5 ms·

There's no contradiction between Malthus and the coming of the singularity. Malthus essentially said that resources tend to be scarce, but there's no reason th

There's no contradiction between Malthus and the coming of the singularity. Malthus essentially said that resources tend to be scarce, but there's no reason that they couldn't be scarce post-singularity. This line of thinking leads to doom scenarios, when you think about how scarce resources would be allocated (bottom line - probably not to humans), so it does contradict singularity-as-the-promised-land scenarios.

mixmax 18y ago
Scarcity means that the curve will break. The singularity is the notion that the growth will continue indefinitely at an ever wilder pace until it reaches a singularity. I'm saying it won't happen because technological advance will run into scarcity of resources, just like any other complex system. Malthus was just an example of this, since his thinking was much the same as Kurzweil's in regard to extrapolation of datasets. Whether this will happen before or after transhumanism I don't know. But like any other exponential curve it won't go on forever.
- gjm11 18y ago
  "Singularity" here doesn't mean "infinite improvement", it means "such a big improvement that, from the point of view of people trying to predict it now, all bets are off". At least, that's how Vinge used the word and I think it's the commonest usage among present-day singularitarians like Yudkowsky.
  - pfedor 18y ago
    One thing I never got: sure, it's certainly possible that one day the technology will come into existence that will create beings (be it computers or genetically modified brains or whatever) that will be as superior to humans as we are to ants or rabbits. How on Earth does the singulatarian paradise follow from this premise? Doesn't it seem at least just as likely that those super-intelligent creations will eradicate humans, or enslave them, or do something to them which we don't have a concept for in our limited brains, and which is different from happy immortal existence?
    - inklesspen 18y ago
      okay, take the phrase "such a big improvement that, from the point of view of people trying to predict it now, all bets are off" and replace "improvement" with "change". The Singularity doesn't have to be good to still happen, unfortunately.
    - gjm11 18y ago
      "Singularity" doesn't entail "paradise" or anything like it. That would be why Eliezer Yudkowsky, the author of the piece linked up at the top there, has dedicated most of his adult life to the question "If we figure out how to make artificial intelligences, what do we need to do to have reasonable confidence that they aren't going to do awful things?". (It is not at all clear that any answer exists.)
      - greendestiny 18y ago
        Then why does he say as an atheist its basically the only thing that makes life bearable. I don't think he has a realistic 'just make it safe' attitude at all.

mixmax 18y ago

Scarcity means that the curve will break. The singularity is the notion that the growth will continue indefinitely at an ever wilder pace until it reaches a singularity. I'm saying it won't happen because technological advance will run into scarcity of resources, just like any other complex system. Malthus was just an example of this, since his thinking was much the same as Kurzweil's in regard to extrapolation of datasets. Whether this will happen before or after transhumanism I don't know. But like any other exponential curve it won't go on forever.

gjm11 18y ago
"Singularity" here doesn't mean "infinite improvement", it means "such a big improvement that, from the point of view of people trying to predict it now, all bets are off". At least, that's how Vinge used the word and I think it's the commonest usage among present-day singularitarians like Yudkowsky.
- pfedor 18y ago
  One thing I never got: sure, it's certainly possible that one day the technology will come into existence that will create beings (be it computers or genetically modified brains or whatever) that will be as superior to humans as we are to ants or rabbits. How on Earth does the singulatarian paradise follow from this premise? Doesn't it seem at least just as likely that those super-intelligent creations will eradicate humans, or enslave them, or do something to them which we don't have a concept for in our limited brains, and which is different from happy immortal existence?
  - inklesspen 18y ago
    okay, take the phrase "such a big improvement that, from the point of view of people trying to predict it now, all bets are off" and replace "improvement" with "change". The Singularity doesn't have to be good to still happen, unfortunately.
  - gjm11 18y ago
    "Singularity" doesn't entail "paradise" or anything like it. That would be why Eliezer Yudkowsky, the author of the piece linked up at the top there, has dedicated most of his adult life to the question "If we figure out how to make artificial intelligences, what do we need to do to have reasonable confidence that they aren't going to do awful things?". (It is not at all clear that any answer exists.)
    - greendestiny 18y ago
      Then why does he say as an atheist its basically the only thing that makes life bearable. I don't think he has a realistic 'just make it safe' attitude at all.