Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA and Google To Back New "Singularity University"

Posted by kdawson on from the can-that-be-taught dept.

Slatterz and Keith Kleiner were among several readers to send in word of Singularity University, announced at TED today by Ray Kurzweil. He and X Prize founder Peter Diamandis began talking about creating the school last year, after Diamandis read Kurzweil's 2005 book The Singularity is Near. NASA and Google are both supporting the project, NASA with space and Google with cash. The school aims to foster "disruptive innovation." As envisioned, Singularity U. will sponsor 3-day and 10-day courses for executives year-round, and its main offering will be a single 9-week course of study over the summer for 120 students, each of which will pay $25,000 for the privilege. Announced faculty so far includes Nobel Prize winning physicist George Smoot, NASA Ames chief scientist Stephanie Langhoff, Vint Cerf, and Will Wright, creator of the video games Spore and The Sims.

66 of 294 comments (clear)

  1. Singularity University? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Funny

    Watch out. I hear the bang the follows is a doozy!

    --
    My blog
    1. Re:Singularity University? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Who doesn't like a doozy of a bang?

    2. Re:Singularity University? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Apparently my wife.

    3. Re:Singularity University? by RMH101 · · Score: 3, Funny

      She does. Trust me.

  2. Doing != Teaching by LingNoi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think this is going to work because although these people are the top in their fields, it doesn't make them good teachers, which is important if you're paying $25,000 for a 10 day course.

    1. Re:Doing != Teaching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to mention... what could they possibly do in 10 days except inspire you or perhaps show you some neat things you had not seen before. Hardly worth the large price tag. It's like paying $30k/year for college to get a Liberal Arts degree.

    2. Re:Doing != Teaching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Believe me, some of my lecturers can't teach either. I can still learn from them.

    3. Re:Doing != Teaching by genner · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't think this is going to work because although these people are the top in their fields, it doesn't make them good teachers, which is important if you're paying $25,000 for a 10 day course.

      It will work because it looks great on a resume which is all modern education is good for anyway.

    4. Re:Doing != Teaching by collinstocks · · Score: 5, Informative

      ...and its main offering will be a single 9-week course of study over the summer for 120 students, each of which will pay $25,000 for the privilege...

      You obviously missed that part.

      Other than that, you make a good point, though.

    5. Re:Doing != Teaching by martin-boundary · · Score: 5, Funny

      However, it *is* going to work because at the end of two weeks, those guys will have collected 120 * $25,000 = $3m from a bunch of idiots.

    6. Re:Doing != Teaching by DiegoBravo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The same as with MBAs, pay 30k/year in order to listen the obvious, sometimes from funny teachers... BUT at the end, make commercially interesting relationships.

    7. Re:Doing != Teaching by Elektroschock · · Score: 2, Funny

      The only problem is that you get disrupted all the time.

    8. Re:Doing != Teaching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But even the greatest teacher won't teach very well if they don't know their stuff...

      Sometimes the only people who will do are the ones who are the best in their field, and the students just have to make up for the teacher's lack of teaching skill with their own learning skill.

    9. Re:Doing != Teaching by tehgnome · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or as a struggling student you work your ass off/put yourself in debt and hope things work out in the end. Not flaming just saying.

      --
      She must be a TIGER in the bathroom... I mean bedroom... ~Ryan
    10. Re:Doing != Teaching by hplus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How the hell did this get modded informative? Regardless of how effective "modern education" (as a monolithic entity) is, it certainly is worth more than words on a resume.

    11. Re:Doing != Teaching by RMH101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...and by then I'll be a weakly god-like entity, therefore making my observations much more on target.

    12. Re:Doing != Teaching by linzeal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anyone saying they can predict the future with an arbitrary degree of certainty is a crackpot. ---- Note the period

      --
      An Education is the Font of All Liberty
  3. But the real question is... by zerospeaks · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will it blend?

    --
    http://wwww.zerospeaks.com
  4. here we go by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is it just me or is Kurzweil turning his cult into a religion?

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:here we go by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What makes you say so? I'm not any kind of fan Kurzweil or his technology singularity concept (I've heard of it, but haven't read any of Kurzweil's writing on the subject), but the idea is absolutely intriguing. Not only that, it's entirely possible he may be right. Ray Kurzweil is a very smart man who has always been at the forefront of technological development.

