Talk:Technological singularity/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Citation request for potential original research

This paragraph, added in this edit by Dysmorodrepanis, lacks NPOV and source:

Another drawback of the concept of technological singularity is that all data used in attempting to prove it is derived from a time when key resources for technological growth were limited by human ability to exploit or tap them, not by physical availability. This is very likely to change in the near future for the key resources water, energy, most nuclear fuels and, most of all, petroleum. Since modern technology and technological innovation is essentially based on ready availability of affordable petroleum, mainly as a source of plastics and other organic compounds as well as a major energy source, the proven fact that at least in some aspects technological development is accelerating and close to the presumed point of singularity holds no real predictive accuracy, because the fundamental conditions underlying this development, indeed making it possible in the first place, are set to change in the foreseeable future. It is rather unlikely for example that projects like Mars colonization will continue at the current pace when a barrel of crude oil has a price of, say, 85 US dollars, as the all-permeating cost carryover will be prohibitive.

Can anyone please identify the source of this opinion to confirm its notability? --Schaefer 04:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't score any non-wiki google hits. My bet is it's not a quotation, by opinion of one of our editors. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Another potential original research:

"Singularity advocates generally postulate that as the Singularity approaches, it goes undetected. Humans, however, are both externally and internally aware of change; therefore the likelihood of such a change going undetected in the environment is small. And the effects? One answer might be societal entropy to the point that the Singularity is impeded from occurring. If it is generally known that the Singularity is being approached—with its unknowns—then learning, investment, and technology enhancement collapse under a weight of uncertainty. Devoid of the next level of technical infusion the Singularity is never approached while human society collapses in a deflationary wait for the Big Bang or a variant of intellectual Cargo Cultism."

This appears to be written by the author of the comment beginning with the words "First I believe that a Singularity event could be in the offing" on this blog post. Note that both mention the Singularity going "undetected" and both use the phrase "intellectual Cargo Cultism" with both C's capitalized. I can't find any more encyclopedic source for this. Either way, if it's to stay it needs some NPOV rewording. --Schaefer 07:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Why did you rev my edit?

Marudubshinki: why did you rev my edit? Something wrong with it? You just don't like it? The section it's in says: "Objections ... three themes" of those themes 2 are discussed, my edit was the third. What exactly is the problem?

While I didn't delete your edit, I do find it inaccurate. I do feel it is a valid discussion and should be included, however, it should be altered slightly. I think there is a argument for the level of intelligence of AI and how it may contribute to the Singularity and thus the timeline. However, your discussion about the current lack of creativity of computers or their possible creative contributions makes an assumption that they need to have human level intelligence or higher to significantly contribute. Today computers are adding knowledge that we otherwise would not have been able to achieve in many areas of science. They may be idiot savants but something new that never existed before is being created. Perhaps we will be the only ones with a truly creative gene, however, if computers just gave humans the ability to quickly achieve those new ideas, a singularity would still occur. Morphh 14:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I expected people to disagree with me, or edit it. But simply delete it?

Personally I don't think computers today (or ever) will be able create new knowledge. What computers are doing is figuring the result of a problem, yes, and that is useful. But they do not come up with the problem in the first place! They only figure out the solution to one. And that figuring is something a human can certainly do (in theory) just much slower. I don't think computers will ever be able to calculate, invent, or think of something that humans can't.

But there is something that I do think will happen: computer augmented human thinking. Kazparov was experimenting with computer augmented chess, use a human for much of the strategic thinking, but let a computer calculate various results for possible moves. This combo will be something never seen before, and the singularity may end up as exactly that: human directed, computer assisted. It's already happened in math (although not yet real time interactively), just wait till novels are written this way: a human comes up with a plot (and dialog?), and a computer fills out the scenery - but not by itself - under the direction of the author. The only field that has really done this fully is art and drawing: 3D cartoon movies. They will get more real, and soon you can have 1 author "write" a movie using just a computer without actors. (Much like it takes only 1 author to write a book.)

Please see the Wikipedia policy on original research. As interesting and valid as your theories may be, Wikipedia is not the place to present new arguments. If an otherwise notable person has used some particular argument along these lines, feel free to mention that in the article with proper citation. -- Schaefer 22:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The stuff in talk might be, but what I wrote in the article is not original research. I'm certainly not the first person to believe computers will never be sentient, or sapient.

