The Turing Test was made a lot earlier yes. The prediction that it would be passed before 2030 is strongly related to the singularity. If (when?) the cost of ow

The Turing Test was made a lot earlier yes. The prediction that it would be passed before 2030 is strongly related to the singularity. If (when?) the cost of owning and operating one million real time turing-test-passing entities was less than $1000 per year (currency is another definitional problem) then I think we can safely say we'd have reached a concrete landmark on the road to 'the singularity'. I just came up with that in a few minutes - there are actually people who devote a lot more time to this and yes they do have some pretty concrete predictions. Do you accept that notion that there are some activities that are more 'scientific' than others? Or does your definition of the word only encompass a boolean value for each activity? I am in the former camp and frankly believe that anyone who holds the 'absolute boolean value' notion probably has a mental disorder (I can't describe it any other way). The original context of the article was that the singularity was more a religious idea than a scientific one. In context of the concept of a scale of 'how scientific' something is I believe the the singularity and the surrounding body of work associated with it is far closer to science than religion. That was the point I was trying to make. So I think I get it - you think the word scientific should only apply to something if it say 98% perfectly applicable whereas my standards for use are a bit lower at maybe 85%. And of course the common criteria is probably somewhere around about 50%.