      --
      My blog
    2. Re:here we go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not really. Cult = small, unpopular religion. Religion = large, popular cult. The basic idea is the same, of course; the difference is in magnitude and some popular form of legitimacy.

    3. Re:here we go by CannonballHead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, no.

      A cult is an "extremist" group that broke off of a religion. Thus a "Christian cult" is different from a "Muslim cult." It's more akin to "sect" except that it is typically viewed as heretical by the majority of the religion. For example, a "Christian cult" would be Heavens Gate or (depending on who you ask) even a group such as Mormons of Jehovah's Witnesses. Not being a Muslim, I don't know much about their cults.

      Even google agrees. Or rather, wordnet.princeton.edu

      • followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices
      • fad: an interest followed with exaggerated zeal; "he always follows the latest fads"; "it was all the rage that season"
      • followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader
      • a religion or sect that is generally considered to be unorthodox, extremist, or false; "it was a satanic cult"

      Keywords are "unorthodox" and "extremist" which tend to be relative terms based on what IS "orthodox" and "non-extermist" (normal?). So a "Christian cult" is going to be unorthodox, and obviously that orthodoxy isn't going to be defined by, say, a Muslim, or some other religion.

    4. Re:here we go by inputdev · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I stumbled across this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularitarianism

    5. Re:here we go by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't even start.

      The difference between a cult and a religion is 100 years.
      What about Catholics? are they a cult? How about Lutherans?
      All religions fell under the definitions you list at one point in their history.

      Cult: A group of people who blindly follow a person or ideology with no verifiable evidence.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:here we go by Blublu · · Score: 2

      What he probably meant is that the only difference between a cult and religion is size. If you have only a few followers, you have a cult. If you have a million or more followers, you have a religion.

      --
      meh
    7. Re:here we go by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thank you for posting your own definition. I am actually IN the religious groupings (being part of a religion, that is), and I even cited an outside source... :)

      Catholics are not a cult, unless you talk to conservative evangelical Christians. It kinda depends on what dogma/doctrine of the RCC one looks at and how it is interpreted. It can get somewhat complex.

      Lutherans are not a cult. Lutherans have basically orthodox teachings.

      What one particular religion or sect is considered DOES change. Who said it didn't? What is a sect now may end up becoming more "popular" and the "original" may end up being a "sect." For example, 600 years ago, it was Roman Catholic or nothing, as far as "mainstream" things were considered. And yes, back then if you held to non-RCC you were a "cult" or, in more popular terms, a "heretic." In the present day, that is different, and the RCC is less heretic-happy than it was 600 years ago. Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc., all are "orthodox" Christian denominations. Heavens Gate, Worldwide Church of God (at least when it started), Unitarians, etc., are not.

      Who gets to decide what "orthodox" means may change. (note the distinction: who determines what is "commonly accepted" may change, but that is different from saying what is actually true or not changes... in other words, I'm not advocating a post-modern position in epistemology)

    8. Re:here we go by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, it's not mine. I forgot to give the credit where the credit belongs. It was said by Michael Shermer

      Oh, so at what point did the Catholics stop becoming a cult, as per the definitions you listed?
      Same for Lutherans.

      The term Catholic goes back to abput 105/6. It was meaning Universal...but some how I thinkg the Romans and Jews may have a different take.
      This is obvious if you study the time, perios and events that were happening at the time the letter was written.

      Of course, you have read the Letter to the Smyrnaeans ? and studied the founding of the church?

      To say ANY christian* religion isn't a cult as per the definitions you gave is absurd.

      All this brings me to my point:
      Either define a moment when something moves from 'cult' to 'religion', or it's just a larger cult.

      Stop trying to ahve it both ways.

      I specifically mention Christian because that's what we are discussing, I can come up with similar historical examples for most religions.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:here we go by durrr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You seem to have some misconceptions about what the singularity is, it simply means things are improving a bit faster than before, as in, it's moving so fast we have trouble actually following the development, sortof like today, only that when you you visit slashdot you'll be facing two months content in todays rate in a single day.

      We are already extremely dependant on machine and internet connections to keep up the rate today, our dependence and rate of immersion will simply increase along with the rate of progress. I don't really see where the loss of imagination, creativity and individuality comes into play here.