I was referring to the stuff on talk as well: talk pages shouldn't be used as forums for discussing the article's topic rather than the article itself. Anyway, the section as it stood was in need of NPOVing, citations, and grammatical repair. Even if this weren't the case, this article isn't the place for rehashing the debate on whether or not AI will ever become "really intelligent" or "conscious". There are entire other articles devoted to that topic where the section you added would be more at home. Perhaps you should insert it in Strong AI, Artificial consciousness, Turing test, or some other AI philosophy article where it would be more on topic. Before you do, though, I recommend you review Wikipedia's NPOV policy, find notable people who have verifiably written the things you say in the edit, and cite them. Also, please see I'm not trying to say questions on the possibility of true AI are irrelevant to whether one believes in the Singularity, just that these topics are already discussed in great detail in other articles and it's best to try to avoid redundant content. -- Schaefer 23:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I have to agree with the unnamed one. While it did need some citations and grammatical repair, this is part of the wiki process. It could even cite the other wiki articles that you discussed. I'm not sure you could call it a NPOV issue as it is under a section call criticisms. It should be a POV as the rest of the article is the other POV. It is what makes the entire article NPOV. While other wiki articles may discuss this topic, a short piece should be added as the other articles are not specifically about this criticism but may only contain this criticism. I think it is well stated that "for further discussion" see the other articles but in my opinion, some short description of the critique should be included. I also don't think your point of original research in the talk page makes much sense. We are discussing the merits and contributions to the article and trying to explain why or why not they should be included. He is trying to make his point for the contribution - original or not. I now understand his POV and we can work toward including and citing such a addition. This is what makes a great article. I do agree this is not the place to rehash the debate but I don't think that is what he was trying to do. Perhaps something shorter and more to the point. Morphh 01:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact is our present article has quite a lots of facts unsourced and unreferenced. And anon (please register) additions don't look like orginal research to me - at least not anymore then half of the stuff we already have. Of course, this text would benefit from more NPOV, wikifying and of course referencing (if our anon could think of sources to back his 'belief' it would solve the issue). For future reference, I suggest moving such stuff to talk instead of deleting it. Anon went to some trouble to write it and simply showing his contribution to the trash bin is a bit discouraging. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Formulae

"White introduced a formula P=E*T, where E is a measure of energy consumed, and T is the measure of efficiency of technical factors utilizing the energy. In his own words, "culture evolves as the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year is increased, or as the efficiency of the instrumental means of putting the energy to work is increased." The Russian astronomer Nikolai Kardashev extrapolated this theory to create the Kardashev scale, which categorizes the energy use of advanced civilizations. A Dyson sphere is Type II on this scale, and humanity is currently at about 0.7."

What is * supposed to represent here? If multiplication, then it is superfluous and confusing -- standard convention is represent multiplication by simple adjacency of symbols, thus P=ET.

The symbol P is completely undefined! Despite the pseudo-scientific nature of the theories discussed in this article, at least some attempt at coherency needs to be made. Likewise the descriptions "E is a measure of energy consumed, and T is the measure of efficiency of technical factors utilizing the energy" are too vague to be meaningful. E is a measure of energy consumed in what time, by what or whom? and the definition of T needs to be made clearer. What does "measure of efficiency mean" in this context.

"Dyson sphere is Type II on this scale, and humanity is currently at about 0.7". Pray tell how Type II relates to 0.7? this is not at all clear to the casual reader. Do you mean to say "A Dyson sphere is 2.0 on this scale"? Instead of expecting readers to have to open the page on the Kardashev scale to get an explanation, it would be better to make it clear here.

