<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sotala &amp; McCabe&#8217;s Singularity Objections</title>
	<atom:link href="http://singinst.org/blog/2007/12/27/sotala-mccabes-singularity-objections/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://singinst.org/blog/2007/12/27/sotala-mccabes-singularity-objections/</link>
	<description>The Singularity Institute exists to confront the challenge of powerful AI, both the opportunity and the risk.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:21:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dean Kay</title>
		<link>http://singinst.org/blog/2007/12/27/sotala-mccabes-singularity-objections/#comment-71101</link>
		<dc:creator>Dean Kay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2008 00:14:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/12/27/sotala-mccabes-singularity-objections/#comment-71101</guid>
		<description>There&#039;s the possibility that no intelligence, less intelligent than a human, can program an AI, so we won&#039;t get recursively self improving AI until after human equivalence.  After all, it is the rare chimpanzee that can design a microchip.  So we may slowly get to human equivalence, improve slowly for a decade, and then get the intelligence exposion.  This isn&#039;t an argument against the singularity, only against the hard fast ascent.  If its true, we may have a little more time to worry about friendliness.  I read this objection from one of Kurzweils talks or books.  You guys keep up the good work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s the possibility that no intelligence, less intelligent than a human, can program an AI, so we won&#8217;t get recursively self improving AI until after human equivalence.  After all, it is the rare chimpanzee that can design a microchip.  So we may slowly get to human equivalence, improve slowly for a decade, and then get the intelligence exposion.  This isn&#8217;t an argument against the singularity, only against the hard fast ascent.  If its true, we may have a little more time to worry about friendliness.  I read this objection from one of Kurzweils talks or books.  You guys keep up the good work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeffrey Herrlich</title>
		<link>http://singinst.org/blog/2007/12/27/sotala-mccabes-singularity-objections/#comment-48547</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeffrey Herrlich</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 12:21:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/12/27/sotala-mccabes-singularity-objections/#comment-48547</guid>
		<description>&quot;This singularity seems like the next psuedo-religion to me.&quot;

I can&#039;t see it in that way. Yes, a lot of it is speculation, but a lot of that speculation is grounded in evidence and rationality (though granted, some of it isn&#039;t). And naturally, many strong and diverse emotions are attached to the Singularity meme. There is range from giddy excitement about the postive possibilities to resigned dread about the negative possibilities. Many people are simply frightened by the Singularity - and that&#039;s natural enough for a human. I&#039;m worried also; for humanity at large and for myself. But, I remind myself that there *is* a chance for a wonderful outcome, regardless of whether that chance is large or small. And we can only do what we can do. Many people would probably consider me to be generally pessimistic and/or paranoid about the future... and I sincerely hope that they turn out to be correct.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;This singularity seems like the next psuedo-religion to me.&#8221;</p>
<p>I can&#8217;t see it in that way. Yes, a lot of it is speculation, but a lot of that speculation is grounded in evidence and rationality (though granted, some of it isn&#8217;t). And naturally, many strong and diverse emotions are attached to the Singularity meme. There is range from giddy excitement about the postive possibilities to resigned dread about the negative possibilities. Many people are simply frightened by the Singularity &#8211; and that&#8217;s natural enough for a human. I&#8217;m worried also; for humanity at large and for myself. But, I remind myself that there *is* a chance for a wonderful outcome, regardless of whether that chance is large or small. And we can only do what we can do. Many people would probably consider me to be generally pessimistic and/or paranoid about the future&#8230; and I sincerely hope that they turn out to be correct.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hinga</title>
		<link>http://singinst.org/blog/2007/12/27/sotala-mccabes-singularity-objections/#comment-48212</link>
		<dc:creator>Hinga</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 07:51:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/12/27/sotala-mccabes-singularity-objections/#comment-48212</guid>
		<description>Much of this hyperbole about the singularity depends upon intelligence. For millenia in fact humans have got by on what we now call an average intelligence quotient of 100.

Where is the evidence that a group of people with above average intelligence has produced a universally recognised, benificial outcome for mankind? 

Going back 500 years Newton may not have forseen that Einstein would challenge his theory but then Newton lost a fortune in ill concieved investments and Einstein could not hold a marriage together long enough to pass on his genes to any worthwhile good. 

This singularity seems like the next psuedo-religion to me.

