Talk:Technological singularity/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Technological singularity. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
First sentence
I have some concerns that every few weeks or months when I look back on the first sentence of this article's lead, it is often largely or entirely rewritten (including some adjustments by myself). No rewritings or edits to the sentence ever seem strictly wrong or in bad faith, yet such constant variation unsettles the integrity of the rest of the page. Is there any way we can form some kind of a group consensus on a basic first sentence that can withstand the test of time and the huge degree of editing/variation this page receives? Do other people also feel this is an important task? Wolfdog (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I concur it's a problem - per the above section, I think it's a symptom of the whole article being not very good and not up to Wikipedia standard. There has been past resistance to intro changes that don't sufficiently push the same line as the article body, so I'd say get the article body up to sourcing scratch first and see where we can get from there - David Gerard (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- What's wrong with separating it in two sentences? --Edoe (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Edoe: Nothing, I guess (though that's not my preference). But that's not really my issue anyway. @David Gerard: (and others:) Before July 14 (2016), there were three sources linked to the first sentence. David, is there any reason why you did away with them? I found two of them for us to be able to review on Google Books: 1 and 2. Reference [1] links the singularity to "the most powerful 21st century technologies [that] are threatening to make humans an endangered species" and directly says it is "an event or phase [huh?] that will radically change human civilization, and perhaps even human nature itself, before the middle of the 21st century" and this sentence itself has four sources cited. The part of [2] that I read simply says the idea of the singularity is a tangled mess and prefers to discuss the subset of that idea that "interests us here": an "intelligence explosion" or "the prospect of machine superintelligence," while presuming that these descriptions are sufficient enough for the reader to understand without more detail. Admittedly, though, the viewable portion of the Google Book ends shortly after that. Are any of these sources, or others, usable? Wolfdog (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- The edit was admittedly a bit of a quick hack on my part, so please do feel free to put back anything particularly relevant. The Joy article is in the pile of non-refs linked below for your cut'n'paste convenience. That second link is Bostrom, who is a famous opinion on the subject (even though I think the actual book is redigested glibness) so may be quotable on that score - and does clearly credit Vinge with the idea's popularisation - David Gerard (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm thinking we start off the first sentence of the article as simply as possible, yet with a source or two, to provide stability to the sentence. There's plenty of room for nuances and complexity in the rest of the article. Here's my thought:
- The technological singularity is the hypothetical emergence of an artificial superintelligence [before the 21st century?] that will radically change human civilization or even human nature.
- This is based on what David Gerard is calling the Joy source. Thoughts? Wolfdog (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Radically change" is unclear in the context of a first sentence. Vinge 1993 characterizes it as the end of the "human era", which is more descriptive. Changing "human nature" doesn't seem an *intrinsic* part of the Vingean concept. The three key elements of the Vingean concept seem to be that the change is more profound than any seen before in history ("the human era will be ended"), that it is triggered by superhuman intelligence ("the cause of this change is the imminent creation by technology of entities with greater than human intelligence"), and that the change will be abrupt ("...this change will be a throwing away of all the previous rules, perhaps in the blink of an eye, an exponential runaway beyond any hope of control.") (Vinge 1993). So that's how I'd like to scope the article; anyone can feel free to propose a different scope. If people like the scope but not the lede, here are some other proposals with the same scope (recall that there's no requirement that the title appear in the first sentence):
- The technological singularity is the hypothesis that the invention of artificial superintelligence will abruptly trigger runaway technological growth, resulting in unfathomable changes to civilization and signalling the end of the "human era".
