three currently quoted (so I obviously disagree that it is “puffery”). I think it is important to give these critics a description to enable readers to get a sense of who they are, what their expertise is and what their credibility might be.

So why the paraphrasing? And your description point would seem to apply to Eliezer and the other proponents as well as your favorite critic. --Gwern (contribs) 03:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What paraphrasing are you refering to?

Except for Brian Atkins and Sabine Atkins (whom I had forgot but have now taken care of), every individual metioned in the article including Yudkowsky has a description. He is fact described as an “American artificial intelligence researcher” so I am not sure what you are complaining about. --Loremaster (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I will be more explicit. Isn't 'David Correia, a professor of science and technology studies at the University of New Mexico' a little excessive? That's an entire sentence, not 'an American AI researcher'. Can't we cut it down to something like 'David Correia, UNM 'science and technology studies', says..."? --Gwern (contribs) 17:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will replace the entire phrase with 'David Correia, a sociologist of science and technology'.

C) The lede section is a general overview and summary of the article including its criticism section. Some duplication can occur when summarizing although rephrasing sentences usually neutralizes that effect. D) I honestly believe there is a possible contradiction between Yudkowsky stating that “A Singularitarian views the Singularity as an entirely secular, non-mystical process — not the culmination of any form of religious prophecy or destiny” and then using the religious word apotheosis to describe what the Singularity holds out. However, in the absence of a source reporting this contradiction, this was nothing more than my personal interpretation so I removed it. However, I resent the insinuation that my edits reflected a pattern of “anti-Singularitarian” editing (if this is what you are suggesting) since it was a pro-Singularitarian editor who pointed out this contradiction to me!

Apotheosis is not necessarily a religious term and is clearly being used in that sense. In my OED, only the first definition is religious and the definitions for 2-4 are secular and their quotes mostly secular. --Gwern (contribs) 03:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Since many critics of Singularitarianism argue that it is a new religious movement, they would probably point out that words like “apotheosis” even used in a secular sense still betray some religious-like thinking. Even if that wasn't the case, the point is that Yudkowsky's description of what the Singularity holds out for it vulnerable to criticism of religiosity. --Loremaster (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a pretty stupid criticism, you know. 'You say you're an atheist, but I heard you curse 'God damn it!' when you cut your hand the other day; admit it, you're really a theist.' Actually, that example would be even better than your apotheosis argument, because it uses a religious term, not a secular one. But as long as you don't plan to insert it in the article, I suppose discussing it is off-topic... --Gwern (contribs) 17:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, your reply is pretty stupid. There is obviously a difference between an atheist saying 'God damn it!' and a movement of atheists who think and act like a religious cult preparing for future technological developments to usher an impossibly utopian world that they themselves describe as 'paradise on Earth'. Regardless, even if you are right that the criticism is not fair, it doesn't change that fact that this is what critics think, they are entitled to their views, and we should report them in this article if they are expressed in reliable sources. --Loremaster (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

E) Kurzweil is only mentioned twice in the article and that's only because the lede is summarizing the content in the body of the article. The fact that Kurzweil's projections are far from universally accepted is irrelevant. Kurzweil is the most prominent Singularitarian and it is important to report his projection for the Singularity.

My point stands. Why does the summary of Kurzweil repeat what the content says? Why is the prediction given twice? --Gwern (contribs) 03:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Because a lead section summarizes the most important content in the body of the article. It is that simple. --Loremaster (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not that simple. I'll repeat myself: why is Kurzweil's minority prediction so important it must be mentioned twice, once in the lead? --Gwern (contribs) 17:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Because everyone agrees that Kurzweil is the most prominent (publicly-known and influential) Singularitarian activist (regardless of whether or not his views are not are held by a majority of Singularitarians) therefore it isn't undue weight to mention it once or even twice in the article. --Loremaster (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

F) My choice of words does not reflect any bias but rather my attempt to find a fair and accurate description of Singularitarianism that both pro-Singularitarians and anti-Singularitarians would agree with. The notion that these words are either “negative” or “positive” is only a reflection of your own personal bias rather than some imaginary pattern you think I'm engaged in.