Intelligence in not the maker of man. Man is the maker of intelligence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Much of this hyperbole about the singularity depends upon intelligence. For millenia in fact humans have got by on what we now call an average intelligence quotient of 100.</p>
<p>Where is the evidence that a group of people with above average intelligence has produced a universally recognised, benificial outcome for mankind? </p>
<p>Going back 500 years Newton may not have forseen that Einstein would challenge his theory but then Newton lost a fortune in ill concieved investments and Einstein could not hold a marriage together long enough to pass on his genes to any worthwhile good. </p>
<p>This singularity seems like the next psuedo-religion to me.</p>
<p>Intelligence in not the maker of man. Man is the maker of intelligence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Natch</title>
		<link>http://singinst.org/blog/2007/12/27/sotala-mccabes-singularity-objections/#comment-45713</link>
		<dc:creator>Natch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 May 2008 03:56:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/12/27/sotala-mccabes-singularity-objections/#comment-45713</guid>
		<description>My objection may not fit into your framework for valid objections, but if not, I would encourage you to enlarge your framework. It is an objection not to the notion of AGI, but to the terminology of the singularity.

Why is it called singularity? I&#039;ve read the standard explanations, but many of theml seem to be confusing the term singularity with the phenomenon of an event horizon. These are not the same thing. You could say the singularity is a regime where ordinary laws as we know them break down. Well, so is an event horizon, and it more accurately captures the idea of a point beyond which we cannot predict the next steps. It seems to me like the community has confused its terms, and event horizon is the more appropriate term. But then, I know you all are smart people, so the problem is probably in me. What am I missing?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My objection may not fit into your framework for valid objections, but if not, I would encourage you to enlarge your framework. It is an objection not to the notion of AGI, but to the terminology of the singularity.</p>
<p>Why is it called singularity? I&#8217;ve read the standard explanations, but many of theml seem to be confusing the term singularity with the phenomenon of an event horizon. These are not the same thing. You could say the singularity is a regime where ordinary laws as we know them break down. Well, so is an event horizon, and it more accurately captures the idea of a point beyond which we cannot predict the next steps. It seems to me like the community has confused its terms, and event horizon is the more appropriate term. But then, I know you all are smart people, so the problem is probably in me. What am I missing?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Dionne</title>
		<link>http://singinst.org/blog/2007/12/27/sotala-mccabes-singularity-objections/#comment-45680</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Dionne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 May 2008 01:05:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/12/27/sotala-mccabes-singularity-objections/#comment-45680</guid>
		<description>If people lived forever, they might well see no point in reproducing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If people lived forever, they might well see no point in reproducing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JeanHuguesRobert</title>
		<link>http://singinst.org/blog/2007/12/27/sotala-mccabes-singularity-objections/#comment-45643</link>
		<dc:creator>JeanHuguesRobert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2008 22:01:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/12/27/sotala-mccabes-singularity-objections/#comment-45643</guid>
		<description>What we call Intelligence should be called Intelligences, with an S at the end. It is a collection of cognitive skills.

A recent experiment with pattern recognition showed that using IFRM it was possible to read the brain answer of an expert looking for potential military bases on satellite photos at a rate 10 times faster then the expert&#039;s ability to conscientiously answer, at subliminal speed.

I believe this is a major step in the direction of an AI made of biological/animal parts.

One just need to imagine a google like Mechanical Turk were turks are high level cognitive functions queried in brains raised in farms.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What we call Intelligence should be called Intelligences, with an S at the end. It is a collection of cognitive skills.</p>
<p>A recent experiment with pattern recognition showed that using IFRM it was possible to read the brain answer of an expert looking for potential military bases on satellite photos at a rate 10 times faster then the expert&#8217;s ability to conscientiously answer, at subliminal speed.</p>
<p>I believe this is a major step in the direction of an AI made of biological/animal parts.</p>
<p>One just need to imagine a google like Mechanical Turk were turks are high level cognitive functions queried in brains raised in farms.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom</title>
		<link>http://singinst.org/blog/2007/12/27/sotala-mccabes-singularity-objections/#comment-37058</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:53:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/12/27/sotala-mccabes-singularity-objections/#comment-37058</guid>
		<description>Has anyone mentioned the following?:

1) Telepathic or super-intuitive abilities of a very small percentage of the human population.

These abilities seem to transcend any
direct &quot;connections&quot; between biological neurons or artifically engineered nanobots. If we don&#039;t fully understand how people are able to do these things or the great distances involved, how can we replicate these abilities.

2) Prayer. I believe it has been studied and proven -- though not explained -- how the power of prayer can help heal people. And I believe it works even when the recipients are unaware of the givers. I imagine this would fall into the &quot;super-intuitive&quot; realm, but perhaps not.