And further, a Dyson sphere does not use energy, it generates it. Does "energy use" here mean energy expenditure, or generation? Or some muddled combination of the two? 203.51.108.111 07:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Leslie White or Dyson sphere a pseudoscience, both are respected academic concepts. * means, obviously, multiplication. Feel free to read up more on those subjects, be bold and expand and clarify the relevant articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

"sentience" doesn't mean what you think it does

See the wikipedia entry on sentience for an explanation of why sci-fi writers and other nerds should stop imitating each other's habitual misuse of this word. All instances of "sentience" and "sentient" in this article should be replaced with "intelligent," or, arguably, "sapient," or simply removed. --24.22.58.51 11:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, don't forget sophont --WhiteDragon 16:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I ran a search and couldn't find any such examples. --Maru (talk) Contribs 14:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary describes "sentience" as "The condition or quality of being sentient, consciousness, susceptibility to sensation". I think the use in the article stands. --Plumbago 16:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

What use in the article? There isn't a single instance of the words "sentient" or "sentience" anywhere in the article. What exactly are you talking about? -- Schaefer 05:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I checked the history again; at around the time the anon was complaining here, an anon removed all instances. --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Graph, revisited

See Talk:History_of_the_World#Graph_straw_poll. Plus, Image_talk:PPTParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.jpg now has a large description added to it's page, so if you wanted to know what those specific 13 or so sources were, now you can see all the references :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The graph is plotted on a log-log scale, and a straight line on a log-log plot represents a power law relationship, not an exponential relationship. Someone should fix this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.174.32.155 (talk • contribs)

Removed paragraph

Singularity advocates generally postulate that as the Singularity approaches, it goes undetected. Humans, however, are both externally and internally aware of change; therefore the likelihood of such a change going undetected in the environment is small. And the effects? One answer might be societal entropy to the point that the Singularity is impeded from occurring. If it is generally known that the Singularity is being approached—with its unknowns—then learning, investment, and technology enhancement collapse under a weight of uncertainty. Devoid of the next level of technical infusion, the Singularity is never approached, and human society collapses in a deflationary wait for the Big Bang or in a variant of intellectual Cargo Cultism.

This paragraph makes absolutely no sense to me. The fact that the Singularity has a Wikipedia article is a good sign that it's not going undetected. I can't make head or tail of what "externally and internally aware of change" means, or of the sudden shift in topic at the end to cosmology and cargo cultism. The bit about the Singularity being impeded by mass confusion and what not is more coherent, but even that is unattributed opinion. I'm removing the paragraph. If someone else knows what this is about and can clean it up, feel free. -- Schaefer 02:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed good article

This article has absolutle nothing on criticisms on technological singularity. What there is seems OK but its so one sided. It fails NPOV a criteria for a good article, hence removed. It seems liike there was a criticism section a while back. --Salix alba 01:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

why are there no criticisms on the earth page about the world being round?

--130.191.17.38 18:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It also seems to me that the two "main ideas" — creation of AI and the singularity as as a result of exponential technological growth — are kinda of dangling out there independant of each other. They are not exclusive of one another. The creation of AI can be subsumed within the idea of exponential growth. I think that the article might benefit from a more coherent overall structure, as well as a balancing of the POV. - Beowulf314159 04:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok - just an intial stab at an overall structure, even though it's late, so don't expect this to be a work of genius...

• Introduction/Synopsis
• History/Development of the concept of technological singularities
• Exponential technological development throughout history.
• Specfic "singulatarian" technologies - this can be broken down into sub-sections. There are a lot more than AI
• Dangers/Criticims of the Sigularity - this can be broken down into sub-sections as well - point and coutner-point for each argement
• Summary/Conclusion

LOTS and LOTS of room for improvement - but it lays out the issues of the article in a related framework and allows room for balancing POVs. - Beowulf314159 04:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Its not so much that this article is badly written, I just don't think it should be listed as 'good' when its subject matter is so hypothetical, without either proof or precedent. Surely common sense must tell us that believing in this is folly? If not, Occam's razor might help.

Introduction

Beowulf314159 put the following on my talk page, and I'm pasting it here in case others wish to contribute to this discussion:

You kinda gutted the intro. Singularity has two distinct meanings - or two LEVELS of meaning. The transhumanist singularity is not the ONLY kind of singularity. In fact, you can make cases for there being PAST technological singulariies: the culture after the development of agriculture, and the development of written language would be incomprehensible to paleolithic man.

I don't mind people tightening up and reorganizing things to be more efficient. That's a good thing. But I start getting owly when people rip out meaning and distinctions that should be made.

