Singularity !

[Bugmaster]

The concept of a Technological Singluarity is an interesting one to idly ponder. It's also a very popular concept in science fiction; Cory Doctorow in particular seems to love it. However, I have a feeling that some people tend to have religious faith in Singularity, which would make Singularity the latest modern religion.

Ok, so what is Singluarity ? Well, to put it briefly, the argument for it goes something like this:

1). Moore's Law dictates that computing power increases exponentially over time.
2). Moore's Law will continue for the foreseeable future.
3). This means that, eventually (and rather soon), computers will achieve enormous computational power, which will dwarf our human brains.
3a). Alternatively, the new advances in quantum computing may lead to this computational power in one leap, bypassing Moore's Law entirely.
4a). At this point, computers will achieve intelligence, and that intelligence will dwarf ours by whole orders of magnitude.
4b). Alternatively, we may find a way of merging with computers (through "uploading" our minds, perhaps), thus magnifying our intelligence by whole orders of magnitude and becoming "transhuman".
5). Initially, this new intelligence will allow us to solve the basic problems facing humanity today: hunger, disease, scarcity of luxury goods, etc.
5a). Most likely, this will be achieved through self-replicating nanotechnology.
6). Eventually, our enourmous new intelligence will solve all problems in physics that remain to be solved.
7). Thus, we will gain complete control over time and space, becoming de facto gods (or "weakly godlike entities", as Cory Doctorow puts it).
8). The point at which this happens is called the Singularity, and it is inevitable.
9). We should be seriously worried about how Singularity will occur, who gets to participate, whether the super-intelligence would be evil, etc. etc.

I have to admit, Singularity is a pretty neat concept, and I for one do hope that it happens. However, I don't think that Singularity is inevitable; I don't even think that it's particularly likely.

While Moore's Law has held so far (1), I see no reason to predict that it will continue indefinitely (2). In fact, there's a very real physical limit on the minimum size of an electronic circuit; shrink the circuit any further, and electrons begin to tunnel all over the place, ruining your computation. Quantum computers are very neat (3a), but they are far from omniscient; they will not magically grant us answers to all our questions. Thus, virtually unlimited computing power is not inevitable (3).

I personally do believe that Strong AI (4a) and "uploading" (4b) are possible, and even likely; however, they are far from inevitable, as well. It could very well turn out that Strong AI is a very difficult problem to solve, and that merely throwing computing power at it won't achieve much.

Even assuming that we manage to create (or grow, or become, whatever) a super-intelligence, it's somewhat rash to conclude that this super-intelligence will solve all our problems (5). Most of them, such as hunger, disease, overpopulation, war, etc., cannot be solved by merely thinking about it. The solutions would involve a lot of work -- planting fields, building spaceships, gathering viral RNA, etc. -- and work doesn't do itself, no matter how smart you are.

Nanotechnology (5a) would be quite useful here, but I am not convinced that it is even possible. It's possible that the laws of physics (such as the Uncertainty Principle) prohibit us from building self-replicating machines that can move individual atoms around, just as they prohibit us from moving faster than the speed of light. Of course, it's always possible that our current understanding of physics is wrong, but there's no indication that it's most likely wrong -- which means that becoming 1000x smarter won't solve anything (6), and that it's quite possible that we will never be able to fully control all time and space (7). Sadly, the more we know, the more limitations we discover; I personally would like that pesky "speed of light" limit to go away, but it looks like it's there to stay.

Thus, Singularity is neat, but it's far from inevitable, and it's far from likely. I don't think we need to worry about it in the foreseeable future.

[Bugmaster]

I wasn't kidding about Cory Doctorow :-)

[ST88]

While Moore's Law has held so far (1), I see no reason to predict that it will continue indefinitely (2). In fact, there's a very real physical limit on the minimum size of an electronic circuit; shrink the circuit any further, and electrons begin to tunnel all over the place, ruining your computation.

If Moore's law can be translated a bit into actual computing power, instead of describing the nature of transistors, there's no reason to assume that it will not go on indefinitely. Different semiconductor companies have been experimenting with different modes of computing for a long time now (other than silicon, other than 1/0 gates, etc.). Quantum computing, as you say, is another matter. But the market will dictate when this becomes feasible, which probably means it should arrive to fit right in, taking its place in the Moore's Law computing power curve. A lot of this isn't due to the advances in technology, though there is that. It's the demands that the marketplace puts on the chip companies. A few years ago, software companies were complaining that certain chips had too much computing power for the applications they had been building -- the hardware technology outpaced the software technology. This actually slowed down development and release of new, more powerful hardware. Now, of course, simulation/animation has made tremendous demands on the hardware, and it has since sped up again.

Sadly, the more we know, the more limitations we discover; I personally would like that pesky "speed of light" limit to go away, but it looks like it's there to stay.

Well, the human brain doesn't seem to have a problem with this issue. And since we're here, we should know that it's possible. Unless we all have souls. But if we don't, then it's also possible that the Singularity can be anticipated, and we can build into the vast potentially sentient computer (neural net or whatever) the idea that it would be good for it to keep us around. We are programmed with certain instincts; there's no reason to assume that we can't build such a network that sees the value in having us minions (such as we are) to keep it running & do what's best for it.

[QED]

It's funny that you should bring this up! I was recently debating with Harvey about how we might go about distinguishing the popular concept of God from a super-intelligent civilization that entertains itself by messing around creating universes like ours.

Actually, if what you describe here is an inevitability (and I think this can be argued for rather convincingly*) then we are ourselves existing in the sort of universe which eventually hosts the creation of one or more new universes. That being the case, beings should always expect to find themselves to be part of such created universes... including us!