- In 1993, science fiction author Vernor Vinge famously predicted that any invention of a superhuman intelligence would abruptly trigger runaway technological growth, resulting in unfathomable changes to civilization and signalling the end of the "human era". Scholars actively debate whether such a technological singularity is plausible; whether it is likely to occur in the 21st century; and what the aftermath of this sudden state of extreme technological advancement would be: predictions run a gamut from Vinge's fears of human extinction or enslavement, to transhumanist Ray Kurzweil's utopian vision of immortal spacefaring citizens whose every material need can be instantly satisfied. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Rolf h nelson: I really like your first bullet there. It uses simple language that anyone get (though the term "human era" seems a little cloudy, which you seem to note yourself by putting it in quote marks). Being that this concept is often popularly discussed in sci-fi and tech circles, I feel we have a duty to keep the first sentence a short-and-sweet encapsulation for our lay-reader. The rest of the article is the appropriate place for elements from your second bullet, which goes into all kinds of important but more in-depth information. Unless there are any other issues, I think we should go for it! Wolfdog (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I like that first bullet point as well, though I'm a bit more leary than Wolfdog about the "human era" bit. The idea -as far as I understand it- is that the production of smarter-than-human AIs would permit the production of smarter-than-those-AIs AIs, which would in turn permit the production of still smarter AIs. That seems as likely to result in a Post-scarcity economy (because those ultra smart AIs can design things other than future AIs, of course) as it is to signal the imminent extinction or irrelevancy of humanity. Hell, it might result in something similar to the Dune universe, or possibly even a religious mythology by way of events similar to The Last Question. The problem here is that the effects of a singularity are, by definition, unpredictable. Hence, we should not be speculating on what they might be. I would suggest the following:
- The technological singularity is the hypothesis that the invention of artificial superintelligence will abruptly trigger runaway technological growth, and result in a series of unpredictable changes to civilization. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- "The problem here is that the effects of a singularity are, by definition, unpredictable. Hence, we should not be speculating on what they might be." I agree with the sources I've seen that it's worthwhile trying to analyze what the effects of a singularity would be; is there a source that says otherwise? In particular, I'm not seeing where the "it's so unpredictable that we can't even predict that it'll be unpredictable, so maybe it'll be the same as now" meme comes from; the closest I've found is some sources claiming that it's unfathomable, in the sense that society will be so changed that we can't even comprehend what will happen next. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- I like that first bullet point as well, though I'm a bit more leary than Wolfdog about the "human era" bit. The idea -as far as I understand it- is that the production of smarter-than-human AIs would permit the production of smarter-than-those-AIs AIs, which would in turn permit the production of still smarter AIs. That seems as likely to result in a Post-scarcity economy (because those ultra smart AIs can design things other than future AIs, of course) as it is to signal the imminent extinction or irrelevancy of humanity. Hell, it might result in something similar to the Dune universe, or possibly even a religious mythology by way of events similar to The Last Question. The problem here is that the effects of a singularity are, by definition, unpredictable. Hence, we should not be speculating on what they might be. I would suggest the following:
- "Radically change" is unclear in the context of a first sentence. Vinge 1993 characterizes it as the end of the "human era", which is more descriptive. Changing "human nature" doesn't seem an *intrinsic* part of the Vingean concept. The three key elements of the Vingean concept seem to be that the change is more profound than any seen before in history ("the human era will be ended"), that it is triggered by superhuman intelligence ("the cause of this change is the imminent creation by technology of entities with greater than human intelligence"), and that the change will be abrupt ("...this change will be a throwing away of all the previous rules, perhaps in the blink of an eye, an exponential runaway beyond any hope of control.") (Vinge 1993). So that's how I'd like to scope the article; anyone can feel free to propose a different scope. If people like the scope but not the lede, here are some other proposals with the same scope (recall that there's no requirement that the title appear in the first sentence):
- I'm thinking we start off the first sentence of the article as simply as possible, yet with a source or two, to provide stability to the sentence. There's plenty of room for nuances and complexity in the rest of the article. Here's my thought:
"...result in a series of unpredictable changes to civilization". Sure, let's talk about that in terms of what we want the scope of the article to be. A key element of the Vingean hypothesis is what Vinge calls "change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth". "Unpredictable" in the lede doesn't really capture that; lots of things in the future are unpredictable. In terms of scope, you can break out two hypotheses, one is that it's post-scarcity but otherwise probably looks normal, kind of like the industrial revolution. The other hypothesis, which seems to be in more common use, is that the change is much more dramatic. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the sources I've seen that it's worthwhile trying to analyze what the effects of a singularity would be
That would be Original Research and it's not permitted here. I agree that speculating about the effects is worthwhile. Just not here."it's so unpredictable that we can't even predict that it'll be unpredictable, so maybe it'll be the same as now"
Nobody has suggested that. In fact, I suggested quite the opposite. Please read my comments if you plan on responding to them, else I'm likely to start simply ignoring you.the closest I've found is some sources claiming that it's unfathomable, in the sense that society will be so changed that we can't even comprehend what will happen next.
It is axiomatic that one cannot predict the behavior of a being much more intelligent than oneself, absent some well-understood situational constraints on it. It doesn't matter how many or how few people have pointed this out, it is true in such a way that it could never be untrue. It's debatable whether the statement would even require a source were it to appear in article space."...result in a series of unpredictable changes to civilization". Sure, let's talk about that in terms of what we want the scope of the article to be.