I think it is accurate, but I don't think it is germane (undue weight). So I think you failed to find a fair and accurate description. --Gwern (contribs) 03:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You are obviously free to think whatever you want but I continue to insist that if most people (pro-Singularitarians and anti-Singularitarians) agree that Singularitarianism is for now a small movement (as opposed to a mass movement) is is fair and accurate to to describe it as small. You would only have a valid point if I had used the word “fringe” (which some critics have actually used) instead of “small”. --Loremaster (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It is true that Singulitarianism is small. Pro and antis agree on this because it's obviously true. You apparently did not read what I said - why is it germane? There are many true things about pro-singularity demographics - that they are primarily male, mostly American, well-educated, mostly highly paid, mostly on the coasts, etc. etc. etc. Why is their smallness as a fraction of the population important? If you look around, most articles do not describe how popular or unpopular their topic is. Click Special:Random a few times and see how many articles feel the need to describe their topic as large or small. --Gwern (contribs) 17:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was germane because I, and probably many other readers, would actually be interested in knowing whether any movement one reads about is composed of 1000 people or 100000 people. Futhermore, if a movement is only composed of only 100 or even 10 people, it calls into question whether or not it is is accurate to describe it as a “movement” rather than a groupuscule. That being said, if millions of people were active Singularitarians, I think even you would find it fair, accurate and germane to describe as a mass movement. --Loremaster (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

G) I simply thought “speculated” was a better word in light of the fact that Singularitarians are know for having an interest in speculative fiction, speculative futures, speculative futurism, etc. It never occured to me that it would be interpreted by anyone as “negative”.

Again, disingenuous. To quote my OED from speculation, one meaning is 'in more or less disparaging use'. You were not using it in one of the accepted terms where it's not meant to be disparaging, and so the connotation is possible. --Gwern (contribs) 03:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless you are omniscient, I am unclear as to how you are able to determine with such certainity whether or not I am being honest. As Wikipedia talk page guidelines demand, please assume good faith. That being said, since Vinge was arguably engaging in speculative futurism, this is what led me to use the word “speculate” since I felt the word “suggested” didn't adequately convey the seriousness of Vinge's speculation which I assume is grounded in hard futurology. --Loremaster (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

AGF doesn't mean be willfully stupid; "the assumption of good faith is not a suicide pact". But I'll AGF here; you should be happy I've pointed out how something you wrote could be seen as POV since now you can avoid such unfortunate misunderstandings by picking a different word with no unfortunate connotations. One should be especially grateful when another points out a blind spot. --Gwern (contribs) 17:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If it makes you happy, I will replace the word “speculate” with “hypothesized”. --Loremaster (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

H) I used to word “warned” because I think it might have better reflected the tone in which these things were reported and to make the parapragh less dull to read. If evidence is shown to me that “noted” is a more accurate word, I have no problem changing it back. As for the word “asserted”, I think many people (especially Singularitarians) would disagree that self-awareness as depicted in science fiction is probably unlikely.

And where would I get this 'evidence'? Email the authors and ask whether they were trying to induce fear in the readers? --Gwern (contribs) 03:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

By reading the actual transcripts and/or viewing videos of the conference if possible. --Loremaster (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As the person who chose the wording, I'm glad you've volunteered to justify your choice. --Gwern (contribs) 17:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

My justification is written above in the first sentence next to the letter H... --Loremaster (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I) I removed the word “neo-Luddite” because it is a word loaded with negative connotations and the contributor to Green Anarchy magazine might reject that label.

Fair enough. I wonder whether they would reject it (and I find it interesting that suddenly you are able to notice loaded language and negative connotations), but I don't care enough to read them. --Gwern (contribs) 03:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As I explained before, I do not consider the word “small” to be loaded with negative connations. Although I've always been fully aware that the word “speculate” can have negative connations, I assume most people (who aren't scrutizing the article to find a suspicious pattern) would not have interpreted the word negatively in this context. --Loremaster (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"Assumptions are the first step into a shallow grave". We should strive to avoid even the appearance of POV. --Gwern (contribs) 17:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Loremaster (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

J) Whether or not declinist critiques are interesting, what matters is finding a reliable source to reference this critique (which I could no longer find so I removed it). If we find one, it should be added to the article regarless of whether or not you think it is interesting. As for your suggestions, you are welcome to add them.

If I can find a source. What really sticks out is the lack of content of the set of beliefs and especially distinguishing between varieties (which we even have a source for, in Yudkowsky's schools page) - which makes the criticism section especially bad. It'd be like a quantum mechanics article which mixes together criticism of Copenhagen, Many Worlds, and all the other interpretations! --Gwern (contribs) 03:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Although I think I have significantly improved the article from what it used to be, I am the first one to admit that it is a work in progress that needs to be improved further. However, the lack of content of the set of beliefs is obviously not a result of some POV-pushing agenda. As for the criticism section, I think it is good since all the criticisms are explicitly and directly about Singularitarianism and/or Singularitarians. --Loremaster (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

K) JackBlack presented me with a source which made me realize that, although “Rapture for the nerds” was the expression used by science-fiction writer Ken MacLeod, most critics use the expression “Rapture of the nerds”.

