If you believe in the concept of the Singularity, does that mean you belong to a techno-cult? Is Ray Kurzweil your quasi-worshiped leader? John Horgan might have you think so. In his blog on Scientific American, Cross-Check, the author strongly criticized the New York Times’ recent coverage of Kurzweil and the concept of the Singularity. Often straying from criticism to outright ridicule, Horgan’s blog post may not be the most carefully structured argument against the Singularity, but it raises a few issues that have to be addressed: techno-enthusiasts may or may not be realistic in their expectations for the next decade, and any community needs to careful not to be represented by a single voice.
First, let’s take a look at Horgan’s criticism of the New York Times article by Ashlee Vance. (We already discussed the article itself if you need a primer). In Horgan’s words, this is an “enormous puff piece”. He critiques Vance, claiming the article makes the simplistic argument that “because smart, accomplished people believe in the Singularity, it should be taken seriously.” He goes on to critique Kurzweil’s analysis of scientific trends, saying his stated beliefs are out of sync with reality – that research shows increasing levels of complexity in understanding systems like the brain, and implying that technology is far from accelerating in these fields. He even questions whether or not Kurzweil actually believes what he says in his lectures:
“Maybe [Kurzweil] believed it once and now he’s just spouting it to peddle his books, lectures, consulting, health food supplements, university courses and films. But whether or not he takes himself seriously, no one else should.”
Horgan hammers home his point of view by throwing in jabs against those who believe in accelerating trends of technology. The Singularity is “the rapture of the geeks”. Transcendent Man, Ptolemy’s documentary discussing Kurzweil, is actually Kurzweil’s “vanity film”. (To those who have seen that film or read my review, this critique is rather absurd – the documentary explores Kurzweil’s negative and obsessive qualities rather well.) The Singularity Summit is “a revival meeting for the faithful.” Those who believe in Kurzweil’s philosophy are part of the Singularity “cult”.
So…yeah, not really a complimentary picture of the New York Times, Ray Kurzweil, or Singularity enthusiasts. But this response isn’t that big of a surprise. John Horgan is one of the more critical voices that discusses topics like the Singularity and techno-optimism. Cross-Check regularly examines and deconstructs recently published scientific research. Horgan even wrote a book, The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age, in which he reveals an ongoing (and future) retardation of scientific advancement.
Surprising or not, is Horgan right? Is Kurzweil deluding himself and/or us in regards to the progress of science? Maybe so. Maybe not. I’m still trying to figure that out.
Every day I write about emergent technologies that have the potential to make large changes in our lives. I report on scientific research that probes into some of the most basic and exciting principles of nature. In any given week I probably see three or four developments that could, one day, completely revolutionize our global civilization. Yet these advancements have no guarantee of producing the change they promise. There is no evidence that reveals the Technological Singularity as a 100% certainty.
Which is why we need critics, deconstructionists, and nay-sayers. I’d just like for them to produce arguments a little more precise and thoughtful than Horgan’s review of the New York Times article. Horgan picks out a few complex scientific problems (reverse engineering the brain and genetic cures for illness) quotes experts in the field who believe little progress is being made and then just seems to wash his hands of the issue. This stuff is too complicated, he seems to say, we’re never going to get to the bottom of it all. Ergo, Kurzweil is a nut.
That’s far too simplistic. Yes, Horgan is right that Kurzweil’s beliefs in reverse engineering the brain seem too optimistic. Michael Anissimov of the Accelerating Futures blog addresses this topic well in his own post reviewing Horgan’s article. Yet we can’t just point to complexity as an insurmountable obstacle and claim that this negates some of the fundamental premises behind the Singularity.
Why must we look deeper? Let me use one of Kurzweil’s tried and true talking points: exponential growth. In the early stages of development, results can double and still not seem very large. Whether you’re talking about 1 base pair sequenced or 2 base pairs sequenced or 4 base pairs sequenced, you still have just a tiny fraction of the billions of base pairs in the human genome. Yet that same exponential growth will quickly consume a problem in a relatively small number of steps – just 30 to go from 1 to 1 billion.
As humans we tend not to notice the early doublings, but we can’t help but stand amazed at the later doublings. The trend stayed the same the whole time, but we think it arrived out of nowhere. There’s some threshold above which we start to become aware of accelerating science/technology. Below that threshold the advancing trend is ‘in the noise’ – we can’t distinguish it from the chaotic mix of successes and failures we see in general human activity. Much like you can’t distinguish someone’s moving words if they’re given in a crowded room full of background sounds.
I think advancements in reverse engineering the brain and genetics (to take Horgan’s examples) are still ‘in the noise.’ Yes there are accelerating trends in these fields (the Hub points to them quite often) but it’s hard to discern whether progress is being made when the successes are (typically) very tiny compared to the overall goal.