As for moving things into the main body, I believe that a "stub" should be left in the intro. I view the intro as a "brief synopsis" of the entire article: what someone with 30 seconds to look something up will read and take away. However, I think that you're correct in your (apparent) attitude that if it's mentioned in the intro, it should be in the main article body. The should mirror each other, and I updated the intro and hadn't updated the main article yet.

I'll have another look at the intro. I think that the distinction between general and transhumanist technological singularities is an important one, but I think you're quite right that it should be more concise than the half page that was there.

Beowulf314159 03:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I am unaware of any popular distinction between a "transhumanist singularity" and any other sort. Your point regarding "past singularities" is well taken, and I understand that one could easily view humans as a singularity-like event when all that came before was apes, and that evolution was a singularity-type event when all that existed before was rocks and dead amino acids, etc, but I wasn't clear at all from the intro that that was the distinction you were going for. The phrase "transhumanist singularity" in quotes returns only 111 hits on Google, the first two of which are this article and my user talk page (the section under which you wrote the above text). I've heard this idea presented before, with the general class of these singularity-type events I think you're referring to called "perceptual transcends". In almost all cases, the Singularity refers to the one specific event coming in the future. The other events, whether they be paradigm shifts or peceptual transcends or whatever, deserve mention somewhere but I think it only confuses things to introduce them in the first intro paragraph as being singularities when, as far as I know, that's not the common meaning of the term.

More generally, when giving definitions of the Singularity, I think we should stick closely to the definitions provided by the most widely known sources on the subject. A good quick of way of determining who those sources are is to just Google for "Singularity". Taking the first few relevant entries, we get, in order of Google rank:

1. Venor Vinge's Singularity lecture, whose definition very clearly puts the Singularity in the future [1].
2. "There is no clear definition, but usually the Singularity is meant as a future time when societal, scientific and economic change is so fast we cannot even imagine what will happen from our present perspective, and when humanity will become posthumanity." [2]
3. The website of the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, which writes simply, "The Singularity is the technological creation of smarter-than-human intelligence."[3]
4. "Singularity: The rise of super intelligent life, created through the improvement of human tools by the acceleration of technological progress reaching the point of infinity" [4].

I'm not trying to argue against including some mention of these "past singularities" in the article. Looking back on history and declaring major milestones in progress to be the world-shaking things that they are plays a major role in the writings of people like Ray Kurzweil, who's quite possibly the biggest single promoter of the Singularity of them all (I'd say he follows Vinge, but other would disagree).

We have to be careful, though, how we use terms. If you looked at those Google results above, you saw that this Wikipedia article is one of the top hits for the word "Singularity". The intro to this article has even been cited in print media sources! We have an obligation to make sure we represent terminology as it is actually commonly used, and make it clear that its usage is vague and differs between writers, because the influence of this article is such that any mistake of definition we make could well be made permanent. Life imitates Wikipedia. -- Schaefer 04:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The very facts mentioned in this article, and past uses of the term dating back the 1950s, illustrates that the term is not just a singultarian term. In fact, given that it was coined well in advance of the transhumanist movment, you could say that it has suffered from "intellectual imperialism".

I don't disagree that over the past 15-20 years, that any mention of a singularity has tended to concentrate on transhumanism. That's undeniable.

Trying to use google as the sole justification and source for an article is like trying to use the top 2 inches of top soil to dig for dinosaur fossils. It's hardly a balanced source. Google is a great resource for current knowledge. Frankly, it sucks for historical knowledge of anything more than 20 years old.

The very fact that this article is the most common sited google hit shows this is circular logic. You want to restrict the article to the most common use on the net, which is this article. So the article should never change?

[This is just nitpicking, but at present this article is not the first Google result for "Singularity"; it's the fourth. I just said it's one of the top ones. -- Schaefer]

If you wish to restrict yourself to the examples you gave, we need to take out the pre-Vinge referances, as they do not accuratly reflect this concept and will just confuse the issue. I don't think we should do either.

We do not - or should not - merely parrot what we hear in the world at large on Wikipedia. A bot could do that. What we are doing is placing "factoids" in a framework and context. This does not mean inventing new facts, coining new theories, or doing orginal research - this means putting facts in their actual context.