Exactly the sort of thing that should've been explained either in edit summaries or in the article itself. --Gwern (contribs) 03:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the lack of such explanation is not evidence of some POV-pushing agenda on my part. --Loremaster (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

L) I tend to agree with you the Takahashi quote may not be adding value similar to its size but it was a way of balancing the article and neutralizing the false accusations that the article was biased against Singularitarianism.

--Loremaster (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

So put some work into finding a better quote rather than excerpting and summarizing ever more from Correia. --Gwern (contribs) 03:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I will eventually try to find a better quote than the one from Takahashi. However, as I explained before, David Correia has written an insightful critique of Singularitarianism and the reason why I expanded his quote is because his critique is the most substantive of the three currently quoted. --Loremaster (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely just fixing the text would be easier and more effective than a detailed debate, Gwern? Strebe (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point, Strebe. --Loremaster (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Strebe, when a discussion is too big to fit in an edit comment, that's when you're supposed to use the talk page. If it bothers you, take the page off your watchlist. --Gwern (contribs) 17:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Gwern, I did not say the discussion bothered me; I said that making your edits in the text would be easier and more effective. I don’t care about Loremaster’s and your excruciations here. Early on you made fair points about Loremaster’s point of view coloring the text. So uncolor it. Or argue obsessively here. Suit yourself. Strebe (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Strebe, you are right that it would be more productive if Gwern only suggested improvements to the article instead of trying to expose my “POV-pushing agenda” as if this talk page is some kind of show trial. However, I strongly disagree with your suggestion that she made “fair points” about how my point of view supposedly colors the text when I clearly explained that it doesn't. I've been contributing to this article for a long time now and I've always done so from a sympathetic yet neutral point of view. Although I agree with her that I could have chosen words less vulnerable to accusations of POV, my actual point of view was never the problem. --Loremaster (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Loremaster, no one is objective about his own edits. Not you. Not I. If User:Gwern or anyone else elects to change wording to something he or she feels to be less colored, then those of us with an interest in the article will judge those edits as improvements or entropy, in context. In making those decisions we certainly aren’t going to be sorting through this endless dreary debate to see what the rationales were supposed to be. That’s why I suggested Gwern just make the changes and explain anything controversial after the fact. Strebe (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Strebe, I am fully aware that my point of view (and biases) can influence my edits. However, I've always tried to overcome my point of view in order to write Wikipedia articles from a neutral point of view, which usually means fairly and accurately reporting point of views that I strongly disagree with it. I simply resent the false accusation that an “anti-Singularitarian” point of view colored any of my edits or that a POV-pushing agenda led me to resort to the tactic of hiding a controversial or POV edit under a flurry of minor improvements. That's just BS! That being said, I agree with the advice you are giving Gwern. --Loremaster (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms of the main contributor to this article

Loremaster the fact is that I think you are a bad editor, and for new arrivals to this debate I will include some of your discussion quotes regarding your Save The Earth propaganda:

Loremaster stated he is:

"...critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms."

And he wants people to:

"...stop indulging in techno-utopian fantasies... ...so that we can all focus on energies on saving the planet."

Loremaster, feels the techno-utopianism article [and I assume the Singularitarianism article] is a 'fight':

"Although I am convinced that the world is in fact heading toward an ecological catastrophe, I think it can be averted and my optimism makes me want to fight to do do just that."

86.184.246.211 (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)JB

I find truly disgusting that you would take comments I made out of the context of a conversation in which I was being honest about my point of view in the interest of full disclosure while explaining that I can overcome my bias in order to write on this subject from a neutral point of view. The entire history of my contributions to the Singularitarianism article as well as the Technological utopianism article demonstrates without a doubt that I have always tried to be as fair and accurate as possible. For the record, I do NOT consider these articles as part of my “fight to save the planet”. I became interested in improving and expanding theses articles because I was initially a sympathizer. Although I am now a technorealist critic, I still watch over them to make sure they remain good articles out of Wikipedian duty. My opposition to your edits have never been motived by my “anti-techno-utopian” bias but my refusal to let you erode the quality of these articles with your amateurish and awkwardly bad editing which often results in articles being damaged by poor writing and recentism. That being said, if you persist in canvassing Wikipedia to create a lynch mob against me using such an intellectually dishonest distortion of my views and edits, I will report you to Wikipedia administrators in order to get you banned. --Loremaster (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Bias regarding recent improvements: criticism section.