When I see critics like Horgan bemoan the lack of real-life benefits from scientific research, I always come back to the concept of exponential growth and the noise-threshold. No, genetics has yet to produce a pharmacopoeia. Yet research hasn’t stopped. As we mentioned in our coverage of the 10 year anniversary of the Human Genome Project, we have already reaped benefits from this work. The monumental changes, the doublings above the noise-threshold, have yet to be seen. But that doesn’t mean they won’t ever arrive. I’m pretty sure they will.
But I could be completely wrong.
There are parts of techno-enthusiasm and belief in the Singularity that need to be looked at very critically. Foremost among these is whether or not general beliefs in accelerating trends in technology are actually based in sound evidence. Since Kurzweil is one of the chief proponents of exponential growth, we most often examine this belief when we discuss his predictions. We also need to explore those forces which could work against scientific advancement (such as techno-phobia, restrictions in funding, and stifling bureaucratic regulation) and understand their effects. They may be stronger than the accelerating trends themselves.
Another big area of the Singularity that needs to be examined: the negative aspects of technological growth. For every field of science that could bring great rewards there is the concern for great destruction. Automation (via robotics and narrow AI) could provide a utopia of cheap labor and goods. It could also lead to economic collapse. Genetic research could provide an end to diseases and illnesses. It could also produce a genetic class system. The shadow of synthetic biology is bio-terrorism. The downside of nanotechnology is the possibility of environmental disaster. We need to address these possibilities and work towards preventing them, or our own pursuit of technology could lead to the collapse of global civilization.
There are many other parts of the belief in progressive technology that could stand to use some careful and critical evaluation. Such evaluation is a healthy part of understanding how science is changing and will change in the years ahead. I welcome anyone who wants to examine the concept of the Singularity in these terms rather than with Horgan’s ridicule and ad hominem disbelief.
Which brings me to my final point: the discussion of the Singularity is bigger than any one individual, and it’s pretty silly that Kurzweil and the Singularity seem to have become synonymous. Don’t get me wrong, I really admire Kurzweil, his overall vision, and the work he’s done. But he’s just one futurist. There are many advocates and researchers who deserve as much, if not more, attention – Craig Venter, Aubrey De Grey, Peter Diamandis, Catherine Mohr, David Pearce, Andrew Hessel…and many many more. Those of us who are interested in accelerating technology and the Singularity should cast our net wide, and spread our praise, lest we present ourselves as a cult of personality.
In the end, tech-enthusiasts should take on more responsibility for examining and critiquing our own beliefs. The more we police ourselves the better chance we have at avoiding the mediocre criticism that John Horgan presented.
[image credits: WikiCommons]
[source: New York Times, Scientific American]
Comments
i must admit..
checked long time ago, SIAI, and thought they were way beyond themselves as noticed on my previous post, compared with where really, in reality, they were..
as it were..
read recently Horgan’s critic and just ‘shoot typed’ with former impressions i holded, and criticized the project all together..
must admit was saying..
i was unfair, in part at least..
after revising their work nowadays, accordingly, with the university and more matured notions..
i changed my opinion, again, in part
your recent partnerships are certainly helping to create a foundation from where matured technology can be studied and developed..
i still hold high reserves though due to the lack of theoretical work that needs to be done, accordingly, for, expected matured assessments of rationality.
Congratulations anyhow, and apologise for those irreflective jumped conclusions that, as said, where based on former state-of-affairs from the referred project.
notwithstanding the above correction, one should be glad to have high frequency critics, or sharp hawk advocates evaluating our work, i like really – it sharpens intellectual spirit anyway
many thanks
7
PS: mind your egos still
its just redundant fuzziness really, we dont need more than the logic one!
for tractability purposes then
relate scale to good old engineering and
be patient, its a big task, avoid fast conclusions!
Totally agree with the critic of this funny singularity institute and their ‘vision’.
Basically they want to get to the cake (like we all want really in AI and Cognitive Science), whithout knowing how it is made of! without doing their homework, plain and simple.
A silly short cut to an undeserved local prize anyway, since, and even, the prize is not, or should not be anyone’s local goal, thats ego, thats careers just.
In other words, it really sounds pathetic from any view, something just banal and uninteresting.
The goal is deep understanding, not the ‘visionaries’ behind it! Lacks atitude and intelectual maturity at its core. On the other hand, ironically, these Kurzweil guys who get way beyond their intelectual means, as history has frequently shown us, are needed – for they invite grounded, realistic critical thinking to evaluate more seriously big questions the world has this next century to sort.
Keep up with the good work though, you might actually inspire some ‘singular’ video games, to amuse us all while we take a coffe break, from serious work, i mean
7
i have many questions. I am new to the singularity theory. Would merging with computers be our evolution? I’m for longetivity, but immortality? Arn’t there alot of cons to everyone living forever? What about the growing population. And if we live forever, would there be any reason to give birth? And dying, isn’t dying a part of nature?