No. This article will not speculate on what the effects will be. It may report the speculation of notable, prominent figures, but it will clearly attribute those speculations to them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)- You do actually see this pop up occasionally on the Internet, for example people saying "the singularity has already happened".
- I guess we'll have to agree to differ, then. The AI community, like me, agrees that I can successfully predict that Deep Blue will probably beat me in chess. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- First off, do not edit other user's comments. It is extremely rude.
- I haven't been editing anyone's comments. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Second, Deep Blue has nowhere near the overall processing power of even the most developmentally challenged person capable of using a computer. A hundred Deep Blues wouldn't have the processing power of a single human brain. You may think of it as some archetype of a powerful computer, but my laptop can churn through more FLOPS than Deep Blue. A LOT more if you count my GPU, too.
- Finally, beating you is an outcome, or a result. It's not a behavior. Even if one stretches the definition of 'behavior' to include the relative success or failure of actual behaviors, you're still talking about the rules of chess, or the exact caveat I gave: "...well-understood situational constraints..." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- First off, do not edit other user's comments. It is extremely rude.
- After having read through the options again, and giving it some consideration, I feel like the current first sentence is better than any of the options proposed here, including my own. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- To be honest, I disagree and still feel a straightforward simple first sentence is preferable to what we have now. All three of us already agreed on some variation of "The technological singularity is the hypothesis that the invention of artificial superintelligence will abruptly trigger runaway technological growth, resulting in unfathomable[ or unpredictable] changes to civilization
and signalling the end of the 'human era'." Rolf H Nelson prefers "unfathomable" over "unpredictable" which seems logical to me. If the "unpredictable/unfathomable changes" idea still seems to vague, we could merge together the aformentioned proposed sentence with the current one, and attain something like "The technological singularity is the hypothesis that the invention of artificial superintelligence will abruptly trigger runaway technological growth, resulting in a superintelligence that will, qualitatively, far surpass all human intelligence." Wolfdog (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)- I'm okay with your proposal there. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just realized my proposed sentence is redundant. I use the term intelligence three times! Probably the best merger sentence of what everyone has written here is: "The technological singularity is the hypothesis that the invention of artificial superintelligence will abruptly trigger runaway technological growth, resulting in unfathomable changes to civilization." Wolfdog (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm okay with your proposal there. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- To be honest, I disagree and still feel a straightforward simple first sentence is preferable to what we have now. All three of us already agreed on some variation of "The technological singularity is the hypothesis that the invention of artificial superintelligence will abruptly trigger runaway technological growth, resulting in unfathomable[ or unpredictable] changes to civilization
Date inconsistencies?
John von Neumann died in 1957 but some sections of this article credit his work to 1958. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.156.67.226 (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- The publication was posthumous. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Recommendation for pop culture section
I think a good pop culture reference to add to this page is the anime "Ghost In The Shell". In the story a fusion of a cyborg and ai creates a super-inteligent AI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamezism (talk • contribs) 05:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Plausibility section is not NPOV
The section starts off with everyone who criticizes it and then a "Claimed" section, followed by a way larger "Criticism" section. This weight is not representative of current scientific opinion. True, it's controversial, but it's not even close to debunked. It's easy to note every single person who spoke out against it, but much of the content can be summed up more concisely. Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Technological singularity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228161422/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516021945/http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3854/global-catastrophic-risks-report.pdf to http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3854/global-catastrophic-risks-report.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150607230212/http://monoskop.org/images/a/ab/Tainter_Joseph_The_Collapse_of_Complex_Societies.pdf to http://monoskop.org/images/a/ab/Tainter_Joseph_The_Collapse_of_Complex_Societies.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Technological singularity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030072409/http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil.htm to http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Merger proposal
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Merge from Intelligence explosion into Technological singularity given the scope overlap and that Technological singularity is broader. Klbrain (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I propose that Intelligence explosion be merged into Technological singularity. They're really quite similar and the sources often don't make any distinction between the two. K.Bog 04:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose – The topics are closely related, but distinct. The technological singularity is a point in time. It is the instant in which the very first computer or robot that has human-level or better intelligence comes into existence. Its article is analogous to the article gravitational singularity, a phenomenon which is immediately followed by the Big Bang. Those two phenomena are very closely related. Analogously, it is believed that the technological singularity will be followed immediately by an intelligence explosion (the progression towards superintelligence). They are also very closely related. And just like the singularity and the Big Bang, technological singularity and intelligence explosion are distinct concepts. It is important to make the distinction between the beginning of AI and what comes after. Like covering the stages in the evolution of the universe, or the stages in the evolution of a star, all of which have an article on them. They each have notability as a distinct topic, kind of like embryo and human body (one turns into the other, but they are worthy of their own articles). The Transhumanist 20:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- There is no question that technically they are different ideas. But the first relevant question is whether sources actually make a distinction between the two. They generally do not, and therefore it would be extremely hard to write an article without giving personal intepretations and doing original research. The second relevant question is whether you can have separate articles without the content mostly being duplicate. Look at the article for intelligence explosion right now: it talks about speed and intelligence of AI, superintelligence, existential risk, and the rate of improvement. All these topics are covered in detail in the technological singularity article.
