Yes Tim, that’s absolutely correct. That alternate meaning is complete bullshit, but it exists nonetheless. Very unfortunate, but I see very few people taking an initiative towards stomping it out in the wider world.
I think: “2) a point in time when prediction is no longer possible (a.k.a., “Predictive Horizon”)” …is equally nonsensical. Eliezer seems to agree:
“The Predictive Horizon never made much sense to me”
...and so does Nick, quoted later in the essay:
“I think it is unfortunate that some people have made Unpredictability a defining feature of “the singularity”. It really does tend to create a mental block.”
Robin Hanson thinks that the unpredictability idea is silly as well.
Yet aren’t these two the main justifications for using the “singularity” term in the first place?
If the rate of progress is not about to shoot off to infinity, and there isn’t going to be an event-horizon-like threshold at some future point in time, it seems to me that that’s two of the major justifications for using the “singularity” term down the toilet.
To me—following the agricultural/industrial terminology—it looks as though there will be an intelligence revolution—and then probably a molecular nanotechnology/robotics revolution not long after.
Squishing those two concepts together into “singularity” paste offends my sense of the naming historical events. I think it is confusing, misleading, and pseudo-scientific.
Please quit with the ridiculous singularity terminology!
Yes Tim, that’s absolutely correct. That alternate meaning is complete bullshit, but it exists nonetheless. Very unfortunate, but I see very few people taking an initiative towards stomping it out in the wider world.
I think: “2) a point in time when prediction is no longer possible (a.k.a., “Predictive Horizon”)” …is equally nonsensical. Eliezer seems to agree:
“The Predictive Horizon never made much sense to me”
...and so does Nick, quoted later in the essay:
“I think it is unfortunate that some people have made Unpredictability a defining feature of “the singularity”. It really does tend to create a mental block.”
Robin Hanson thinks that the unpredictability idea is silly as well.
Yet aren’t these two the main justifications for using the “singularity” term in the first place?
If the rate of progress is not about to shoot off to infinity, and there isn’t going to be an event-horizon-like threshold at some future point in time, it seems to me that that’s two of the major justifications for using the “singularity” term down the toilet.
To me—following the agricultural/industrial terminology—it looks as though there will be an intelligence revolution—and then probably a molecular nanotechnology/robotics revolution not long after.
Squishing those two concepts together into “singularity” paste offends my sense of the naming historical events. I think it is confusing, misleading, and pseudo-scientific.
Please quit with the ridiculous singularity terminology!
http://alife.co.uk/essays/the_singularity_is_nonsense/