"Whose work do they all point to? Moore, Lanier, Holland, and Hawkins. Guess what all four of them say they think?" Here are some pretty uninformed statements

"Whose work do they all point to? Moore, Lanier, Holland, and Hawkins. Guess what all four of them say they think?" Here are some pretty uninformed statements by tech luminaries: http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-... They mostly don't have the philosophical or synthetic chops to make intelligent statements about the singularity. Moore misunderstood his own observation for at least the first ten years after he made it, not to minimize his important contributions. Singularity is an unfortunate term, because it's technically incorrect and logically contradictory. My work is not trying to make a singularity; it is trying to make recursively self-improving machine-human intelligence which interacts with and learns from its environment. This is not impossible; it is merely technically difficult. It is also a hypothesis. That's all. It isn't a phenomenon, so we cannot yet be good Aristoteleans and observe it. Therefore, we can't develop a science of it. You'd avoid this entire webpage's worth of argument if you'd just simply remember that the singularity is nothing more than this hypothesis. Repeat: The singularity is not a phenomenon, nor is it a theory; it is a hypothesis. For those who wish to believe it is a correct hypothesis, and it is the future, well, get busy doing the hard work and developing the the technology to make it the future. For those who don't believe it could be a possible future, get out of our way, since you're so damn sure you're right.