*Probability-wise we are far from being the only technologically enabled civilization in this universe. All other civilizations would also be subject to Moores law as well, so even if most fail to reach the singularity, it only takes one to create a bifurcation of universes (Creating a universe is not thought to be a technical impossibility even today -- the sum energy input can be close to zero and the new universe can be contained behind its own black-hole type horizon). Once at least one bifurcation takes place, the number of possible universes becomes unlimited in a form of "cosmic pyramid scheme" as the same process can happen again and again in each new branch. We also have here a potential explanation for the apparently finely-tuned nature of the physics of our particular universe as civilizations become adept at making the most interesting new creations.

[Bugmaster]

If Moore's law can be translated a bit into actual computing power, instead of describing the nature of transistors, there's no reason to assume that it will not go on indefinitely.

I see no reason to believe this is the case. Ultimately, computation is the process of using a particular law of physics to achive some desired result. Well, laws of physics have limitations. We've already run out of electromagnetism, and we're using quantum effects now; unfortunately, the uncertainty principle limits us in that regard, as well.

Moore's Law is not really a law, in the same sense that the Law of Gravity is a law; Moore's Law is (as Terry Pratchet would put it) more of a guideline. Market forces have nothing to do with its ultimate fate, either, because even the mighty market forces cannot rewrite the laws of physics.

If there is indeed a physical limit on how much computing power can be crammed into a m^3 of space, then there's a good chance Moore's Law will eventually slow down, or stop altogether.

Well, the human brain doesn't seem to have a problem with this issue. And since we're here, we should know that it's possible.

I don't know, actually. The biological human brain definitely has some severe limitations, imposed on it by the rest of the body that supports it. If "uploading" is indeed possible (and I believe it probably is), then those limitations would be replaced by less restrictive ones, but I doubt that it will ever become possible to achieve infinite computing power.

and we can build into the vast potentially sentient computer (neural net or whatever) the idea that it would be good for it to keep us around.

Actually, that's a whole different issue that I did not even address. I claim that a truly "godlike" intelligence would be so alien from us limited surface-dwellers that any reasonable communication with it would be impossible. The gap between us and it would be much, much wider than the gap between ants and us. Inicidentally, this is also one of the reasons why I think that the Abrahamic religions are self-defeating: if God really does exist, and he's infinitely power, then his "personality" would be so alien that prayer, worship, and other rituals would be a waste of time. This God would be completely inscrutable.

Again, I'm not arguing that Singluarity is impossible; I'm merely arguing that it is far from inevitable.

[ST88]

If there is indeed a physical limit on how much computing power can be crammed into a m^3 of space, then there's a good chance Moore's Law will eventually slow down, or stop altogether.

I think this assumes that computation will look like what it does now. In other words, we discovered a way to compute things, then we made the process of that computing more and more efficient (i.e., smaller sizes), until, yes, the laws of physics would have to be violated in order to go any further. However, I was speaking of different paradigms of computation -- things we might not have even thought of yet.

[Bugmaster]

However, I was speaking of different paradigms of computation -- things we might not have even thought of yet.

Ok, I am going to reserve my judgement on those until we think of them, though. Still, my question remains: is there a limit on how much computation we can fit into a cubic meter of space ? If the answer is "yes", then there's at least one limitation to our computing power. Combined with the accursed speed of light (oh how I loathe it), this puts a definite damper on our cyber-omniscience which is practically required for Singularity to occur.

[tiberius]

Faster computers may merely give us the ability to work out known mathematical problems quicker.
That in itself is not intelligence and it doesn't give the computer the power of conscious thought.
Knowing how to use the computing power to create an artificial mind is a long way off as nobody has the vaguest notion of how to achieve it.
Current levels of intelligence allow computers to spot patterns such as letters of the alphabet via pixelated images. How can we represent an abstract thought such as 'do I actually exist' within a computer?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

The human brain itself is nothing more than a highly complex computer. It functions as a computer chip; the firing of neurons sending signals to our "hardware" (muscles, organs, tissue, and their related functions).

To build a sapient machine is merely a matter of emulating the complex structure and function of our own brains using artificial parts.

is there a limit on how much computation we can fit into a cubic meter of space ?

A better question may be: is there a limit to human intellect? The way I see it, any physical dillema may be worked around with the right amount of knowledge and ingenuity.

It's funny, because I just recently developed a philosophy almost identical to the concept of "technological singularity". I didn't know that I had all ready been beat too it until this thread was brought back up. Perhaps I will still go ahead and publish my thoughts...


Anyway, I believe there is absolutely no limit to human intellectual progression. I don't consider any arguments to the contrary. To believe anything less will potentially constrict our true potential, whatever that happens to be.

[tiberius]

The human brain itself is nothing more than a highly complex computer.

but a computer that is not understood by us, and can't be emulated by us. You achieve nothing by implying that the human mind is 'nothing special', it is amazing and unless you'd like to swap yours for a casio calculator, you'd better improve your argument or shut up as you make yourself out to be a moron.

To build a sapient machine is merely a matter of emulating the complex structure and function of our own brains using artificial parts.

since that sounds like a piece of piss you'd better just do that and become a billionaire. I suspect however, there is a lot more to it that you realise and therefore, you are stupid and very poor[/quote]

is there a limit on how much computation we can fit into a cubic meter of space ?

I don't think there is any point to the question, and much less in answering it. If someone wanted a very clever computer, would they be bothered how big it was? Perhaps, how much it cost and could it be created in the timescale they had in mind; but if it was two metre squared or three, would they give a toss?