In any case, an encyclopedia article is not merely a point-list form of "common kmowledge". It is meant to inform and educate not merely "info-dump" on people. With most people's learning style this means that you work from generalities to specifics, citing examples and counter point discussions along the way. It's why we are supposed to have structure to articles. Note that I mentioned NONE of what I said to YOU in my edits of the introduction. I simply wrote it to go from general concept, to specific example. Small s to large S singularities.

Don't get too hung up on the spotlight. Life is not dictated by wikipedia. Mistakes you make here are not permenant - they last only as long as it takes changes to percolate through the various systems that mirror wikipedia content. Concentrate on what the articles are supposed to be: full, fair representations of all of a concept or subject, in it's full context, in a manner that can be easily accessed and assimilated by the interested, intelligent, but uninformed layperson. History will take care of it'self.

I hope that all makes sense; I am very tired so I apologize for the "roughness" of my rejoinder (including spelling and grammar which tend to go first) - but I believe that fair, balanced, complete treament of concepts in an accessible format is far more important than representing a view of knowledge based on "popular vote". - Beowulf314159 05:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The very facts mentioned in this article, and past uses of the term dating back the 1950s, illustrates that the term is not just a singultarian term. In fact, given that it was coined well in advance of the transhumanist movment, you could say that it has suffered from "intellectual imperialism".

I don't disagree that over the past 15-20 years, that any mention of a singularity has tended to concentrate on transhumanism. That's undeniable.

Both of the pre-Vinge sources quoted in the article describe only one singularity, not a periodic event, and both place the event in the future. I'm actually quite curious now, do you have any sources that apply the term "singularity" to technology and past inventions that predate Vernor Vinge? If so, you should definitely quote or at least mention them in the article. I'm personally not aware of any, and would be glad to concede the point of the intro's focus if there's some historical evidence I'm ignorant of. -- Schaefer 06:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point(s)

1. The concept of a singularity predates transhumanism as an emergent philosophy. Therefore couching it only in terms of the transhumanist vision is misleading.
2. The section of my post that you quoted is not a statement that such technological singularities are periodic. I used such an example in what I wrote to you as an demonstration-of-concept that singularity can have definition outside of the idea of Singularity. I did not add that to the article. My most recent edit of the introduction made no such mention of periodic singularities. My point is not that singularities are periodic. It is not that they have occured in the past (although I could make arguments for that, that would be semi-original theorizing to me, and would have to gain wider acceptance before being applied here, so it's not an issue). It is that the concept of singularity predates transhumanism.
3. Let me re-interate that one: the concept of periodic, historic, singularities is not part of the article. I didn't put it in. I don't plan to put it in. As far as I'm concerned, periodic, historical singularities are a non-issue.
4. Setting the issue of periodic historical singularities aside, still does not address the concept of structuring the article for accessability by going from generalities to specifics for purposes of explanation and accessibility. It does not address concepts of lending concepts a complete context, and accessible approachable framework.

Let me put it this way.

• Is the introduction, as it stands, misleading?
• Is the introduction, as it stands, more accessible to someone of the street?

If the first is 'no', and the second is 'yes', then it's a better article as it is. I don't think the answer to the first one is yes. It gives the idea of the singularity a little more scope than the transhumanist vision, and it's not blue-sky speculaion - it's a little bit of rational generalization based on basic inductive principles and the examples of pre-Vinge uses of the term. You can use the pre-Vinge examples for backing of that if you like: Singularity as a more general concept that the recent uses by transhumanists.

I'll have a better response and/or discussion on this point after some sleep - but I've been up for 20+ hours, so I apologize if this is all a little "fuzzy". Beowulf314159 06:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but unless you have some references I'm not aware of, I just can't swallow that there's any broader, non-transhumanist meaning of "technological singularity" that's notable enough to include not only on this page but in the first sentence. The only reference you have to support this is one quote by Stanislaw Ulam, and in that quote he's not drawing special attention the word "singularity" or intentionally coining a term. "Singularity" has been an English word for a long time, and I don't see any reason to think that Ulam was using it as anything but the usual meaning of the word: a synonym for "peculiarity". Please note that the second quotation, by I. J. Good, does not even use the word "singularity" at all.