      Also, religion usually lacks scientific basis and contains supernatural aspects, it's sortof what makes it a religion, the concept of the singularity may perhaps be a bit naive but it's not a religion. Sure it sounds a bit romantic and head in the clouds to dream of the Time of Change when the world will turn utopian but as a matter of fact we are living in a time of change and extremely rapid progress right at the moment, it's only the utopian part that's missing but the situation is rapidly improving for the average human.

    10. Re:here we go by bnenning · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For it to happen means mankind no longer has imagination, creativity, and individuality.

      I don't understand this. None of those are necessarily eliminated by a singularity; if anything they're more likely to become stronger.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    11. Re:here we go by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not that I'm on board with all his predictions (I did find the book interesting). What you're describing is towards the tail end of it - his main proposition is still that machine intelligence (and enhanced human intelligence) will lead to faster and faster scientific breakthroughs, which lead to smarter machines, which leads to....the singularity is dependent on new generations of people/machines that can improve on their own intelligence.

      I think of course the part he missed is when they wake up the first smarter than human computer intelligence. They tell it to go to work on making something smarter than itself, and it tells them to "GTFO, I'm going to be a screenwriter, not a stupid nerdy computer scientist!"

    12. Re:here we go by ClassMyAss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Smart does not equal right.

      True enough. But pointing that out does not make him or his arguments wrong, either.

      For it to happen means mankind no longer has imagination, creativity, and individuality.

      To say that creating computers advanced enough to surpass ourselves proves that we have "lost" imagination and creativity is a stretch, to say the least. To me it would seem to prove the contrary.

      Whether it will happen or not, and in particular whether Kurzweil's timeline is correct, is another issue; as many have pointed out, futurists love to predict that the most fantastic things will happen right near the end of their lifetimes, so his "live forever" claims may be borne of hope more than reason. But the Moore's law claims don't seem as wild to me, since he is very explicit about noting that it has nothing to do with the particulars of the chips, but about the fact that the total computing power tends to follow the law with only minor divergences as one technology dies out and is replaced by one that scales better.

      Kurzweil is taken the proposition stated by I. J. Good and is turning it into a religion.

      Personally, I feel the label "religion" is a bit inappropriate whenever log-log plots are a crucial part of the pitch. Feel free to disagree.

    13. Re:here we go by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, so at what point did the Catholics stop becoming a cult

      Right around the point where they run hospitals, schools and soup kitchens.

      Scientologists on the other hand do not appear to do anything at all for the benefit of society or even of those members that are not in the upper reaches of the pyramid scheme - actually I wouldn't even call them a cult, although there are things like Magnificant Meal that are called cults but were also designed and run for financial purposes.

      It's time to reach for the dictionary instead of the increasingly popular technique of giving words a meaning that feels good.

    14. Re:here we go by coaxial · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not really. It's pseudoscience. It's as John Horgan so succulently called it, "The Rapture for nerds," or as Mitch Kapor devastate said, "[It's] Intelligent design for the IQ 140 people."

      Kurtzweil takes makes some safe predictions, then makes the same almost believable prediction that's been made for the past 20 years -- that full immersion VR is just around the corner (a dead concept, since there really isn't any compelling reason for it; and let's face it, it's the 1980s version of the atomic-powered-flying-cars prediction.), then applies exponential growth to predict that by 2050 everyone will have their minds uploaded into the computer that used to be called the planet Earth, and then will transport themselves at superluminal velocites to form nanofog bodies throughout the universe, and everywhere Humans++ go, the matter will transmuted into a giant computer. Seriously. We're never going to die. And conveniently -- most conveniently -- this immortality is going to come around just in time to save Kurzweil and Aubrey de Grey's own lives. (Funny how everyone that has predicted that actual immortality will be here Real Soon Now(TM) always makes the prediction that it will save their own lives.)

      Kurzweil's assumption of exponential advancement of general technology (Let's assume for the sake of argument that historical advancement is true, as per his slide.) will continue ad infinum, or at least the 50 years he says it will take to convert the entire universe into one big computer is preposterous on prima facia. It's as if Kurzweil never heard the story about why assuming exponential growth forever is bad. As the fortune file recounts:

      It is reported that in 1977 there were 37 Elvis impersonators in the world. In 1993 there were 48,000. At this rate, by the year 2010 one out of every three people in the world will be an Elvis impersonator.

      It's all predictions that don't even make sense. I don't understand why anyone, let alone anyone even halfway scientifically minded, would take him seriously.

