<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.1.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Three Major Singularity Schools</title>
	<link>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/</link>
	<description>The Singularity Institute exists to confront the challenge of powerful AI, both the opportunity and the risk.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:06:46 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Cosmic Vortex</title>
		<link>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-6852</link>
		<author>Cosmic Vortex</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 01:40:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-6852</guid>
					<description>Nice essay. I understand what you are saying about the 3 different projections contradicting each other, I think the odds that they do are actually very small.
The only way it would be possible for these views to contradict would be if the superintellgence that emerges chooses not to continue on Moore's path. While this is certainly possible, I think its very improbable that it would choose to do so. I think theres at least one reasonably safe assumption we can make about the intelligence beyond the singularity... it will continue to expand its intelligence and power.  This will mean continuing on Moore's path at least until it gets a technology that can replace it altogether. If thats a contradiction between views, I think it's a bit too small to count.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice essay. I understand what you are saying about the 3 different projections contradicting each other, I think the odds that they do are actually very small.<br />
The only way it would be possible for these views to contradict would be if the superintellgence that emerges chooses not to continue on Moore&#8217;s path. While this is certainly possible, I think its very improbable that it would choose to do so. I think theres at least one reasonably safe assumption we can make about the intelligence beyond the singularity&#8230; it will continue to expand its intelligence and power.  This will mean continuing on Moore&#8217;s path at least until it gets a technology that can replace it altogether. If thats a contradiction between views, I think it&#8217;s a bit too small to count.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Education Futures &#187; Three Singularities, three conversations</title>
		<link>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-6865</link>
		<author>Education Futures &#187; Three Singularities, three conversations</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 06:04:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-6865</guid>
					<description>[...] Yudkowsky, on the SIAI blog, posted his observations of the emergence of three &#8220;logically distinct&#8221; schools of thought related to the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Yudkowsky, on the SIAI blog, posted his observations of the emergence of three &#8220;logically distinct&#8221; schools of thought related to the [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joshua Fox</title>
		<link>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-6872</link>
		<author>Joshua Fox</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 08:14:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-6872</guid>
					<description>Great clarification of these concepts. 

By the way, the word is "Apocalypticism" rather than "Apocalyptism." Not a big deal, but considering the common mangling of "Singularitarianism," a similar mouthful, it's best to get the term right.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great clarification of these concepts. </p>
<p>By the way, the word is &#8220;Apocalypticism&#8221; rather than &#8220;Apocalyptism.&#8221; Not a big deal, but considering the common mangling of &#8220;Singularitarianism,&#8221; a similar mouthful, it&#8217;s best to get the term right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Hunkins</title>
		<link>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-6887</link>
		<author>Joe Hunkins</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:32:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-6887</guid>
					<description>A nice post, though I'm not clear on why these are incompatible ideas.  I'm guessing Kurzweil would agree that an intelligence explosion is likely, though he seems to think it'll take some years of conscious computing before that happens (you don't?), and most would agree that the future is *very* difficult to predict even without a singularity, so the event horizon is also a reasonable assertion in the other two scenarios.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A nice post, though I&#8217;m not clear on why these are incompatible ideas.  I&#8217;m guessing Kurzweil would agree that an intelligence explosion is likely, though he seems to think it&#8217;ll take some years of conscious computing before that happens (you don&#8217;t?), and most would agree that the future is *very* difficult to predict even without a singularity, so the event horizon is also a reasonable assertion in the other two scenarios.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kaj Sotala</title>
		<link>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-6888</link>
		<author>Kaj Sotala</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:55:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-6888</guid>
					<description>Accelerating Change is a bit different from the two others, but I'm not sure why there's a need to differentiate between Event Horizon and Intelligence Explosion. Intelligence Explosion, at least, seems to lead to Event Horizon (though not necessarily vice versa - but then, I don't think I've heard of an Event Horizon formulation that wouldn't have included Intelligence Explosion at least implictly). 

The core claim of Accelerating Change supports the two others in the "why should we belive this should happen soon", though its strong claim is more dubious.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Accelerating Change is a bit different from the two others, but I&#8217;m not sure why there&#8217;s a need to differentiate between Event Horizon and Intelligence Explosion. Intelligence Explosion, at least, seems to lead to Event Horizon (though not necessarily vice versa - but then, I don&#8217;t think I&#8217;ve heard of an Event Horizon formulation that wouldn&#8217;t have included Intelligence Explosion at least implictly). </p>
<p>The core claim of Accelerating Change supports the two others in the &#8220;why should we belive this should happen soon&#8221;, though its strong claim is more dubious.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roko</title>
		<link>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-6910</link>
		<author>Roko</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:34:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-6910</guid>
					<description>Kaj said: "Accelerating Change is a bit different from the two others, but I’m not sure why there’s a need to differentiate between Event Horizon and Intelligence Explosion."