You can't work backwards from the modern meaning of "singularity" to declare any past use of it in the context of technology to be the true subject of this article. If Vernor Vinge had never decided to call it the Singularity, and picked some other name, the Stanislaw Ulam quote alone would not make "technological singularity" an encyclopedic topic. The fact that he mentioned it, and happened to use the word "singularity" when he spoke is just an oddity (or a singularity, if you prefer), not the coinage of a term.

Now, again, if you have other noteworthy evidence that there really was some technological singularity idea floating around prior to the 1980s that went by the name "singularity", then everything I've said here goes straight out the window. And I wasn't trying to be sarcastic or anything when I told you to post what references you have. You seem, to me, quite sure that there's a more general concept of a technological singularity that predates Vinge (and was called a singularity), and I really don't know why. One quote that could very well have just been using the phrase in its traditional sense doesn't seem all that convincing. -- Schaefer 10:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Temporary compromise?

I've put up another new version of the intro. Hopefully this is acceptable enough. If not, you can revert it. Either way, this debate has grown too long for the amount of impact it has on the article. Both of our efforts would be better placed in other sections, so I'm going to stop editing the introduction for now. -- Schaefer 10:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree - if we need to continue the discussion, my email is listed in my profile. For now — and after sleep, blood sugar, and caffiene — I'm willing to let it lie for now: nolo contendre.

Beowulf314159 14:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that maybe the article should be split into two.

• An article about periods of rapid technological change, maybe Technological sungularities
• An article about The Singularity about Kurzweil et. al.

Still concerned that the article still portrays the singularity as a fact, where its really a theory. --Salix alba (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, almost all the article concerns the latter subject. What would you move into the more general article if one existed? -- Schaefer 15:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

incorrect

"Vinge's Singularity is often misunderstood to mean technological progress will rise to infinity, as does a mathematical singularity. Actually, the term is a metaphor from physics, not mathematics: as one approaches the Singularity, models of the future become less reliable, just as conventional physics models fail as one approaches a gravitational singularity."

This is incorrect. Shall I delete it? WAS 4.250 15:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. In fact, I'll do it for you. I don't see anything along these lines in the Vinge essay either. -- Schaefer 15:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Major Revert, I did not do

I didn't do it, even thought the reverter went back to my re-write. You mentioned discussion? You may want to read the debate that was ongoing here. - Beowulf314159 15:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

W:AS 4.250, This sort of mass revert is absurd. Picking out bits of an old version that you think are better and repasting them in the new version is one thing, but your revert nullified several perfectly valid corrections. I'm reverting back to the previous version. If you have specific objections, voice them here. -- Schaefer 15:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. WAS did it him-/herself. -- Schaefer 15:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think the page should be locked and everyone forced to leave it along for 14-days, Schaefer, WAS 4.250, AND me :p - Beowulf314159 15:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no good last version

I thought I found a good last version before some obvious misconceptions were introduced. I was wrong. What I believe to be misconceptions have been in there from the start. What I'm going to do is list what I find wrong with the article and then go away. I'm trying to wikipedia less and getting into all of this is too much. Anyway, now on to creating my list. WAS 4.250 15:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be interesting to see the list. I too think the article is fundamentally flawed: see the section on why it (briefly) had "good" status. However, as you might be able to tell from the discussion here, just rewriting the intro has been a hotly disputed event. - Beowulf314159 15:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

WAS 2.250's list

1. "Technological": Not "social". The whole we may not know it when it comes part is that it is technological. Maybe also social. ... maybe not. Visualizing this for you is more than I care to type in . Use google.
2. "Singularity": Popularized by a mathematicion to describle an inflection point shown on a graph as a mathematical inflection point (also called "a singularity" in mathematics) and can be seen by nonmaths as a kink, a corner, a point where two lines meet like at the bottom of a V, and for math people where there is no derivative. The line does not have to go straight up. The derivative is nonexistent (or "infinite") at a point. The derivative does not have to be infinite forever after the point (the line does not have to go straight up). Gravitational singularities only commonality with "technological singularity" is that people comparing the two know nothing of either and so describe one unknown with another and it makes them feel better. Look up black hole on wikipedia. I always tell people: spend as much time learning on wikipedia as teaching.
3. Article structure: I agree with earlier critisisms. I would guess everyone agrees the structure needs an overhaul.
4. Sourcing: provide a least one source per paragraph. Or else people can just ramble on with their own personal speculations. But that's not gonna happen right? Well, I recommend more referencing to sources. Start with one per section at least.
5. OK. I'm done now. Bye and good luck. Cheers. WAS 4.250 15:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