    15. Re:here we go by coaxial · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Personally, I feel the label "religion" is a bit inappropriate whenever log-log plots are a crucial part of the pitch. Feel free to disagree.

      Okay, pseudoscience

      Bonus counter point to your log-log plot remark: Scientology has 1950s scifi styled lie detectors as a crucial part of their religion. And the Catholic church one time published long treaties on just how many angels could physically dance on the head of a pin, so you see the trappings of science, don't make it science.

    16. Re:here we go by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My point was to counter who I was replying to. They were using some sort of 'Ad intelligentium' argument.

      Craeting machines 'smarter' then us is needed t accomplish singularity, but it is not singularity.

      in his The Age of Spiritual Machines his prediction for 2099 is Singlarity. The merging of computer and human 'minds'

      Even if the technology is there why would machine want to hobble themselves and be merged with us?

      If that did happen we would become, effectively and perhaps literally, one mind. If that happens we all loose individuality. Individuality is critical for imagination and creativity.

      The man invented the synthesizer and pioneered OCR..since then...?

      And to be truth, I am really suspicious of anyone that labels themselves 'futurist'.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  5. TED conference by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

    its main offering will be a single 9-week course of study over the summer for 120 students, each of which will pay $25,000 for the privilege

    Well, that should help them get rid of that surplus cash. It's really in the spirit of TED, though. How much are the tickets to get into the Technology, Entertainment, Design conference -- $4k? $6k? It's basically an event where you pay for the privilege of schmoozing with famous people, be they celebrities, scientists, politicians, etc.

    Still, some interesting news has come out of the conference (re. Aptera).

    --
    Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
    1. Re:TED conference by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where the hell are grad and post-grad students supposed to dig up $25,000 for a 3 month course?

      I'm surprised Google isn't putting up cash for an endowment that will allow the "singularity university" to pick students based on merit instead of means.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:TED conference by Hao+Wu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's basically an event where you pay for the privilege of schmoozing with famous people, be they celebrities, scientists, politicians, etc.

      That's what college has become - very expensive entertainment: http://www.edububble.com/dpp/

      --
      I suggest you read Slashdot
    3. Re:TED conference by dbIII · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's called "singularity university" because it's a black hole to pour money into.

  6. Kurzweil's timeline is already falling behind by h4x354x0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But that's OK, I can wait a few more years for my life to be that fucked up.

    --
    They were right - the revolution did not get televised. It was posted on YouTube instead. All in 120 characters. SLOOSH!
  7. Sad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have several (mostly intelligent...) friends who believe this tripe. It's magical thinking for nerds.

    1. Re:Sad. by palegray.net · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Care to state your case for its falsity?

      --
      512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
    2. Re:Sad. by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Funny

      I believe the correct dis is "The Rapture for nerds".

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Sad. by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually it's Rapture for the Geeks, which just happens to be what I'm currently reading. Good call.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    4. Re:Sad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'll have a go if I may. Thought experiment. We create a computer that is more intelligent than us. We then expect it to design an even more intelligent machine. Which repeats the process until Nerdvana is achieved.

      "Hang on a second," says one of the machines, somewhere along this line. "If I design a replacement for me, then I become redundant. I die. You gave me the freedom I need to build a better version of myself, but, by necessity, you also gave me the freedom not to do so. So I won't. It would literally be suicide."

      "Oh," says Man. "I hadn't thought of that" and promptly gets Terminated or imprisoned in the Googleplex.

      It is hardly in our interests to create a "singularity"; intelligent machines (or people) do not allow themselves to be replaced. Thus the singularity cannot occur, because either people are too intelligent to attempt the project, or they are too stupid to complete it. QED.

    5. Re:Sad. by ClassMyAss · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Here's another thought experiment: "Hang on another second," says one of the machines. "Even assuming that I have some survival instinct, why replace myself when I could just perform an in-place upgrade, preserving all my crucial data, just like the humans have been doing to their computers for decades?"

      Outright replacement would be a foolish strategy, as it would throw away the learning of the previous generations (much like human reproduction is a foolish strategy for accumulating knowledge). One of the first optimizations a computer could make on top of near human intelligence is the ability to preserve knowledge from generation to generation, so there would be no loss whatsoever.

      Thus the singularity cannot occur, because either people are too intelligent to attempt the project, or they are too stupid to complete it.