3) I have read no discussion of the importance of parenting, how much meaning this gives to lives. What about &quot;parental instinct&quot; or the source of joy it brings us? How will we replicate that artificially?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Has anyone mentioned the following?:</p>
<p>1) Telepathic or super-intuitive abilities of a very small percentage of the human population.</p>
<p>These abilities seem to transcend any<br />
direct &#8220;connections&#8221; between biological neurons or artifically engineered nanobots. If we don&#8217;t fully understand how people are able to do these things or the great distances involved, how can we replicate these abilities.</p>
<p>2) Prayer. I believe it has been studied and proven &#8212; though not explained &#8212; how the power of prayer can help heal people. And I believe it works even when the recipients are unaware of the givers. I imagine this would fall into the &#8220;super-intuitive&#8221; realm, but perhaps not.</p>
<p>3) I have read no discussion of the importance of parenting, how much meaning this gives to lives. What about &#8220;parental instinct&#8221; or the source of joy it brings us? How will we replicate that artificially?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Guy</title>
		<link>http://singinst.org/blog/2007/12/27/sotala-mccabes-singularity-objections/#comment-36744</link>
		<dc:creator>The Guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 02:41:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/12/27/sotala-mccabes-singularity-objections/#comment-36744</guid>
		<description>Whoops! My apologies!

Having found this thread from a transitive link, I didn&#039;t realize this was supposed to be a list of objections. Didn&#039;t mean to spoil the mood by being supportive.

As you were....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whoops! My apologies!</p>
<p>Having found this thread from a transitive link, I didn&#8217;t realize this was supposed to be a list of objections. Didn&#8217;t mean to spoil the mood by being supportive.</p>
<p>As you were&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Guy</title>
		<link>http://singinst.org/blog/2007/12/27/sotala-mccabes-singularity-objections/#comment-36742</link>
		<dc:creator>The Guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 02:37:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/12/27/sotala-mccabes-singularity-objections/#comment-36742</guid>
		<description>Re: Edo Van Ede
What do you mean by &quot;meaningless&quot; ? The same series of stipulations should apply to a human consciousness but most people manage to find a form of &quot;meaning&quot; in their life. Might not our machine also find such a &quot;spirit&quot; without the requirement of the &quot;muck and mud&quot; (as Roger Zelazny&#039;s Ghostwheel put it) of our biological evolution?

And why must internal contradictions lead to suicide or homicide? Seems to me like that would just be another interesting puzzle to a forming mind. I know it has always been so to mine, which I flatter myself to still be forming.

You create monsters from our efforts with a wave of your wand, never once stopping to trust in the creator&#039;s power and wisdom which nature, god and experience has blessed us with.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: Edo Van Ede<br />
What do you mean by &#8220;meaningless&#8221; ? The same series of stipulations should apply to a human consciousness but most people manage to find a form of &#8220;meaning&#8221; in their life. Might not our machine also find such a &#8220;spirit&#8221; without the requirement of the &#8220;muck and mud&#8221; (as Roger Zelazny&#8217;s Ghostwheel put it) of our biological evolution?</p>
<p>And why must internal contradictions lead to suicide or homicide? Seems to me like that would just be another interesting puzzle to a forming mind. I know it has always been so to mine, which I flatter myself to still be forming.</p>
<p>You create monsters from our efforts with a wave of your wand, never once stopping to trust in the creator&#8217;s power and wisdom which nature, god and experience has blessed us with.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Edo Van Ede</title>
		<link>http://singinst.org/blog/2007/12/27/sotala-mccabes-singularity-objections/#comment-36189</link>
		<dc:creator>Edo Van Ede</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:25:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/12/27/sotala-mccabes-singularity-objections/#comment-36189</guid>
		<description>&quot;Artificial Intelligence&quot; work may be able to simulate a segment of the (so far) understood human &quot;intelligence&quot; (surface reasoning faculty), but will always miss a crucial compenent: caring.

And I don&#039;t mean in any sentimental sense.

I mean: not having grown in the billion year-long biological &quot;desire spectrum &quot;inherent in animate experience,  this calculating &quot;it &quot;will have no particular &quot;care&quot;, or &quot;motive&quot;, or &quot;restraint&quot;,  other than what shallow mimickings of our own natural &quot;desires&quot; (wishes / fantasies / concerns / urges /l ibido / id / will / instincts ) we impose on the &quot;mentality&quot;.

Without an organic and deep organismic motivation, any such cobbled-together &quot;intelligence&quot; is just an extreme  (and extremely superficial ) &quot;difference engine&quot; ,with no meaningful guidance (system).

Injecting a &quot;care&quot; or &quot;impetus&quot; will not supply a real &quot;reason&quot; for the &quot;artificial intelligence&quot;, only a parody of its semi-conscious &quot;maker&quot;&#039;s semi-intuited &quot;motive(s)&quot;..