I'll second that, Kaj.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kaj said: &#8220;Accelerating Change is a bit different from the two others, but I’m not sure why there’s a need to differentiate between Event Horizon and Intelligence Explosion.&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll second that, Kaj.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeffrey Herrlich</title>
		<link>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-6911</link>
		<author>Jeffrey Herrlich</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:16:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-6911</guid>
					<description>I'm an Intelligence Explosioner too. I don't favor the Accelerating Change much because it's a speculative extrapolation of *human* ability. Whereas I believe that the first Strong AI will be of a huge qualitative difference. And I don't favor the Event Horizon, in the sense that I believe that the "objectives" of the future *can* be predicted and guided - hence the Friendly AI thesis. It's only the means to the ends that *perhaps* can't be reasonably predicted by us humans. But fortunately a Friendly AI will be a super-expert at strategizing ways to effectively avoid violating its stable goals.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m an Intelligence Explosioner too. I don&#8217;t favor the Accelerating Change much because it&#8217;s a speculative extrapolation of *human* ability. Whereas I believe that the first Strong AI will be of a huge qualitative difference. And I don&#8217;t favor the Event Horizon, in the sense that I believe that the &#8220;objectives&#8221; of the future *can* be predicted and guided - hence the Friendly AI thesis. It&#8217;s only the means to the ends that *perhaps* can&#8217;t be reasonably predicted by us humans. But fortunately a Friendly AI will be a super-expert at strategizing ways to effectively avoid violating its stable goals.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robin Hanson</title>
		<link>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-6913</link>
		<author>Robin Hanson</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:49:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-6913</guid>
					<description>OK, for an analogy, we driving down a mountain and:
1) we can see that the road ahead steadily gets steeper, or
2) the road ahead is straight, but then passes into clouds, or
3) we clearly see both a cliff ahead, and a vertical drop below
4) we are just warned "beware of something weird ahead"
To which I'd add:
5) we see the road ahead suddenly turns and gets much steeper.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, for an analogy, we driving down a mountain and:<br />
1) we can see that the road ahead steadily gets steeper, or<br />
2) the road ahead is straight, but then passes into clouds, or<br />
3) we clearly see both a cliff ahead, and a vertical drop below<br />
4) we are just warned &#8220;beware of something weird ahead&#8221;<br />
To which I&#8217;d add:<br />
5) we see the road ahead suddenly turns and gets much steeper.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TONY COHEN</title>
		<link>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-6924</link>
		<author>TONY COHEN</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:02:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-6924</guid>
					<description>20 years ago, if you were a 'naked' Singularity, 

you'd be at a Black Hole"s Event Horizon about to 

be sucked in.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>20 years ago, if you were a &#8216;naked&#8217; Singularity, </p>
<p>you&#8217;d be at a Black Hole&#8221;s Event Horizon about to </p>
<p>be sucked in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom McCabe</title>
		<link>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-6986</link>
		<author>Tom McCabe</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:38:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-6986</guid>
					<description>"This will mean continuing on Moore’s path at least until it gets a technology that can replace it altogether."

What is the probability that a superintelligence would develop chips at *exactly* the same speed that humans do? Not even twice as slow, or twice as fast? Consider that the difference in raw FLOPS is going to be several orders of magnitude and up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;This will mean continuing on Moore’s path at least until it gets a technology that can replace it altogether.&#8221;</p>
<p>What is the probability that a superintelligence would develop chips at *exactly* the same speed that humans do? Not even twice as slow, or twice as fast? Consider that the difference in raw FLOPS is going to be several orders of magnitude and up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zubon</title>
		<link>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-8221</link>
		<author>Zubon</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:40:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-8221</guid>
					<description>Don't the three lead to one another?  Accelerating Change is the source of the Intelligence Explosion, as the curve becomes increasingly steep.  This leads to the Event Horizon, since we cannot predict beyond an Intelligence Explosion.