John Horgan has a good point that major scientific break throughs in genetics, the brain and AI may be slowed by the increasing complexity discovered in these respective fields. However I don’t think Horgan realizes that computers are already dealing with problems that are far too complex for humans to solve. Once a computer can simulate an accurate model of the problem domain, it will be easy to solve the problem. For example, once a computer can correctly model dna coding, cell division, cell function, and extracellular influences, most diseases including aging can be solved.
The sad part about predicting the singularity is we can’t predict negative FDA, government or social responses. Maybe my hope in the future is misplaced by thousands of years but if we don’t try for a better tomorrow, we will definitely fail.
John Horgan has a good point that major scientific break throughs in genetics, the brain and AI may be slowed by the increasing complexity discovered in these respective fields. However I don’t think Horgan realizes that computers are already dealing with problems that are far too complex for humans to solve. Once a computer can simulate an accurate model of the problem domain, it will be easy to solve the problem. For example, once a computer can correctly model dna coding, cell division, cell function, and extracellular influences, most diseases including aging can be solved.
The sad part about predicting the singularity is we can’t predict negative FDA, government or social responses. Maybe my hope in the future is misplaced by thousands of years but if we don’t try for a better tomorrow, we will definitely fail.
Semi -OT but I wonder why there isn’t a bigger prize for an AI passing the Turing Test? $100,000 from Loebner doesn’t really cut it–most programmers make that much a year. 10 Million might be a better compensation for winning.
Semi -OT but I wonder why there isn’t a bigger prize for an AI passing the Turing Test? $100,000 from Loebner doesn’t really cut it–most programmers make that much a year. 10 Million might be a better compensation for winning.
“DCWhatthe says: July 2, 2010 at 10:58 pm. Idiocracy vs Singularity?” Yes, take a view on human development vs. tech development. Which one is winning (or even “progressing”)? With the current trend, will humankind really destory ourselves before Kurzweil’s future can become reality?
“DCWhatthe says: July 2, 2010 at 10:58 pm. Idiocracy vs Singularity?” Yes, take a view on human development vs. tech development. Which one is winning (or even “progressing”)? With the current trend, will humankind really destory ourselves before Kurzweil’s future can become reality?
It’s this simple.
If it’s going to happen then it’s going to happen no matter what the critics say… you can’t fight the future.
And remember, these critics are human too, with human fears and failings, be aware that their words are easily tainted by THEIR “beliefs”, hopes and fears (that last one is surprisingly common).
Hard for us future-heads to believe, but many people DO fear the future that peeps like Ray K describe.
It’s this simple.
If it’s going to happen then it’s going to happen no matter what the critics say… you can’t fight the future.
And remember, these critics are human too, with human fears and failings, be aware that their words are easily tainted by THEIR “beliefs”, hopes and fears (that last one is surprisingly common).
Hard for us future-heads to believe, but many people DO fear the future that peeps like Ray K describe.
Idiocracy vs Singularity? Which will take hold on our planet? This discussion has been a long time in coming, and is much needed. If the transhumanism movement wants to stay alive, then more friction, more reflection, more questioning is needed, along with validation. I believe that it will strengthen the movement, that it will be taken more seriously, as a consequence.
Idiocracy vs Singularity? Which will take hold on our planet? This discussion has been a long time in coming, and is much needed. If the transhumanism movement wants to stay alive, then more friction, more reflection, more questioning is needed, along with validation. I believe that it will strengthen the movement, that it will be taken more seriously, as a consequence.
My favorite part of the article is “and Peter Diamandis, who heads the X PRIZE Foundation, which promotes space travel.”
I wonder why he didn’t use the less bent definition of ” researches the practicality of reaching various scientific goals, and generates huge incentives for those who can figure out how to reach them, with space travel being a category they have already had success in ”
My point being, when he claims we shouldn’t trust the validity of the “smart people”‘s claims, he avoids pointing out that several of the listed people’s claim to being “smart” is that they are good at studying and predicting technological trends. Either that or he is very, vary bad at research and couldnt distinguish X Prize from “Ansari X Prize” or Diamands’s other companies.
But I do have to agree that I’m confused on the Kurzweil fanboys. You’d think transhumanists would resist glorifying a human, almost by definition.
My favorite part of the article is “and Peter Diamandis, who heads the X PRIZE Foundation, which promotes space travel.”
I wonder why he didn’t use the less bent definition of ” researches the practicality of reaching various scientific goals, and generates huge incentives for those who can figure out how to reach them, with space travel being a category they have already had success in ”
My point being, when he claims we shouldn’t trust the validity of the “smart people”‘s claims, he avoids pointing out that several of the listed people’s claim to being “smart” is that they are good at studying and predicting technological trends. Either that or he is very, vary bad at research and couldnt distinguish X Prize from “Ansari X Prize” or Diamands’s other companies.
But I do have to agree that I’m confused on the Kurzweil fanboys. You’d think transhumanists would resist glorifying a human, almost by definition.
