7 ms·

It would be very hard to argue that the singularity won't arrive eventually, provided humans survive long enough. It's just the date that's tough to predict. Su

It would be very hard to argue that the singularity won't arrive eventually, provided humans survive long enough. It's just the date that's tough to predict. Sure, computing power has been growing exponentially, but as they say, "past performance is no guarantee of future results", and there are so many other variables aside from raw processing speed.

gruseom 19y ago
It would be very hard to argue that the singularity won't arrive eventually Really? What if consciousness is not an algorithm?
- andreyf 19y ago
  What if consciousness is not an algorithm? Then it can be simulated using one. If chemical reactions can, it's just a matter of processing power.
  - mrtron 19y ago
    There is a huge fallacy to this. You would think that any formal system could be defined with axioms, but there are undefinable formal systems. In GEB, Hof explains that he thinks that this could be the missing piece to creating AI/life.
    - bumbledraven 19y ago
      I have never heard of any such thing, and neither has Google. I suspect you are very confused. Can you give an example of an "undefinable formal system" and say (1) how it satisfies the definition of "formal system" and (2) the sense in which it is "undefinable"?
- bumbledraven 19y ago
  What does consciousness have to do with it? Eventually there will be machines that are capable of passing the Turing test or something similar. The singularity is what happens next. ``To the question, "Will there ever be a computer as smart as a human?" I think the correct answer is, "Well, yes... very briefly."'' - Vernor Vinge
  - gruseom 19y ago
    What does consciousness have to do with it? It's human. If one or more aspects of being human aren't computable, then it's plausible that computers will never pass the Turing test. Of course, if you assume that the space of what can be expressed algorithmically is equivalent to the space of all that is, some of these claims become trivial. But that's a whopping leap of faith. Perhaps Richard Dawkins could get around to writing a book about that one when he's finished demolishing its more popular competitor. :)
    - bumbledraven 19y ago
      [Consciousness] is human. If one or more aspects of being human aren't computable, then it's plausible that computers will never pass the Turing test. You seem to be saying that a computer would have to actually be human or be conscious in order to pass the Turing Test. But passing the Test only requires the computer to simulate some observable behaviors of a conscious human well enough to fool a skilled interrogator. In particular, it only has to simulate those behaviors that are observable through a low-bandwidth TTY. I suppose one could argue that there simply does not exist an algorithm that could pass the Turing test (when run on a the powerful computers of the future), but that seems like a very hard case to make, particularly here on Hacker News. One could instead try to argue that though such an algorithm may exist, we will never find it, but that doesn't seem to be what you are saying either.
      - gruseom 19y ago
        I'm not saying there simply does not exist such an algorithm; I don't have an opinion on that one way or the other. I'm questioning your claim that "it would be very hard to argue that the singularity won't arrive eventually" because "eventually there will be machines that are capable of passing the Turing test" (emphasis added). You don't know that. Nobody does. Some people like the idea, some people don't; it's wishful thinking on both sides. My point was to offer one possible scenario under which computers might not pass the Turing test: namely, if there turns out to be some essential aspect of humans (capable of being observed through a low-bandwidth TTY, if you insist) that can't be captured algorithmically. Consciousness might be one such feature. (It's a reasonable one to suggest for two reasons: it's central to human existence and no one has a clue what it is.) "We'll just simulate it, then" is, in my view, a dodge. If there isn't an algorithm for X, why should there necessarily be one that approximates X arbitrarily closely? Partisans of the "singularity" are fond of insisting that it's all a matter of processing power, but that's only true if there's an algorithm for everything. That blithe assumption seems to me an article of faith. It reminds me of G.K. Chesterton's line, "Give us one free miracle and we'll explain everything."

gruseom 19y ago

It would be very hard to argue that the singularity won't arrive eventually Really? What if consciousness is not an algorithm?

andreyf 19y ago
What if consciousness is not an algorithm? Then it can be simulated using one. If chemical reactions can, it's just a matter of processing power.
- mrtron 19y ago
  There is a huge fallacy to this. You would think that any formal system could be defined with axioms, but there are undefinable formal systems. In GEB, Hof explains that he thinks that this could be the missing piece to creating AI/life.
  - bumbledraven 19y ago
    I have never heard of any such thing, and neither has Google. I suspect you are very confused. Can you give an example of an "undefinable formal system" and say (1) how it satisfies the definition of "formal system" and (2) the sense in which it is "undefinable"?
bumbledraven 19y ago
What does consciousness have to do with it? Eventually there will be machines that are capable of passing the Turing test or something similar. The singularity is what happens next. ``To the question, "Will there ever be a computer as smart as a human?" I think the correct answer is, "Well, yes... very briefly."'' - Vernor Vinge
- gruseom 19y ago
  What does consciousness have to do with it? It's human. If one or more aspects of being human aren't computable, then it's plausible that computers will never pass the Turing test. Of course, if you assume that the space of what can be expressed algorithmically is equivalent to the space of all that is, some of these claims become trivial. But that's a whopping leap of faith. Perhaps Richard Dawkins could get around to writing a book about that one when he's finished demolishing its more popular competitor. :)
  - bumbledraven 19y ago
    [Consciousness] is human. If one or more aspects of being human aren't computable, then it's plausible that computers will never pass the Turing test. You seem to be saying that a computer would have to actually be human or be conscious in order to pass the Turing Test. But passing the Test only requires the computer to simulate some observable behaviors of a conscious human well enough to fool a skilled interrogator. In particular, it only has to simulate those behaviors that are observable through a low-bandwidth TTY. I suppose one could argue that there simply does not exist an algorithm that could pass the Turing test (when run on a the powerful computers of the future), but that seems like a very hard case to make, particularly here on Hacker News. One could instead try to argue that though such an algorithm may exist, we will never find it, but that doesn't seem to be what you are saying either.
    - gruseom 19y ago
      I'm not saying there simply does not exist such an algorithm; I don't have an opinion on that one way or the other. I'm questioning your claim that "it would be very hard to argue that the singularity won't arrive eventually" because "eventually there will be machines that are capable of passing the Turing test" (emphasis added). You don't know that. Nobody does. Some people like the idea, some people don't; it's wishful thinking on both sides. My point was to offer one possible scenario under which computers might not pass the Turing test: namely, if there turns out to be some essential aspect of humans (capable of being observed through a low-bandwidth TTY, if you insist) that can't be captured algorithmically. Consciousness might be one such feature. (It's a reasonable one to suggest for two reasons: it's central to human existence and no one has a clue what it is.) "We'll just simulate it, then" is, in my view, a dodge. If there isn't an algorithm for X, why should there necessarily be one that approximates X arbitrarily closely? Partisans of the "singularity" are fond of insisting that it's all a matter of processing power, but that's only true if there's an algorithm for everything. That blithe assumption seems to me an article of faith. It reminds me of G.K. Chesterton's line, "Give us one free miracle and we'll explain everything."