OK on point #1. This is an article about technological singularity, not generalized cultural singularities. Otherwise, I think the list is good - I've re-added (and tightned) the section I had in the intro explaining this. - Beowulf314159 16:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Structural Overhaul

There seems to be growing unhappiness with the structure. I took a very tired stab at it in Removed good article. Does anyone want to expand on that, replace it, make rude remarks about it? I think many people think the article needs an overhaul and/or point-of-view balance and/or more referancing. Thoughts people? = Beowulf314159 16:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics

From Was 2.250 section

Singularity": Popularized by a mathematicion to describle an inflection point shown on a graph as a mathematical inflection point (also called "a singularity" in mathematics) and can be seen by nonmaths as a kink, a corner, a point where two lines meet like at the bottom of a V, and for math people where there is no derivative. The line does not have to go straight up. The derivative is nonexistent (or "infinite") at a point. The derivative does not have to be infinite forever after the point (the line does not have to go straight up). Gravitational singularities only commonality with "technological singularity" is that people comparing the two know nothing of either and so describe one unknown with another and it makes them feel better. Look up black hole on wikipedia. I always tell people: spend as much time learning on wikipedia as teaching.

Its is perhaps better to talk of a technological catastrophy. In mathematics a catastrophe is a rapid shift from one stable state to another stable state. The industral revolution can be viewed as such a shift, moving from a primary agricultural pattern to one of factories. Other examples of catastrophes are the transition from liquid to gas.

As Was points out these are different in character from the big-bang/black hole type of singularity in physics. Namely less apocalyptic, a big change yes, but not the end of the world. --Salix alba (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Plot caption incorrect: When a straight line appears on a log-log plot, it means there is a power law relation, not exponential. Exponential relations are indicated by a straight line on a log-linear plot. This is very basic math.

26 January introduction rewrite

Well, I hope this isn’t considered terribly rude, but I feel a hack-and-slash editing job is required on the opening paragraph for this article. I am a Singularitarian and would love to be able to point people at the Wikipedia article when they ask me about the Singularity, but instead I point them at Vinge’s paper because I find the definitions provided by the article terribly confusing. Hasn’t anyone else wondered why Vinge’s paper, among other resources, continue to outrank the Wikipedia entry in Google rankings? What follows is my reasoning. Here is the original definition as given by the article:

A technological singularity is defined as a change in a society, caused by technological change, so fundamental that the society (and perhaps its citizens) would be incomprehensible to those existing prior to its occurrence.

This definition is not only needlessly vague and redundant, but fails to create any sense in the reader’s mind of what the definition has to do with the word “singularity” at all. In my version have edited it to draw direct correlations with the concept of singularity as it exists in math and physics.

In futures studies, the Singularity has come to refer to a specific predicted future change of this type triggered by our exponentially rapid technological progress.

I do not see how it is necessary to give a secondary definition of the Singularity directly relating to futures studies, when the concept of technological singularity is, in and of itself, an exercise in futurism. This secondary definition, coupled with the initial redundancy of the first, only serves to make the article more confusing.

Vernor Vinge claims it will be triggered by the creation of smarter-than-human intelligence through technological means.

While accurate, the implecations of “smarter-than-human intelligence” in the minds of the general public do not, in my opinion, include posthumanism and intelligence amplification, a theme which comprised a substantial portion of Vinge’s paper.

Raymond Kurzweil sees the Singularity as the natural culmination of an exponential pattern of progress that began before human history and has continued throughout it. The exact nature of the change, and the means of its creation, are debated among futurists.

While the Law of Accelerating Returns is, of course, a terribly important part of Kurzweil’s argument (and certainly something I included in my edit), the tagline of his book, “When Humans Transcend Biology,” says it all. The present juxtaposition of these two interpretations of the Singularity as given by the article misconstrue the actual tone of the Singularity concept as advocated by either of these thinkers.

