May 23 2008 / by Will
Category: Technology Year: General Rating: 6 Hot
Cross-posted from Where
There’s a William… 
Ok, I’ll bite.
Al Fin asks the tautological question; “Can the Singularity
save us from ourselves?” What follows is by way of my attempt
to answer as fully as I’m able, within the limits of my
understanding of the issues and concepts involved.
The abstract concept of a Technological Singularity (TS) was
made most famous in the recent past by inventor Ray Kurzweil. The
concept has several overlapping meanings, but I like George
Dvorsky’s definition best: The Singularity is a a blindspot in our
predictive thinking.
I personally define the Technological Singularity as: The
Singularity is that point in human technological development beyond
which we do not currently possess sufficient knowledge upon which
to base an extrapolative prediction. I certainly appreciate the
evocative imagery of Mr. Dvorsky’s proposition, not to mention it’s
economy, but I believe the concept of a singularity is too complex
to be adequately captured in such a brief phrase.
For one thing, a TS must be regarded as a moving target. As our
ability to understand the technological processes that could lead
to a singularity increase, the point in time regarded as being TS
onset must be pushed further off into the future. Remember, the TS
is that point in our technological development beyond which we can
no longer extrapolate a further possible advance (or even say with
any assurance what probable effect(s) might result). This doesn’t
mean we can’t guess, of course (engineers even have a technical
term for doing so; W(ild) A(ss) G(uess)), but that isn’t quite the
same thing. (cont.)
For another, it isn’t entirely clear (to me at least) that a TS
is necessarily a deliberate objective at all. Rather, it seems to
me that TS is a boundary of a sort, and specifically one to be
overcome. TS is a useful shorthand for describing current human
technological limits of understanding, but postulating it as some
sort of objective or achievement is misleading, I think.
The Singularity is most often seen as a threshold into
ever-accelerating change precipitated by the development of a
machine intelligence with the ability to design its own cognitive
enhancement—something of a runaway positive feedback cognitive
entity. This development is often referred to as the “tipping
point,” the point of no return.
Certainly, Artificial Intelligence (AI) whether biological or
mechanical is one of the more common examples of a TS. Personally I
don’t think it any more likely a possibility then a number of other
advances. Aubrey De Grey’s SENS theory
being realised is another example, and one that doesn’t require any
sort of AI development as part of the realization process
withal.
I do agree that the “positive feedback” you refer to is a
necessary aspect to a TS becoming a process rather than an
individual event that may occur serially.
Skipping over rather a lot (for discussion another time
perhaps): Rather than a unified, worldwide singularity, expect
a “fractured singularity.” Some will build the infrastructure and
prepare the components in a sustainable way. Most will not. The
long-term survivability of TS may depend upon early secrecy. TS may
have many false starts, aborted revolutions. Perhaps we can learn
from early mistakes in order to build a better
singularity?
What do you think?
As I stated earlier, I don’t regard TS as an event so much as a
process in which we are more or less intentionally involved. I
would not be at all surprised if all of what you suggest were to be
crucial aspects of TS development at various points of the process.
I think it has to be accepted that we simply aren’t capable of
predicting what activity might be important to progressing towards
TS, although certain generalities do seem more plausible than
not.
Is TS inevitable?
A qualified “Yes”, I think. Since TS is at least a boundary
measurement of the extent of our understanding of matters
technological, I suggest that the concept is an inherent aspect of
human nature.
Is TS necessary?
Is thinking? See above.
Is TS sufficient?
As a mechanism for measuring understanding, I think so.
Is TS the end, or a means to the end?
In light of my previous answers, I think TS is a necessary (or
at least useful) tool in the advancement of human understanding and
capability.
“Can TS save us from ourselves?”
Can our hammers or heart monitors? TS is a measure of our
capabilities, in it’s most refined form arguably of our very
selves. As such, it can no more “save us from ourselves” then could
any other tool of our creation. In the end, we are responsible for
our own outcomes, both individually and collectively. TS is one of
our more slippery tools, but one of our most profound as well, I
hope.
The last thing humans need now is yet another religion that
feeds into apocalyptic visions. We have enough apocalyptic visions
as it is without slipping that far into anti-rationality.
What kind of society can give birth to TS, and engage
symbiotically and sustainably with TS into the long term? We don’t
know, but we can give it our best guess. While working on the
foundations of TS, we need to work toward creating that kind of
society.
What you said, brother.
Comment Thread ()
