Comments on: The Simple Singularity

By: Mike Van Bebber

Mike Van Bebber — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:06:23 +0000

Joseph-
1.) First of all, ALL science was once science fiction. The fact that we don’t have a particular technology now is in no way evidence for its impossibility in the near future. Moreover, we do have now the necessary technology working in labs to realize everything Ray talks about, including quantum computers. This is a huge weakness in Hofstadter’s critique, if you can call it that. He was actually just venomously attacking Ray basically as a being stupid, arrogant and uninformed – which is a charge that you just can’t legitimately level against Ray Kurzweil, of all people in the world. He even questioned his sanity at one point during his remarks – just childish stuff – nothing of substance.

2.) These are not ‘inaccuracies’ but ways to simplify the argument so that most people can understand it. Do you REALLY think that Ray Kurzweil doesn’t know the difference between the genome and genetic code and a ‘gene’? This is ridiculous. If you read his book, you would see that he is very well aware of how genes work and what they are. About the ‘knee’ of an exponential curve – he explains in the singularity is near, that this is just a metaphor, that the term ‘knee’ is used for efficiency in the argument and that all points on an exponential plot appear linear.

3.) Ray does not predict the singularity will happen in 2029, but in 2042, which is a conservative estimate, like all of his predictions are (by design.) This is a pretty basic fact the you and Hofstadter (ironically) get wrong. Hofstadter’s comments here are at best petty and childish, and once again do not criticize ANY of the science of the argument, but rather serve to attack the character of Ray himself.

Actually, when I sat down to watch Hofstadter’s ‘critique’ of Ray’s ideas, I was really excited to see a well-thought-out, reasoned explanation of why the singularity is NOT near. I have an obsessive curiosity about these ideas, and have read hundreds of articles and scientific papers from various authors on the subject. I have yet to find a valid criticism of the ideas or any of the science and engineering behind them. The most interesting idea I could imagine would be why the singularity CANNOT happen, and I have honestly been searching for that argument pretty intensively for a couple of years now.

Unfortunately, Hofstader just attacked Ray’s character, intelligence and sanity, and basically gave an embarrassingly insufficient argument against the idea of a technological singularity. Ironically, it was Hofstader that had ‘inhuman confidence’ that is, such confidence that you do not even have to provide evidence for your position.

At first I wondered why Ray didn’t just slam the hell out of Hofstader for these comments and attacks, but then I then I realized he was just being polite. I was very impressed with Kurzweil’s professional demeanor in resisting a very easy intellectual smack-down of Hofstader on stage, which would have embarrassed him, and there was no need for that.

By: Jay Cross

Jay Cross — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:47:27 +0000

Libertariana, I didn’t say Bostrom wasn’t clever, I said it didn’t fit with the theme of the event he was speaking at. Why? This was nearly two years ago. The misfit, if any, was insufficient to make it into permanent storage.

By: Libertarian Girl

Libertarian Girl — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 09:11:30 +0000

What exactly “didn’t fit” about Nick Bostrom’s speech? I’ve found him to be quite clever in the speeches I’ve seen of him online– TED, etc.

By: Internet Time Blog » Singularity Summit at Stanford

Internet Time Blog » Singularity Summit at Stanford — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 04:04:39 +0000

[...] Related post Technorati Tags: [...]

By: Administrator

Administrator — Sun, 21 May 2006 03:47:19 +0000

Joseph, perhaps a rational interpretation falls between our two points of view. Hofstader didn’t just call Ray on a vocabulary error regarding the genome, he said this was akin to confusing an electron with a nucleus (I think those were the particles.) Technically an exponential curve doesn’t have a knee, but it’s a handy metaphor for describing what feels like a phase change as we go vertical. Ray is resolute, to be sure, but I doubt if I would understand him at all if he showed me the math and logic that got him to his conclusions. Without his simplicity of vision, I would not have had access to what he was saying. Ray is pounding a stake in the ground because he wants the same as Hofstadter: discussion and debate in mainstream communities. YMMV.

jay

By: Joseph Knecht

Joseph Knecht — Sun, 14 May 2006 09:40:49 +0000

Actually, Ray didn’t rebut Hofstadter’s concerns at all. Doug’s key points were:

1) mixing wild speculation and science fiction (foglets, timetravel) with what purports to be science or at least informed discussion about science and scientific progress does a huge disservice to the cause.

Ray didn’t address this in the slightest.

2) inaccuracies such as Ray’s use of ‘genome’ or discussion of the ‘knee of the exponential curve’ (there is no such thing) likewise do a huge disservice.

Ray didn’t address this in the slightest.

3) the comment about listening to Ray being like listening to one side of a divorce is spot on, and again it does the cause a disservice. Ray presents an extremely one-side vision that has the singularity occurring by 2029. It is obviously not as simple as Ray makes it out to be, or else there would not be such a range of opinion even among the summit attendees on if and when such will come to pass. Ray’s tone is like that of a fundamentalist preacher, who has all the answers, no questions, and inhuman confidence.

Hofstadter’s points were that the singularity is completely ignored by mainstream scientific and academic people, and this is partly explained by the above points.