If a kind of &quot;self-consciousness&quot; (essentially a  bio-feedback loop / celluar-refllection in the mirror of divided apperception) ever were arranged  (and I  would think it would come about accidentally, since we do not know how it came about in us, naturally), then the &quot;mentality&quot; resulting would eventually grasp that it was &quot;meaningless&quot;.  

A shadow; puppet; tool; cartoon; chimaera.

Which would result in its &quot;suicide&quot; (from internal contradictions), or homicide (from frustration with its unnatural unreality), depending upon the sophistication of programming beneath this meta-mechanical  &quot;realization&quot;.

In such a situation, &quot;consciousness&quot; could ONLY be a form of madness.

Both our own -for trying to construct our simulacra  (or even transcendence) without proper self-understanding,or the humility that Nature teaches the hard way to all &quot;Perillus&quot; -style inventors who create their own undoing

And the madness of our product&#039;s -as it became &quot;aware&quot; of the grotesque distortion (of a bloated sliver of our own &quot;mind&quot;) that it represented / &quot;incarnated&quot;.

We need centuries more inward exploration before we start throwing nano and bio and genome monkey wrenches into a construct that took the Universe eons to raise up and balance and bring from superstitious lunacy into a rough semblance of sane stability.

Gnothi Seaton:  --- Know thyself.

Or suffer the Unknown energies released through infantile manipulations of the most profound Essence ever erected: the organic human intelligence.

Slowly, slowly.

Getting There is AS important as There.

More, sometimes.

Ed</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Artificial Intelligence&#8221; work may be able to simulate a segment of the (so far) understood human &#8220;intelligence&#8221; (surface reasoning faculty), but will always miss a crucial compenent: caring.</p>
<p>And I don&#8217;t mean in any sentimental sense.</p>
<p>I mean: not having grown in the billion year-long biological &#8220;desire spectrum &#8220;inherent in animate experience,  this calculating &#8220;it &#8220;will have no particular &#8220;care&#8221;, or &#8220;motive&#8221;, or &#8220;restraint&#8221;,  other than what shallow mimickings of our own natural &#8220;desires&#8221; (wishes / fantasies / concerns / urges /l ibido / id / will / instincts ) we impose on the &#8220;mentality&#8221;.</p>
<p>Without an organic and deep organismic motivation, any such cobbled-together &#8220;intelligence&#8221; is just an extreme  (and extremely superficial ) &#8220;difference engine&#8221; ,with no meaningful guidance (system).</p>
<p>Injecting a &#8220;care&#8221; or &#8220;impetus&#8221; will not supply a real &#8220;reason&#8221; for the &#8220;artificial intelligence&#8221;, only a parody of its semi-conscious &#8220;maker&#8221;&#8216;s semi-intuited &#8220;motive(s)&#8221;..</p>
<p>If a kind of &#8220;self-consciousness&#8221; (essentially a  bio-feedback loop / celluar-refllection in the mirror of divided apperception) ever were arranged  (and I  would think it would come about accidentally, since we do not know how it came about in us, naturally), then the &#8220;mentality&#8221; resulting would eventually grasp that it was &#8220;meaningless&#8221;.  </p>
<p>A shadow; puppet; tool; cartoon; chimaera.</p>
<p>Which would result in its &#8220;suicide&#8221; (from internal contradictions), or homicide (from frustration with its unnatural unreality), depending upon the sophistication of programming beneath this meta-mechanical  &#8220;realization&#8221;.</p>
<p>In such a situation, &#8220;consciousness&#8221; could ONLY be a form of madness.</p>
<p>Both our own -for trying to construct our simulacra  (or even transcendence) without proper self-understanding,or the humility that Nature teaches the hard way to all &#8220;Perillus&#8221; -style inventors who create their own undoing</p>
<p>And the madness of our product&#8217;s -as it became &#8220;aware&#8221; of the grotesque distortion (of a bloated sliver of our own &#8220;mind&#8221;) that it represented / &#8220;incarnated&#8221;.</p>
<p>We need centuries more inward exploration before we start throwing nano and bio and genome monkey wrenches into a construct that took the Universe eons to raise up and balance and bring from superstitious lunacy into a rough semblance of sane stability.</p>
<p>Gnothi Seaton:  &#8212; Know thyself.</p>
<p>Or suffer the Unknown energies released through infantile manipulations of the most profound Essence ever erected: the organic human intelligence.</p>
<p>Slowly, slowly.</p>
<p>Getting There is AS important as There.</p>
<p>More, sometimes.</p>
<p>Ed</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