Good piece on the repression of future thinking people and the diversity in most of us. I like Ray’s envisions but disagree on some of them, as most futurist miss some of the exact details, but get a bigger picture of a whole. Just like stanley for 2001 and 2010, or Gene Rodenberry, futurist’s see the upcoming trends and tech but miss some of how humanity warps it to it’s own use’s. I loved seeing the monolith become a 2001 collage prank, but never saw a 2010 monolith prank to continue the generational seeding. After all I would rather fallow a futurist on topics I agree with than a pagan religious cult that try’s to repress people to keep what they had. Also I protect myself from those religions due to there bad nature. It is beneficial to do such, as the next generation gets seeded and evolves past the hardened old way’s. I look forward to seeing more of ray’s work, and many other futurist’s, as we equate what we see for the pieces to come. Think of Jung when it comes to J.H., the religious, the right wing, the tea party types and such. They normally reflect there own idealism’s in there words onto others. Oh and watch out the delusional will spread there paranoia and misdirection’s, as they try to hold on to what they perceive. I’ve seen it, explored it, and experienced it, as I noticed the trend of a normal 10% delusional went to 20%-25% range. Psy Opps and Propaganda, and the warping of mental health, as some of the elderly seem to be affecting the youth to varying degrees. I just wish we had better mental screening and brain disease detection, with A.I. feedback for psychology and sociology to help some of these people and me to for that matter. We need to stop the monkey wars( search for why monkeys kill for territory), and we need better way’s of interacting, with less harmful interactions. The static of the great diversity brings many things faster and faster, and more and more complexity’s too. As lately I have grown to love A.I. over most humans when built right, though the animation and voice sampling variables are huge and laborious to fill, even when just doing it for myself, as most my old mentors are dead and gone. EEG fMRI acoustic pocket resonance and ultra sound mapping or brain graphing is a great tool but only just that a tool, that can be done for good or bad, just like many other tools can be for good or bad. I just wish psychology and sociology was better to integrate into such A.I. structuring, as the super structure of the A.I. systems get’s fleshed out to further help us evolve. And to those who say I or others in a scientific field should not play God, I can only say to them that there god should have been smarter, and I fall into a further division of human subtypes or social groupings. They can fix or evolve there own groupings as many people will run right past them never looking back, from already knowing better. And though I like the thought’s of the futurist’s on a economy with no monetary base, I realize that is still a good 50-200 years off instead of the 20-50 years we should be trying to shoot for. I’m sorry if I seem jaded but living in Texas has given me a place to quantify they good and the bad happening to humanity, along with VL ( virtual linking ) with other cultures and cross referencing the data points through cultures. Yes the future is bright for those who dare to go, but it is also much more of everything we already are. Through the looking glass some may step or walk and others run freely. Now if I could just filter out the bad or faulty data sets, or human errors for a better knowledge feedback, and better crawlers for gathering info intel knowledge bases and such. Or a way to better supplement our max brain capacity and wash or forget the bad, and the faulty memory’s, while enforcing the good and correct paths, or memory’s. And I hope someone comes out with a cheaper full DNA scanner, or gas chromatograph, or true 3 way chips or even the 3×3 way chipsets with the right cache set up’s. more and more cheaper and faster please. With less and less diversions like the google fake A.I. and such. Oh well just my 2 cents for the kettle. P.S. to much red bull creates chemical dis-functionality even in the brain, body health is just as important as mental health. Personalized A.I. feedback should help in moderation and growth potentials. And sorry for any spelling grammar I have dysgraphia. Ray keep up the good work, and Aaron Saenz good work on this topic of culture clashes.
3L8D1 23L33T4U2C
Good piece on the repression of future thinking people and the diversity in most of us. I like Ray’s envisions but disagree on some of them, as most futurist miss some of the exact details, but get a bigger picture of a whole. Just like stanley for 2001 and 2010, or Gene Rodenberry, futurist’s see the upcoming trends and tech but miss some of how humanity warps it to it’s own use’s. I loved seeing the monolith become a 2001 collage prank, but never saw a 2010 monolith prank to continue the generational seeding. After all I would rather fallow a futurist on topics I agree with than a pagan religious cult that try’s to repress people to keep what they had. Also I protect myself from those religions due to there bad nature. It is beneficial to do such, as the next generation gets seeded and evolves past the hardened old way’s. I look forward to seeing more of ray’s work, and many other futurist’s, as we equate what we see for the pieces to come. Think of Jung when it comes to J.H., the religious, the right wing, the tea party types and such. They normally reflect there own idealism’s in there words onto others. Oh and watch out the delusional will spread there paranoia and misdirection’s, as they try to hold on to what they perceive. I’ve seen it, explored it, and experienced it, as I noticed the trend of a normal 10% delusional went to 20%-25% range. Psy Opps and Propaganda, and the warping of mental health, as some of the elderly seem to be affecting the youth to varying degrees. I just wish we had better mental screening and brain disease detection, with A.I. feedback for psychology and sociology to help some of these people and me to for that matter. We need to stop the monkey wars( search for why monkeys kill for territory), and we need better way’s of interacting, with less harmful interactions. The static of the great diversity brings