I have done my best to alter the first paragraph to improve specificity and clarity. I apologize if I step on any toes here, but I am rather frustrated that I have not been able to effectively utilize the Wikipedia article in educating people on the concept. Most have reported to me that they are rendered lost and confused after reading the first paragraph.

--Tarcieri 02:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think, on the whole, your rewrite is an improvement. -- Schaefer 05:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Citation request

Last paragraph of the lead:

The term singularity is derived from the concept of the mathematical singularity, a point where a mathematical function is discontinuous, fails to be "well-behaved", or adopts behavior that is difficult or impossible to predict (see Catastrophe theory, Chaos theory). A culture which experienced such a change would be fundamentally altered, and not comprehensible or predictable by its pre-Singularity culture.

Does anyone have evidence that this was the original motivation for using the term singularity, as apposed to an analogy with a gravitational singularity or just the traditional English definition of the word (that is, a synonym for peculiarity). In Vinge's essay The Coming Technological Singularity, the first mention of the word outside of the title and headings is this paragraph:

I think it's fair to call this event a singularity ("the Singularity" for the purposes of this paper). It is a point where our old models must be discarded and a new reality rules. As we move closer to this point, it will loom vaster and vaster over human affairs till the notion becomes a commonplace. Yet when it finally happens it may still be a great surprise and a greater unknown.

There is no explicit reference to mathematical discontinuities here or in either of the two pre-Vinge Singularity quotes presented in the History and definitions section. Even if this analogy to mathematics is just a post-facto creation, it still might warrant inclusion in the lead if it was originated by someone notable, but no such claim is made in the article. For now, I'm removing the first sentence of the paragraph, lest we risk of perpetuating false information. Any input on the matter is appreciated. -- Schaefer 01:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

A mathematical singularity has the property that extrapolation from a given viewpoint (by Taylor series) cannot work beyond it; Vinge's passage quoted above can almost be described as a paraphrase of that, and a number of trendlines are said to fit a model that indicates such a singularity circa 2035. I'm fairly sure I've heard the mathematical metaphor attributed to Vinge, but hearing isn't verifying. I'll ask around.... —Tamfang 03:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Vinge's article was explicitly mathematical. He didn't mention Taylor series by name, but he used the mathematical concept that you can't extrapolate beyond a singularity. --maru (talk) contribs 04:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Questionable external link

Hi, I enjoyed reading this article tonight, but may I suggest considering removing the external link at the bottom "More links about The Singularity". It links to some six year old unupdated site that has a bunch of broken links. Perhaps you could find some other more useful link for that purpose. Thanks -- 68.52.71.124

The link in question has been removed. -- Schaefer 01:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Desirable external link

Mind Project: AI Algorithm Steps belongs on the article page because, whether or not it constitutes new research, the Mind project is indeed a Singularity AI project, and has arguably achieved more (in terms of both AI theory and AI software) than other Singularity AI projects mentioned on the article page. Without such a meritorious inclusion, because of deletions of the above external link, the article page is in violation of NPOV.

What a brilliant idea! Exactly what this article needed, a link to Mentifex's crap! Not. --maru (talk) contribs 19:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Please try to stay civil. But, I second your sentiment. Mentifex doesn't warrant inclusion. -- Schaefer 23:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Order of links, citations

User:Marudubshinki, sorry about the cats. I think it makes more sense to have the order See also, External links, and Citations. Does anyone else here agree? --CH 01:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not the way it goes, though. It is standard to go See Also, References (with hyperlink citations/foot notes in the References section afer the references proper), then External link, followed by Categories and Interwikis. --maru (talk) contribs 01:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hillman, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style and especially Wikipedia:Section in regards to the order of the final sections. -- Schaefer 02:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

And please split references from further reading, mixing those two sections is a serious erros, as the reader has no idea which of the mentioned positions were used in the article. Adapting more inline citations would be a good idea, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know if there's a citation template for Wikisource? Tarcieri 19:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

{{wikisource}}, perhaps?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, added that last night, thanks Tarcieri 18:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk archival?

Much of the talk is no longer relevant to the article as it presently exists (e.g. why did you rev my edit, [non-Jan 26] Intro rewrite). Anyone want to go through and archive the no longer relevant talk, or should I? Tarcieri 19:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)