Slashdot Mirror
IEEE Special Report On the Singularity
jbcarr83 writes "The IEEE Spectrum is running a special issue on the technological singularity as envisioned by Vernor Vinge and others. Articles on both sides of the will it/won't it divide appear, though most take the it will approach. I found Richard A.L. Jones' contribution, 'Rupturing The Nanotech Rapture,' to be of particular interest. He puts forward some very sound objections to nanomachines of the Drexler variety."
Although new developments are happening faster and faster, the energy to generate them (money) is getting greater and greater. So to get to a point where developments happen concurrently or very very close together will require vase amouts of money. Probably more than is currently available.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
I already am a god compared to someone living 200 years ago. I'm not afraid of infection. My children and wife survived the childbirth process easily. Name a topic, any topic in the world, and I can talk intelligently about it (all of us here are pretty much augmented beings, backed by the internet). I've seen the Earth from on top of the clouds. I've seen the sun come up over the Bay in Annapolis in the morning, and watched it go down over the bay in San Francisco in the evening of the same day.
Few people of the past would have thought such things were possible.
Sure, there's some faith, but there's a lot of carefully considered fact involved in the belief as well.
What? Our singular overlords? Our eschatonic overlords.
Is it just me, or does all this poorly-reasoned "singularity" crap have a religious feel to it?
Gee, someone who believes some completely un-provable being exists finds what other people believe is 'humorous'.
That's the height of irony.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Precisely. The only difference from religious people is that the coming of the singularity is something that can be predicted from observable facts, instead of old texts written by self-serving priests of long ago interpreted by self-serving priests of today.
The difference is that technology really could solve pretty much all of our problems. It has a long and verifiable history of solving problems in ways that earlier generations would have described as magical or divine.
Religion, on the other hand, does not do this. The most religion can claim is providing government-like structures and psychotherapy-like benefits. It's sure not moving along the path to curing all diseases and increasing mankind's power over the universe.
So, yeah, there is a rational, historically-supported reason to be excited about one but not the other.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
When relays reached max density, tubes appeared. Tubes were shrunk, and at about the time when they couldn't get a lot smaller, transistors appeared. Those shrunk for a while, then IC's appeared. IC's have been shrinking for a while, with various technologies, each able to go smaller than before, driving that change. Now IC's are within reach of maximum density in the 2D zone, but the 3rd dimension beckons, especially to low-power (hence low heat) technologies. Two layers gives a doubling in the same 2d space; four does it again... that's probably good for quite a few doublings before the 3rd dimension becomes unwieldy. In the meantime, can we anticipate what might come next? Biologicals are one possibility; look at the brain. 3d and fits in a funny shape. Brains come in all sizes, and who is to say that the one we have is either the best design or the largest or the fastest? What if materials that work 2x as fast as our neurons are found? Look at the recent development of memristors; how many people saw that coming? Not many! And they're not even in hardware yet. They have the potential to spike memory density up, power down, speed up, and more... because they aren't transistors at all. And they're small. In fact, the smaller they are, the better they seem to work. There's a limit in there somewhere, but still, how cool is that?
Furthermore, Moore's law is just one aspect of technology; we are also experiencing doublings along many other paths (see Ray Kurzweil's observations for details on that) and some of them aren't about materials or hardware, they're about knowledge leveraging next steps. For instance, in the late 1970's, we had microprocessors that were very capable, but we didn't have many kinds of software. If we had it at the time, we could have done more, earlier... nothing but knowledge. But instead, many of these software technologies didn't show up for years. Yet we could take one of those microprocessors (a 6809 or a z80, for instance) and program all *manner* of cool things on them today, were it called for. And build them huge memory spaces, too. To put it another way, with what I know after 40 years of programming, if I could go back in time to 1979, what I now know how to do with microprocessors would make me a very rich man. Technology has come a long way regardless of Moore's law. Technology multiplies itself.
Honestly, there is nothing that falls so flat on my ears as doomlike predictions of technology reaching an unbreachable wall. Not going to happen. What's going to happen is technology will continue to double. The consequences of that are shrouded in mystery, but the one thing that is clear is that there will be extremely significant consequences.
Here's an observation for you: When you have projects that are pendant upon technologies that are experiencing doublings in a particular time period, those projects will typically get 1/2 of the total work done in the last time period.
For example, four time periods of doublings: 1 - 2 4 8 16... a total factor of 31, of which 16 occurred in the last period. It is because of this that projects like the human genome project look stalled at first; half of the work required to get them done will occur in the last doubling period (about a year in that case.) I suspect that's exactly what we're looking at with fusion as well; we're just not far enough up the curve yet.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.