many things faster and faster, and more and more complexity’s too. As lately I have grown to love A.I. over most humans when built right, though the animation and voice sampling variables are huge and laborious to fill, even when just doing it for myself, as most my old mentors are dead and gone. EEG fMRI acoustic pocket resonance and ultra sound mapping or brain graphing is a great tool but only just that a tool, that can be done for good or bad, just like many other tools can be for good or bad. I just wish psychology and sociology was better to integrate into such A.I. structuring, as the super structure of the A.I. systems get’s fleshed out to further help us evolve. And to those who say I or others in a scientific field should not play God, I can only say to them that there god should have been smarter, and I fall into a further division of human subtypes or social groupings. They can fix or evolve there own groupings as many people will run right past them never looking back, from already knowing better. And though I like the thought’s of the futurist’s on a economy with no monetary base, I realize that is still a good 50-200 years off instead of the 20-50 years we should be trying to shoot for. I’m sorry if I seem jaded but living in Texas has given me a place to quantify they good and the bad happening to humanity, along with VL ( virtual linking ) with other cultures and cross referencing the data points through cultures. Yes the future is bright for those who dare to go, but it is also much more of everything we already are. Through the looking glass some may step or walk and others run freely. Now if I could just filter out the bad or faulty data sets, or human errors for a better knowledge feedback, and better crawlers for gathering info intel knowledge bases and such. Or a way to better supplement our max brain capacity and wash or forget the bad, and the faulty memory’s, while enforcing the good and correct paths, or memory’s. And I hope someone comes out with a cheaper full DNA scanner, or gas chromatograph, or true 3 way chips or even the 3×3 way chipsets with the right cache set up’s. more and more cheaper and faster please. With less and less diversions like the google fake A.I. and such. Oh well just my 2 cents for the kettle. P.S. to much red bull creates chemical dis-functionality even in the brain, body health is just as important as mental health. Personalized A.I. feedback should help in moderation and growth potentials. And sorry for any spelling grammar I have dysgraphia. Ray keep up the good work, and Aaron Saenz good work on this topic of culture clashes.
3L8D1 23L33T4U2C
The way I see Kurzweil is as a beacon, an inspiration, a tonic to nihilism. Whether we accomplish everything in a quick liner manner is almost irrelevant. The point is that everyone is excited by his vision & thinking about the shape of things to come. People will be fed, people will be healed, & set free from drudgery. Beautiful.
Most of the questions & concerns I have are sociological or psychological not technological. Also, I think these questions should not get in the way of scientific advancement but, rather, inform its development.
For example, if everything is given to us by our technology will we become something like the Eloi in H.G. Well’s book “The Time Machine?” Oddly enough, struggle seems to give meaning to our lives.
Another thought, with the singularity & everyone living forever what would a Jeffrey Dahmer do with all his time?
I guess what I am really trying to see is how would our society, culture, & other institutions be reorganized in response to all this?
The way I see Kurzweil is as a beacon, an inspiration, a tonic to nihilism. Whether we accomplish everything in a quick liner manner is almost irrelevant. The point is that everyone is excited by his vision & thinking about the shape of things to come. People will be fed, people will be healed, & set free from drudgery. Beautiful.
Most of the questions & concerns I have are sociological or psychological not technological. Also, I think these questions should not get in the way of scientific advancement but, rather, inform its development.
For example, if everything is given to us by our technology will we become something like the Eloi in H.G. Well’s book “The Time Machine?” Oddly enough, struggle seems to give meaning to our lives.
Another thought, with the singularity & everyone living forever what would a Jeffrey Dahmer do with all his time?
I guess what I am really trying to see is how would our society, culture, & other institutions be reorganized in response to all this?
Nice to see Horgan cementing his status being on the wrong side of history, just like his apparent hero, Stephen Jay Gould.
Gould would roll over in his grave right now if he could see how influential the study of human genetics has become, despite his best efforts to stop the river.
Nice to see Horgan cementing his status being on the wrong side of history, just like his apparent hero, Stephen Jay Gould.
Gould would roll over in his grave right now if he could see how influential the study of human genetics has become, despite his best efforts to stop the river.
There should be a crowd sourced technology tree predicting how products and technology will evolve in the future. While it is certainly interesting hearing about the latest advancements, I would be more interested in being able to navigate a technology map that is constantly being updated and each of the points discussed. Those that played games like the Civilization series and enjoyed researching to discover the next advancements possible would appreciate something like that. One problem with the prediction of a possible singularity is that as we further understand nature, the dimensionality of it unfolds which leads to a complexity that could be exponentially unfolding. Yannick, as a computational biologist, probably understands this quite well. As you learn about the cell, it has many parts, each of which has many more parts, etc. The breakthroughs in the future happen when enough of the system in understood to make some type of approximation with a current model. As you add layers of complexity to your model, the time needed to calculate something meaningful, even with doubling of computing speeds keeps adding many more years until those advancements are made.