- A gravitational singularity happened to occur at the time of the Big Bang, but there is plenty of potential for a gravitational singularity to exist elsewhere, like in a black hole. On the other hand, I can't fathom how an intelligence explosion could exist without a technological singularity. The intelligence explosion and the singularity happen concurrently, not one followed by the other. K.Bog 21:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support for pretty much the exact same rationale the OP gives, initially and in response to the oppose !vote. Particularly:
But the first relevant question is whether sources actually make a distinction between the two. They generally do not, and therefore it would be extremely hard to write an article without giving personal intepretations and doing original research.
andI can't fathom how an intelligence explosion could exist without a technological singularity.
Those quotes represent my views exactly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC) - Support, though I'd prefer the merged article be called Intelligence explosion, which is less ambiguous than technological singularity. Kurzweil and Robin Hanson are the only ones I'm aware of who lean mainly on extrapolating trendlines to the point where they believe the singularity can refer to something besides the intelligence explosion. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- It probably should be called Technological singularity after all, given page view statistics. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Support because the articles seem to be about the same predicted event. I have no opinion on what would be the best title.PopSci (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment – Thank you Rolf, for the heads up on the upcoming closing of this discussion, and the opportunity to post additional comments. As it appears a merge is imminent, let me point out that "Technological singularity" is the more common term, recognized throughout the field of AI as the coming of human-level-or-greater AI. First comes the singularity, then the explosion. You could say it's the spark that will set it off. If there is to be a subheading titled "intelligence explosion", the redirect should point to that section. Thank you, and I look forward to reading the merged article. — The Transhumanist 07:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose for essentially the same reasons that were laid out by The Transhumanist in March. The two topics are notable and distinct enough to have separate pages. I don't see what is wrong with the current setup of having a hatnote at the top of the "intelligence explosion" section within the Technological Singularity page that links to the Intelligence Explosion page. Abierma3 (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Abierma3 To be more specific, what are you personally proposing that the scope of Technological singularity should be? (One resource is that [1] collects distinct definition in the literature.) Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Rolf h nelson Thank you for that link; I wasn't aware that the term "technological singularity" could be defined quite ambiguously depending on what literature one looks at. I am now realizing this issue goes beyond my working knowledge of the subject and haven't had the time to delve into it, so I don't know the answer to what the scope of Technological singularity should be. Given that the merger proposal has been open for well over a year now, I would support if an editor wants to be bold and go ahead with merging the articles. I agree with you and others that the merged article should be titled Technological singularity based on Pageviews Analysis comparison. Abierma3 (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Abierma3 To be more specific, what are you personally proposing that the scope of Technological singularity should be? (One resource is that [1] collects distinct definition in the literature.) Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Organizations trying to advance the singularity
Plausibility section, 3rd para concludes "...non-human artificial intelligence...is the most popular option for organizations trying to advance the singularity."
Are there such organisations? The activities of certain organisations could inadvertently lead to technological singularity, but are there actually organisations consciously and explicitly seeking to bring it about? If so they must be properly cited. Captainllama (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Sorted
Ostensible Hawkins quote
@WeyerStudentOfAgrippa [2] could be sourced if desired, it looks like the first half is a quote from Hawkins [3] who goes on to make the offbeat claim that exponential improvement requires exponential resources, and the second half looks like it's paraphrasing vinge's singularity essay (presumably it got swept into the Hawkins quote by accident at some point). I don't have a strong opinion about whether it should or shouldn't remain. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- The quote was too long anyway. I added a more concise note of Hawkins' position and moved the sentence about a million-fold increase in speed to a different section. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
SmartStarWiki free app graph
Keyword search one word "SmartStarWiki" Free iOS Android app. Shows humankind tech advancement focus (refer graph). https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gedium.smartstarwiki&hl=en
Unblock Gedium user. I do not wish to be a sock puppet - 5 years now ridiculous = poor Wikipedia admins. Obviously you can see I am the smartest human animal = happy to be challenged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.111.217 (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)