It is stated "many critics" but it would be more correct to state "a handful of critics". When using words such as many you should include references to validate your biased opinion.

Contrary some commentators, Ken MacLeod did not dub the Singularity as the Rapture of the Nerds. Ken states:

"Two points I’ve had to make over and over: the expression ‘The Rapture of the nerds’ was not coined by me but by an Extropian writing a satirical piece in an early-90s issue of Extropy; and in my novel The Cassini Division, where a character derides ‘the Rapture for nerds’, the singularity actually happens."

So although Ken has used the phrase ‘The Rapture of the nerds’ he did not originate it and furthermore his use results in positive (non-critical) outcome because the Singularity actually happens.

http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/steven/?p=21#comment-181

1. I can and have put my negative opinion of Singularitarianism (which is similar to one expressed by experts quoted in Criticism section of the Technological singularity article) aside to write an article on the subject from a neutral point of view as much as possible. My improvements to the History section of the Singularitarianism article proves it. I therefore resent any suggestion to the contrary.
2. It is obviously hard to determine when the number of critics goes from "some" to "many" so there was nothing biased about my use of the word "many". It only reflects the fact that many (but not all) the critics of Singularitarianism I have stumbled on have expressed this view and even some Singularitarians acknowledge this. That being said, I have no problem using the word "some" (rather than “handful”) to avoid an unnecessary dispute over such a trivial point.
3. Thank you for the information which illuminates the origins of the expression ‘The Rapture of the nerds’. However, it has no bearing on how the article is currently written since we are simply reporting how critics use the term. Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
4. For the record, although I do believe that the Singularity is an escapist, pseudoscientic fantasy, I don't personally use the expression “Rapture of the Nerds” because I think it is counter-productive to Singularitarians actually listening to my criticisms.

--Loremaster (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments for anonymous 81.151.135.248

From User talk:Thumperward:

It looks as if there is lively debate on the article talk pages regarding the changes in question. I don't see that making the debate personal helps. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

From User talk:Waldir:

Sorry, 81. I sympathize with your cause, but I have no interest in stepping into editing conflicts, especially since I only performed a single, minor edit to that page. I do have another similar issue to address, at the Venus Project article, so that will take my priority once I feel like dealing with strong-opinionated editors. All I can say is good luck – and allow me a suggestion: if you register an account you'll probably be able to build a reputation and be taken more seriously by some editors; think about that. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 19:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

What are the downside of registering anyways? (even a false user name, will help to communicate with you) Can you clarify your objection to the edits made, regardless of the editor's assumed beliefs?--Namaste@^? 15:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Too many quotes

The article seems to consist mostly of large quotes, is this really desirable? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the paraphrasing of some (but not all) the quotes. However, please discuss changes to the article here before making them. --Loremaster (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

most of my changes are not controversial, also I don't think I've removed any quotes, I don't see why I need to discuss what are mostly non-controversial edits. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm opposed to almost all of your non-controversial edits so we have to discuss them. --Loremaster (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"and labelled the event as "the Singularity" This is as reported by the reference. "Often ridiculing the Singularity as "the Rapture of the Nerds"." Critics often ridicule it with this phrase? citation needed. "may have coined the term "the Singularity" to describe this moment." Who says he coined it? where is the reference, he labels it the singularity, but that doesn't mean he was the first etc. Bullet points are a messy way of presenting the information. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, the group is growing? citation needed again. Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote the first version? citation needed again (from a source that is not his own website. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, revert what you think is controversial and not a bulk revert of my edits. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

1. I replaced the phrase 'Often ridiculing the Singularity as "the Rapture of the Nerds"' with 'Often deriding the Singularity as "the Rapture of the Nerds"' and provided a citation for it, which is a post from a blog with a huge following in the Singularitarian community.
2. I replaced the phrase 'may have coined the term "the Singularity" to describe this moment' with 'used the term "the Singularity" to describe this moment'
3. I disagree that bullet points is a messy way of presenting the information so they stay.
4. I replaced the phrase 'a growing minority of' with 'some'
5. I deleted the phrase 'the first version'. I added a citation.
6. I think the phrase 'apotheosis like abilities' is awkward so I deleted 'like abilities'.