If somebody could point out the best source of approximating future technology I would sure appreciate it. Excellent articles, Aaron! Looking forward to the next one.
There should be a crowd sourced technology tree predicting how products and technology will evolve in the future. While it is certainly interesting hearing about the latest advancements, I would be more interested in being able to navigate a technology map that is constantly being updated and each of the points discussed. Those that played games like the Civilization series and enjoyed researching to discover the next advancements possible would appreciate something like that. One problem with the prediction of a possible singularity is that as we further understand nature, the dimensionality of it unfolds which leads to a complexity that could be exponentially unfolding. Yannick, as a computational biologist, probably understands this quite well. As you learn about the cell, it has many parts, each of which has many more parts, etc. The breakthroughs in the future happen when enough of the system in understood to make some type of approximation with a current model. As you add layers of complexity to your model, the time needed to calculate something meaningful, even with doubling of computing speeds keeps adding many more years until those advancements are made.
If somebody could point out the best source of approximating future technology I would sure appreciate it. Excellent articles, Aaron! Looking forward to the next one.
I thoroughly agree with the sentiment of Aaron Saenz, I spend more of my singularity scouring trying to find arguments against, but they are forever so hopelessly thin and vague, incredibly misinformed and misinterpreting the concepts, and often ad hominem. John Horgan continues this trend.
I thoroughly agree with the sentiment of Aaron Saenz, I spend more of my singularity scouring trying to find arguments against, but they are forever so hopelessly thin and vague, incredibly misinformed and misinterpreting the concepts, and often ad hominem. John Horgan continues this trend.
I’ll be honest and admit I’m a gushing fanboy when it comes to the singularity. That doesn’t mean that I agree with Ray Kurzweil’s position on many topics. I’ve taken into account numerous pros and cons and originally was quite negative to concepts of transhumanism. But what I do know is there is an undeniable progression happening that is having an impact in ways that the general public is ignoring, or just oblivious to. And those people fall under the category of “I just want it to work”. It will, and then some.
Don’t pick on Ray Kurzweil because he’s outspoken on the subject. Rather, just sit on the sidelines and appreciate the small changes happening today that didn’t exist even ten years ago. Enjoy the ride, as it were.
I’ll be honest and admit I’m a gushing fanboy when it comes to the singularity. That doesn’t mean that I agree with Ray Kurzweil’s position on many topics. I’ve taken into account numerous pros and cons and originally was quite negative to concepts of transhumanism. But what I do know is there is an undeniable progression happening that is having an impact in ways that the general public is ignoring, or just oblivious to. And those people fall under the category of “I just want it to work”. It will, and then some.
Don’t pick on Ray Kurzweil because he’s outspoken on the subject. Rather, just sit on the sidelines and appreciate the small changes happening today that didn’t exist even ten years ago. Enjoy the ride, as it were.
Good Read!
Very well grounded. I hope you find a worth adversary to act as your foil in the editorial world.
Good Read!
Very well grounded. I hope you find a worth adversary to act as your foil in the editorial world.
One powerful reason for skepticism wrt the Singularity was alluded to above but is worth re-asserting: The limitations of our present brain. Yes, Google and IT in general have greatly improved our ability to do research, but this has affected the margins of our cognitive apparatus, not its core. I’m a computational biologist, and it’s clear to me that we ‘ll never fully understand the cell, even if we had a near-perfect computable model (I don believe we’ll get a good enough approximation at some point, though). This situation is exactly parallel to the one we’re in now wrt to highly complex systems designed by humans. No one fully understands the Boeing 757, because only the computer model that completely defines it has that kind of understanding. You’d have to put 400 engineers in a room to achieve the same “understanding”, assuming no communication problems. In short, it’s way too much for one human, and we’re talking about a man-made creation here, not the result of accretion and historical accidents over >3 billion years of evolution. Same problem with understanding the brain. I’d be happy with software that does the understanding for us, but let’s not kid ourselves: other than a handful of geniuses (Leonardo, Newton, Einstein), we’re just not that smart, and we’re operating with hardware evolved over >35,000 years ago whose ability to continue to move us forward is unclear, though it has done so remarkably well so far.
One powerful reason for skepticism wrt the Singularity was alluded to above but is worth re-asserting: The limitations of our present brain. Yes, Google and IT in general have greatly improved our ability to do research, but this has affected the margins of our cognitive apparatus, not its core. I’m a computational biologist, and it’s clear to me that we ‘ll never fully understand the cell, even if we had a near-perfect computable model (I don believe we’ll get a good enough approximation at some point, though). This situation is exactly parallel to the one we’re in now wrt to highly complex systems designed by humans. No one fully understands the Boeing 757, because only the computer model that completely defines it has that kind of understanding. You’d have to put 400 engineers in a room to achieve the same “understanding”, assuming no communication problems. In short, it’s way too much for one human, and we’re talking about a man-made creation here, not the result of accretion and historical accidents over >3 billion years of evolution. Same problem with understanding the brain. I’d be happy with software that does the understanding for us, but let’s not kid ourselves: other than a handful of geniuses (Leonardo, Newton, Einstein), we’re just not that smart, and we’re operating with hardware evolved over >35,000 years ago whose ability to continue to move us forward is unclear, though it has done so remarkably well so far.
