NASA and Google To Back New "Singularity University"

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.

Comments

Doing != Teaching

[LingNoi]

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.

Re:Doing != Teaching

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Doing != Teaching

[genner]

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.

Re:Doing != Teaching

[collinstocks]

...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.

Re:Doing != Teaching

[martin-boundary]

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.

Re:Doing != Teaching

[DiegoBravo]

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.

But the real question is...

[zerospeaks]

Will it blend?

here we go

[QuantumG]

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

Re:here we go

[morgan_greywolf]

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.

Re:here we go

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:here we go

[CannonballHead]

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.

Re:here we go

[inputdev]

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

Re:here we go

[geekoid]

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.

Re:here we go

[geekoid]

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.

Re:here we go

[durrr]

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.

Re:here we go

[bnenning]

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.

Re:here we go

[badboy_tw2002]

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!"

Re:here we go

[ClassMyAss]

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.

Re:here we go

[dbIII]

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.

TED conference

[Rei]

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).

Re:TED conference

[TubeSteak]

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.

Sad.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Sad.

[QuantumG]

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

Re:Sad.

[kurzweilfreak]

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

Re:Sad.

[ClassMyAss]

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.

The Singularity is Nonsense

[mosb1000]

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".

Re:The Singularity is Nonsense

[fm6]

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

Re:The Singularity is Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Re:The Singularity is Nonsense

[HaeMaker]

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.

I believe in it

[mangu]

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.

Kurzweil/Diamandis TED slideshow released

[kkleiner]

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

buzz

[Un pobre guey]

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.

Re:buzz

[CodeBuster]

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

Nowhere

[BorgCopyeditor]

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?

Re:Nowhere

[ChienAndalu]

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.

Re:Nowhere

[Timothy Brownawell]

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.

Re:Nowhere

[Anonymous Coward]

it's called python, bitch.

The Singularity is not near

[PietjeJantje]

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.

Re:Singularity University?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently my wife.

Re:Singularity University?

[RMH101]

She does. Trust me.