--Loremaster (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You disagree so it must stay? what a weird view on consensus you have. I suggest you read the guidelines on bullet points Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(layout)#Paragraphs. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"Sometimes deriding the Singularity as "the Rapture of the Nerds", some critics have dismissed Singularitarianism as technological utopianism turned into a new religious movement.". This phrase is in the lede and the criticism section, the lede is meant to talk about what's in the article, not have the same content as it. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Also can you please use edit summaries in the article, thanks. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Well, simply arguing that you feel bullet points is a “messy” way of presenting the information is obviously not a valid reason for them to be removed. However, if you had pointed out from the very beginning that Wikipedia guidelines discourages the use of bullet points, I would have taken you more seriously and offered a more serious counter-argument.

1. Unless Wikipedia guidelines support your strict interpretation of what can and cannot be in the lead, I simply disagree with you. That being said, I support the replacement of the word “often” with “sometimes”.
2. --Loremaster (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Section to explain what Singularitarianism is

A section is needed to explain what singularitarianism is about, the lede is not the place for this. Can someone knowledgeable about singularitarianism add a section on this? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A lede should definitely contain a brief summary of what singularitarianism is about. However, I am not opposed to the adding of a section that specifically explains what singularitarianism in more detail. If someone else doesn't do it, I'll eventually get around doing it myself. --Loremaster (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Quotes themselves

It feels like something big is about to happen: graphs show us the yearly growth of populations, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, Net addresses, and Mbytes per dollar. They all soar up to form an asymptote just beyond the turn of the century: The Singularity. The end of everything we know. The beginning of something we may never understand.

— Danny Hillis, "The Millennium Clock", Wired magazine, 1995

This quote is ok, it has some relevance. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. --Loremaster (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Singularity holds out the possibility of winning the Grand Prize, the true Utopia, the best-of-all-possible-worlds - not just freedom from pain and stress or a sterile round of endless physical pleasures, but the prospect of endless growth for every human being - growth in mind, in intelligence, in strength of personality; life without bound, without end; experiencing everything we've dreamed of experiencing, becoming everything we've ever dreamed of being; not for a billion years, or ten-to-the-billionth years, but forever... or perhaps embarking together on some still greater adventure of which we cannot even conceive."

I don't think this adds anything to the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree (although you should know that it was added by another user after a dispute. --Loremaster (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

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 or dystopian, this epoch will transform the concepts we rely on to give meaning to our lives, from our business models to the cycle of human life, including death itself. Understanding the Singularity will alter our perspective on the significance of our past and the ramifications for our future. To truly understand it inherently changes one's view of life in general and one's particular life. I regard someone who understands the Singularity and who has reflected on its implications for his or her own life as a “singularitarian.”

This should be paraphrased (and possibly in a section to explain what singularitians believe and what that involves. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it is note-worthy. --Loremaster (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

[I]t was refreshing and invigorating for me to experience unbounded optimism at the Singularity Summit gathering in San Francisco this past weekend. Six hundred geeky, bright and mostly young participants sat in on two days of hope for the future. Many of us are familiar with the term singularity with respect to mathematics and space. However, when applied to humanity, as coined by Vernor Vinge in 1993 and popularized by Ray Kurzweil, exponential advancements in computing and biological sequencing could result in artificial intelligence becoming smarter than humans only in two decades. The overwhelming consensus was that singularity was the solution. This combination of fusion, cloning and artificial genius gifted with humanitarian traits offers not only hope, but certainty that we will not only survive, but thrive.

This quote adds nothing. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree so I've deleted it. --Loremaster (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's face it. The singularity is a religious rather than a scientific vision. The science-fiction writer Ken MacLeod has dubbed it ”the rapture for nerds,” an allusion to the end-time, when Jesus whisks the faithful to heaven and leaves us sinners behind. Such yearning for transcendence, whether spiritual or technological, is all too understandable. Both as individuals and as a species, we face deadly serious problems, including terrorism, nuclear proliferation, overpopulation, poverty, famine, environmental degradation, climate change, resource depletion, and AIDS. Engineers and scientists should be helping us face the world's problems and find solutions to them, rather than indulging in escapist, pseudoscientific fantasies like the singularity.