Intelligence Explosion may wear out the "smooth curve" part of Accelerating Change, but I don't think Mr. Kurzweil is that strongly committed to it.  If nothing else, we are usually slightly off the curve, and "slightly off" becomes "way off" pretty quickly when we increase at x^y^z.  And unless you believe that you can predict what a superinteligence will do, Eliezer, Intelligence Explosion implies an Event Horizon.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t the three lead to one another?  Accelerating Change is the source of the Intelligence Explosion, as the curve becomes increasingly steep.  This leads to the Event Horizon, since we cannot predict beyond an Intelligence Explosion.</p>
<p>Intelligence Explosion may wear out the &#8220;smooth curve&#8221; part of Accelerating Change, but I don&#8217;t think Mr. Kurzweil is that strongly committed to it.  If nothing else, we are usually slightly off the curve, and &#8220;slightly off&#8221; becomes &#8220;way off&#8221; pretty quickly when we increase at x^y^z.  And unless you believe that you can predict what a superinteligence will do, Eliezer, Intelligence Explosion implies an Event Horizon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Life, the Universe, and Everything &#187; Objections to SIAI/AGI/FAI</title>
		<link>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-22949</link>
		<author>Life, the Universe, and Everything &#187; Objections to SIAI/AGI/FAI</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:08:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-22949</guid>
					<description>[...] There are so many different meanings attached that the term Singularity has ceased to be useful. (Anissimov, Eliezer [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] There are so many different meanings attached that the term Singularity has ceased to be useful. (Anissimov, Eliezer [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Accelerating Future &#187; IEEE Spectrum Special Issue on the Singularity</title>
		<link>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-54776</link>
		<author>Accelerating Future &#187; IEEE Spectrum Special Issue on the Singularity</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:15:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-54776</guid>
					<description>[...] robots be conscious? 2. Is technological change accelerating? (Core claim of Accelerating Change school.) 3. Does technological change follow smooth exponential curves? (Strong claim of AC school, by [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] robots be conscious? 2. Is technological change accelerating? (Core claim of Accelerating Change school.) 3. Does technological change follow smooth exponential curves? (Strong claim of AC school, by [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Russell123</title>
		<link>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-55982</link>
		<author>Russell123</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:02:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-55982</guid>
					<description>Interesting article, but its unclear which one leads to robot sword fights in outer space.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDrbbe7lgyE&#38;feature=related

My guess would be apocalypticism.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting article, but its unclear which one leads to robot sword fights in outer space.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDrbbe7lgyE&amp;feature=related" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDrbbe7lgyE&amp;feature=related</a></p>
<p>My guess would be apocalypticism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Singularity Institute Blog : Blog Archive : IEEE Spectrum special report on the Singularity</title>
		<link>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-56675</link>
		<author>The Singularity Institute Blog : Blog Archive : IEEE Spectrum special report on the Singularity</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:36:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-56675</guid>
					<description>[...] Russell123 on Three Major Singularity Schools [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Russell123 on Three Major Singularity Schools [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg</title>
		<link>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-57596</link>
		<author>Greg</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-schools/#comment-57596</guid>
					<description>I would like to favour the Exploding Intelligence theory for future technological change, with a mixture of both the core claim and the strong claim, If human intelligence could match pace? I don't think it could just by been augmented, if there were other pure super intelligences computer based. For human intelligence to keep pace it would have to go like Kurzweil  thinks where humans upload there minds to a computer or android but would the new person recognize themselves as the same person as their former selves. If the former human version still was alive after transfering their mind to an android, wouldn't it be like identical twins. While knowning that eachother are very similar, they both recognize eachother as different persons. Not one and the same, but if a human uploaded their minds to an android and then the instant it was activated the human was killed or at least put into some kind of suspended animation, then the android might be able to recognize themself as the former human.
Another way might be to try and keep the knowledge of one version of the person from the other, but how could the original human forget that they had just uploaded. The knowledge of uploading their minds along with all other knowledge would be transfered as well to the android. Unless this information could be deleted from both. It might be possible for the two versions to exist at the same time until the human version died naturally then of course the android version would have evolved a lot different and faster than the human version.and would have evolved into soneone entirely different but still having knowledge from its human past.
If humans at that time knew that the uploaded version of themselves became someone entirely different and their own conscious was not transfered then they might not bother to transfer.
This type of question will need to be addressed, either starting now or some time in the near future when more knowledge is available.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would like to favour the Exploding Intelligence theory for future technological change, with a mixture of both the core claim and the strong claim, If human intelligence could match pace? I don&#8217;t think it could just by been augmented, if there were other pure super intelligences computer based. For human intelligence to keep pace it would have to go like Kurzweil  thinks where humans upload there minds to a computer or android but would the new person recognize themselves as the same person as their former selves. If the former human version still was alive after transfering their mind to an android, wouldn&#8217;t it be like identical twins. While knowning that eachother are very similar, they both recognize eachother as different persons. Not one and the same, but if a human uploaded their minds to an android and then the instant it was activated the human was killed or at least put into some kind of suspended animation, then the android might be able to recognize themself as the former human.<br />
Another way might be to try and keep the knowledge of one version of the person from the other, but how could the original human forget that they had just uploaded. The knowledge of uploading their minds along with all other knowledge would be transfered as well to the android. Unless this information could be deleted from both. It might be possible for the two versions to exist at the same time until the human version died naturally then of course the android version would have evolved a lot different and faster than the human version.and would have evolved into soneone entirely different but still having knowledge from its human past.<br />
If humans at that time knew that the uploaded version of themselves became someone entirely different and their own conscious was not transfered then they might not bother to transfer.<br />
This type of question will need to be addressed, either starting now or some time in the near future when more knowledge is available.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