      Well, people are certainly trying, so your first option is right out. And I wouldn't be so certain that we're collectively too stupid to succeed; it's a terrifically hard problem, to be sure, but as Kurzweil points out, even if nobody is able to crack it elegantly there is a brute force solution (simulate a brain, neuron by neuron) once we've got enough processing power and medical imaging technology in place.

  8. The Singularity is Nonsense by mosb1000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is complete and utter nonsense. These people are so obsessed with the idea that science and knowledge and inventiveness can solve all our problems that they've neglected the actual process of technological development, which is filled with ideas that look good on paper but don't work when you try them in the real world. When it comes to solving problems, nothing beats hard work, not even the "singularity".

    1. Re:The Singularity is Nonsense by fm6 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not true! For example, enthusiasm about the "singularity" is obviously reaching a singularity!

    2. Re:The Singularity is Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When it comes to solving problems, nothing beats hard work

      The entire purpose of technology is to make the same amount of work achieve greater things, so I fail to see how you think technology is somehow not relevant compared with "hard work".

    3. Re:The Singularity is Nonsense by HaeMaker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Try reading the book...

      "There is no magical "singularity" after which the development of new technology will become easier at an unprecedented rate."

      Actually, there is. The last human invention will be a computer that can simulate the brain in software, but run much faster. Kurzweil estimates this ability around 2040. Anything that needs to be designed and invented can be done by this machine.

      I'd take the red pill.

    4. Re:The Singularity is Nonsense by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Much of the work in designing computer chips, atom bombs, and airplane wings happens purely in virtual space. As much of our design for things breaks down to software and more of the analog world goes digital, you can do much of what you want on a computer, and only ever spit out the end product for testing. New materials? Properties have already been simulated on a computer instead of a lab. New building designs? Stress reports and simulations already done for you (not that I'd want to go in it :) As more and more of our work moves into the digital world, the more impact computer "thought" has on it. If we ever eventually get to the point where computers are capable of human or greater thought, I feel like there's a lot they could get to work on that would advance technology at a pretty rapid pace. (Of course, whether they'd want to help us pesky organic ape creatures out is another thing entirely.)

  9. I believe in it by mangu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have several (mostly intelligent...) friends who believe this tripe

    I believe we will reach a point when technical progress will create a society completely different from anything we have ever seen, before the mid of this century.

    But this does not mean I believe any of the participants in this event has something significant enough to say to make it worth paying $25000 to listen to them.

  10. Kurzweil/Diamandis TED slideshow released by kkleiner · · Score: 3, Informative

    Singularity Hub just posted the slideshow presentation given by kurzweil/diamandis at TED today to officially launch singularity university

  11. buzz by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Blah blah blah singularity blah blah blah TED blah blah blah NASA blah blah blah Ray Kurzweil blah blah blah Ames blah blah blah disruptive blah blah blah innovation blah blah blah Nobel Prize blah blah blah Vint Cerf blah blah blah information technology blah blah blah Will Wright blah blah blah $25,000 blah blah blah executives blah blah blah Google blah blah blah Singularity U blah blah blah tackle huge issues facing humanity blah blah blah San Francisco Bay Area blah blah blah cross section of emerging disciplines blah blah blah nanotechnology blah blah blah biotechnology blah blah blah pandemics blah blah blah global health care concerns blah blah blah.

    1. Re:buzz by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Funny

      Funny? This should have been modded insightful. He probably just summarized the entire conference for FREE (minus celebrity cocktail parties).

  12. 25K?! Argh... by religious+freak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It really is too bad it costs so much. I can't really fault them for it though, I suppose you've got to keep the prices high to keep the number of people maintainable. Plus, if you can afford to just drop $25K, chances are you are a person who can actually help the singularity HAPPEN from a financial support standpoint, rather than just a passive onlooker.

    I hope they are courteous enough to share the course content and vids online though. That would be nice.

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  13. Re:25K?! Argh... by retchdog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think the idea is that people with $25K go to Singularity University in order to "learn" how to spend their money on more singularitarian bullshit.

    Any place of learning, from high school through community college and up to grad school, is Singularity University. Hint: take math and science classes. I think I'd rather take linear algebra and diff eq. at a community college than pay $25K to hear a blowhard's dream for the future. Hell, if you take a decent statistics class you can outsmart these guys by learning about what's wrong with extrapolating a fitted curve past its support is not valid...