This quote is already paraphrased in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is still note-worthy despite the short paraphrasing. --Loremaster (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The singularity movement is encouraged and sponsored by a malevolent coterie of military and corporate interests in search of a technotranscendence that serves to reinforce inequality rather than the dream of human transcendence. Those who should be offering skepticism are blinded, it seems, by the truth claims and seemingly self-evident goodness of technoscience. But the singularity movement is far from progressive and the appealing possibility of technosolutions to our most intractable social and environmental issues masks frightening social and ecological implications ... The Singularity does not anticipate human liberation but offers the conditions of permanent capitalist social relations and the bioengineering of bourgeois values. The singularity movement is old-fashioned eugenics with better techniques passing itself off as pragmatic postmodernism.

This looks like a fringe idea from an unreliable source. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Putting aside the fact that CounterPunch seems notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, I think it is note-worthy quote from a professor of science and technology studies at the University of New Mexico which deserves to be heard. I won't back down on this one. --Loremaster (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If it is evolutionary for some humans to use intelligence to design and manufacture 'superior' intelligent replacements -- sickening and killing humans alongside other species in the process -- then perhaps they must do their/God's work. But, if their evolution concept is correct, than we, the [...] resistants, have evolved -- well, quite differently. We find all apocalyptic priests and their followers -- bent on destroying us and the rest of the living, breathing 'natural' world -- abominations. Therefore, it is in our 'nature' to do whatever we deem necessary for the survival of our unenhanced selves, our offspring, and our nonhuman relations. We choose life on OUR terms, not on the misanthropic terms of the Masters. A few words from Thoreau have a particular potency in this technophilic society, "for every 100 people chopping at the branches, only one is hacking at the roots". And so it is that we find ourselves, quite 'naturally' -- blade in hand.

This quote is unnecessary, it is already paraphrased in the article. (Green Anarchy seems notable enough though). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it is still note-worthy despite the short paraphrasing. --Loremaster (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You have gone through the quotes but the article still looks awful with so many quotes. Some should be removed or at least paraphrased for the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the quote format so that they stand out less. --Loremaster (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not what they look like. The problem is that articles are not supposed to be composed substantially of quotations. Strebe (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed one quotation and I would argue that remaining ones are pertinent. --Loremaster (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are they needed, what is wrong with just paraphrashing? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Paraphrasing often loses crucial points of an argument but also the eloquence of the actual quote. --Loremaster (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I share IRWolfe's concern. Too much quoting. If the eloquence of the paraphrase is not good, perhaps an interested editor will improve it. We have Wikiquote for folks seeking quotes. This is the encyclopedia project.Shajure (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the Green Anarchy quote, paraphrased the David Correia quote but I'm leaving the John Horgan quote intact. Can everyone accept the two remaining good quotes and move on? --Loremaster (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism tag removed

Yes, clearly you did... but has the community consensus on criticism sections changed? If so, why has the tag remained?Shajure (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What community consensus? There is only person who has a problem with the Criticism section and he never argued that section is compromising the article's neutral point of view of the subject. He only dislikes the fact that there are large quotes in this section and wishes that they be replaced with paraphrasing. --Loremaster (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that it is mentioned, I see no reason why a criticism section is needed and the criticism can't be just integrated into the article. Also the Green Anarchy is a primary source and gives no reason to show that it has due weight to be mentioned (I previously had thought maybe but on further checks they don't seem to be very notable as a group). The comment by David Correia also is from a primary source and gives no indication of its importance. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I support the existence of criticism sections because of how useful they are for users who are searching quickly for relevant information, I am not opposed to incorporating these criticisms in the article and therefore I will do so now. That being said, since Singularitarianism is a relatively fringe movement it is not surprising that criticisms of this ideology and movement will come from the few primary sources that exist and science journalist John Horgan and sociologist David Correia are note-worthy sources. However, I can live with deleting the Green Anarchy quote and I'll paraphrase Correia. Can everyone accept the two remaining good quotes and move on? --Loremaster (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

As a compromise that seems fine to me. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought you said you were deleting the green anarchy parts? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No, just the quote since the paraphrasing was already there. I consider Green Anarchy a notable source in light of the notable academic who was one of its editors, John Zerzan. --Loremaster (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That editor does not appear to be an academic (which university?). Having some editor who was notable in the magazines lifetime does not mean it must be included here. also it is very much a fringe theory magazine (so we have a fringe magazine talking about a different fringe article).IRWolfie- (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant to say “philosopher” rather than “academic”. That being said, a notable editor (who edited the article that is being referenced) makes the journal notable. Ultimately, a green anarchist critique of Singularitarianism in an alternative journal is note-worthy in light of the circumstances. --Loremaster (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)