Ray’s predictions may be a bit like doing calculations in theoretical physics by assuming ideal conditions, i.e. neglecting disturbing factors (e.g. air resistance or friction) that are difficult to calculate. But for an engineer working with reality these “negligible” factors may be of great importance (e.g. for designing a car or aircraft). In this sense, Ray seems to calculate with an ideal case of technological development and an ideal case of the environment in which this takes place (“under lab conditions”). But “disturbing factors” (frictions, resistance etc.) are reality and present in form of societal influences. Like air resistance or friction these societal influences can represent great ‘disturbances’ to the model under ideal conditions or in the lab and they are difficult (if not impossible) to predict in detail (like a turbulence).
That’s why I look at foresights and forecasts from two perspectives: one representing the technological developments under ideal conditions, i.e. what could we have if we would have the necessary resources and support and would really want it and the other looking at potential influencing factors like resistance, but also perhaps tailwind conditions even spurring up things. In view of the first perspective, Ray’s predictions seem to look pretty good. In regard to the latter much has still not become reality in a way it could be, but in my view mainly due to economic situations, lack of funding, incoherent research efforts, social resistance, ethical and risk concerns etc. – i.e. *social* “disturbing” factors.
We could have much more renewable energy, we could produce enough food for all of humanity, be much further in life extension technologies, have genetically modified pets and we could all be cyborgs to some extent if we really wanted! If we would not constantly try to re-define “intelligence” in the context of AI just to save our human uniqueness, we may even already talk about “strong AI” to some extent (and why should an AI be capable of doing stupid human mistakes and get confused by emotions in order to be called “really intelligent”?). And also consider this: today many people may think that humans would not be capable of going to the moon, although we managed that already 41 years ago with far less advanced technology.
So my main questions are always:
- What can you do from a scientific-technical point of view? (Known natural laws and energetic considerations are the determining factors)
- What can you do from an economic and resources point of view? (Financial, human, natural resources and time for accomplishment are the determining factors)
- What do you want to do from a societal point of view? (Societal interest are the determining factors, and thus not everything that would be scientifically, technically and economically possible is also being done).
And imagine what we would be capable of doing if we would decide to put all our effort into this particular goal!
Ray’s predictions may be a bit like doing calculations in theoretical physics by assuming ideal conditions, i.e. neglecting disturbing factors (e.g. air resistance or friction) that are difficult to calculate. But for an engineer working with reality these “negligible” factors may be of great importance (e.g. for designing a car or aircraft). In this sense, Ray seems to calculate with an ideal case of technological development and an ideal case of the environment in which this takes place (“under lab conditions”). But “disturbing factors” (frictions, resistance etc.) are reality and present in form of societal influences. Like air resistance or friction these societal influences can represent great ‘disturbances’ to the model under ideal conditions or in the lab and they are difficult (if not impossible) to predict in detail (like a turbulence).
That’s why I look at foresights and forecasts from two perspectives: one representing the technological developments under ideal conditions, i.e. what could we have if we would have the necessary resources and support and would really want it and the other looking at potential influencing factors like resistance, but also perhaps tailwind conditions even spurring up things. In view of the first perspective, Ray’s predictions seem to look pretty good. In regard to the latter much has still not become reality in a way it could be, but in my view mainly due to economic situations, lack of funding, incoherent research efforts, social resistance, ethical and risk concerns etc. – i.e. *social* “disturbing” factors.
We could have much more renewable energy, we could produce enough food for all of humanity, be much further in life extension technologies, have genetically modified pets and we could all be cyborgs to some extent if we really wanted! If we would not constantly try to re-define “intelligence” in the context of AI just to save our human uniqueness, we may even already talk about “strong AI” to some extent (and why should an AI be capable of doing stupid human mistakes and get confused by emotions in order to be called “really intelligent”?). And also consider this: today many people may think that humans would not be capable of going to the moon, although we managed that already 41 years ago with far less advanced technology.
So my main questions are always:
- What can you do from a scientific-technical point of view? (Known natural laws and energetic considerations are the determining factors)
- What can you do from an economic and resources point of view? (Financial, human, natural resources and time for accomplishment are the determining factors)
- What do you want to do from a societal point of view? (Societal interest are the determining factors, and thus not everything that would be scientifically, technically and economically possible is also being done).
And imagine what we would be capable of doing if we would decide to put all our effort into this particular goal!
In my view, I would NOT be surprised to find advocates of transhumanism on the political stage in the coming years.
In my view, I would NOT be surprised to find advocates of transhumanism on the political stage in the coming years.