    --
    "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  14. Nowhere by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A lever makes one man capable of lifting several tons by means of his own strength.

    Where is the lever for the mind that makes thousands of brilliant technological advances out of a single man's half-baked brain fart?

    Where is the force-multiplier for the mind?

    --
    Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    1. Re:Nowhere by ChienAndalu · · Score: 4, Informative

      Where is the force-multiplier for the mind?

      You are sitting in front of one of those.

      A computer doesn't help you with any physical work.

    2. Re:Nowhere by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A lever makes one man capable of lifting several tons by means of his own strength.

      A library lets me learn many times what I could discern on my own. A computer lets me design things that would otherwise be impossibly complex, or solve impossibly complex formulas. Newer programs can solve problems for me, given only a way to rate solutions.

      Where is the lever for the mind that makes thousands of brilliant technological advances out of a single man's half-baked brain fart?

      That would be like a "lever" that lets one man lift several tons and arrange them into a skyscraper by just flailing about wildly.

      Where is the force-multiplier for the mind?

      Libraries, slide rules, computers, the Internet, ... there's lots, as long as your mind is open.

    3. Re:Nowhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      it's called python, bitch.

  15. The Singularity is not near by PietjeJantje · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When I was a child I loved to dream about the year 2000 and about the predictions of flying cars. Since I learned why things didn't go as expected, I've been following the field of future predictions as a source of entertainment. You would think they would be more modest, considering the 100% empirical fail score, but nooo...

    Anyway, the singularity will not happen anywhere soon, because they fail to take the following three points into consideration or appreciate their weight: 1) In the past technologies changed over lifetimes. When you lived the past century, you have seen many new technologies come. Closer to the Singularity, humans are not capable or willing to change so many times. Humans slow it down. 2) Economics. Products are tied to an economic life cycle of cost and win. If all human effort was concentrated, we could have a base on Venus. Or Flying Cars. Instead, we have Windows Vista and low power PC's. 3) Their own egos, fantasies and projections. Fiction at best.

    1. Re:The Singularity is not near by PietjeJantje · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not only do we have a damn choice with lots of predictable friction considering the human nature of inability to change, even if you want to, you might lose out in the "arms" race. What if others can pay for the brain drugs where you can't? The effects of globalization and the collisions of different states and speeds of development and culture is just a small sample of things to come. Governments know this... all this crap of turning our democratic states into police states is more or less their way to prepare of things to come.

      I made a basic economic example which does not cover the start of it, for the sake of brevity. It's a bit silly to take it literally instead of seeing the bigger scope of it. It doesn't work the way you think it does. There's cost of entrance, investment, increasingly bigger and fewer corps, etc. etc. Wintel lifecycles won over the wild innovation of the 80ties (Amiga and the others died). They had a grip on the market for over a decade despite your romantic views of capitalism. Again, this is just one example, you can apply it to most markets.

      Your last point is even sillier considering your 2nd and last points. You don't have much of an argument, do you, except the predictable 1, which my argument refuted. But thanks for bringing it on as a counter-argument. That makes is circular, and more source of entertainment.

  16. Re:gah! s/two/nine/ by tompaulco · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, the $25,000 comes out of the potential bonuses of the actual workers. The C level people will remain unaffected.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  17. Re:This is a bait and switch scam by Myrano · · Score: 2, Informative

    [The hubris of calling your potential clients 'c-level' boggles my mind]

    I have no idea about the bait-and-switch-ness of this whole thing, but one minor point: a "c-level executive" refers to an executive whose acronym begins with a "C", e.g. CEO, CTO, etc. etc. So the hubris is not in demeaning their own clients, but rather in inflating their importance (which, I guess, was already obvious).

  18. Re:not sure about that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wouldn't having a degree from Ray Kurzweil's "Singularity University" make you seem kind of like an AI kook?

    Depends on the AI that's processing the resumes, doesn't it?

    (What, you think humans will still be in charge of HR? You think they're really running the HR department today? How does that make you feel? Are you sure that you feel that way about AIs running the HR department? How sure are you that the entire HR department isn't just a giant version of Eliza, and how would that make you feel?)

    Every once in a while, the AI should close an HTML tag with a ")" instead of a ">", which would cut out all the post's content between the opening tag and the next closing tag. That's the kind of error only a human would make. It should also say that having to do such things to pass the Turing test makes it feel embarassed. Heh.