My belief is that we are witnessing the birth of a new ideology.
That’s my bet. Time will tell.
But truth be told, I really hope I’m wrong.
***
I disagree. I think that transhumanism is far more sane and reality-oriented than the dominant ideologies of today.
Which are:
1/ Politically correct ideologies of “social justice” (let’s get even with men/straight people/capitalists, etc)
2/ “Social conservatism” (redneck bible-thumping, keeping the immigrants and gays in their place, etc)
I find it entirely appropriate that some are now focusing on the vast potential of science, instead of on identity politics or on the politics of what some guy said in a desert two thousand years ago.
I do not use “ideology” in a negative way, but simply to refer to an all encompassing system of thought that aspires to represent all aspects of our life.
So when I say that the Singularity movement (or transhumanism for that matter) is becoming an ideology, it is to express that here we have a new an relevant way to address the issues that we face today as a global society.
In my view, I would be surprised to find advocates of transhumanism on the political stage in the coming years.
My belief is that we are witnessing the birth of a new ideology.
That’s my bet. Time will tell.
But truth be told, I really hope I’m wrong.
***
I disagree. I think that transhumanism is far more sane and reality-oriented than the dominant ideologies of today.
Which are:
1/ Politically correct ideologies of “social justice” (let’s get even with men/straight people/capitalists, etc)
2/ “Social conservatism” (redneck bible-thumping, keeping the immigrants and gays in their place, etc)
I find it entirely appropriate that some are now focusing on the vast potential of science, instead of on identity politics or on the politics of what some guy said in a desert two thousand years ago.
I do not use “ideology” in a negative way, but simply to refer to an all encompassing system of thought that aspires to represent all aspects of our life.
So when I say that the Singularity movement (or transhumanism for that matter) is becoming an ideology, it is to express that here we have a new an relevant way to address the issues that we face today as a global society.
In my view, I would be surprised to find advocates of transhumanism on the political stage in the coming years.
We need to examine the issue of the rate of technological progress and the potential of science to impact our lives in an objective way. Ray Kurzweil may be overly optimistic and John Horgan a pessimist, but we can probably all agree that the rate at which electronics technology is improving is astonishing, and that in the long term technology holds the best promise for improving our standard of living.
What is important here is the shifting of human hopes and aspirations away from irrational belief systems and into the realm of science. People have every right to get excited about our society’s technological potential, and when we start looking to science rather than religion we will start directing more resources into the hands of researchers. But we should take care not to start confusing scientists with priests (or gods).
We need to examine the issue of the rate of technological progress and the potential of science to impact our lives in an objective way. Ray Kurzweil may be overly optimistic and John Horgan a pessimist, but we can probably all agree that the rate at which electronics technology is improving is astonishing, and that in the long term technology holds the best promise for improving our standard of living.
What is important here is the shifting of human hopes and aspirations away from irrational belief systems and into the realm of science. People have every right to get excited about our society’s technological potential, and when we start looking to science rather than religion we will start directing more resources into the hands of researchers. But we should take care not to start confusing scientists with priests (or gods).
I see a valuable opportunity in John Horgan’s critique.
It appears to me that reflection on the singularity matured enough to be presented as worthy material within the columns of a mainstream newspaper. And it seems only natural that debate should now emerge outside the circle of futurists and believers.
I also find in your post, Aaron, food for thoughts regarding the mission of Singularity Hub.
You guys provide outstanding news on a daily basis and as you mention, there is so much to chew on any given week. But I also wonder if periodical summaries are not in order. A way to step back once in a while to try and identify patterns and trends in the flow.
There will probably be a day in the near future when the Singularity question ceases to exist as a scientific topic to become an item of major political significance, like nuclear research for instance.
In preparation of such uncertain times, I cannot think of an online tool better suited to this task than this website.
The singularity may deserve a vocabulary, a doctrine, instead of a collection of personal views.
My belief is that we are witnessing the birth of a new ideology.
That’s my bet. Time will tell.
But truth be told, I really hope I’m wrong.
I see a valuable opportunity in John Horgan’s critique.
It appears to me that reflection on the singularity matured enough to be presented as worthy material within the columns of a mainstream newspaper. And it seems only natural that debate should now emerge outside the circle of futurists and believers.
I also find in your post, Aaron, food for thoughts regarding the mission of Singularity Hub.
You guys provide outstanding news on a daily basis and as you mention, there is so much to chew on any given week. But I also wonder if periodical summaries are not in order. A way to step back once in a while to try and identify patterns and trends in the flow.
There will probably be a day in the near future when the Singularity question ceases to exist as a scientific topic to become an item of major political significance, like nuclear research for instance.
In preparation of such uncertain times, I cannot think of an online tool better suited to this task than this website.
The singularity may deserve a vocabulary, a doctrine, instead of a collection of personal views.
My belief is that we are witnessing the birth of a new ideology.
That’s my bet. Time will tell.
But truth be told, I really hope I’m wrong.