From: Michael Nielsen (mnielsen@theory.caltech.edu)
Date: Mon Sep 07 1998 - 15:15:09 MDT
For my own benefit, and in the hope of stimulating some discussion, I
hope to work through the essays Robin has put online, posting my own
comments on each essay. To begin, I'll start off with Gregory
Benford's comments. I doubt I'll proceed alphabetically through the
comments, but the start of the alphabet is a good starting point.
(Some editorial assistance would be useful here: Robin, should we feel
free to quote from the online essays? I've quoted this one in
full...)
> Comment by Gregory Benford
>
> On the Singularity I have but one comment: most of humanity won't take
> part, for every singularity can be made non-singular by a simple
> resistive term...and there are always such. If a small segment takes off
> beyond view, they will still need to protect their physical
> well-being--necessities, etc. -- against the slings and arrows
> of outraged humanity (and there are always such; envy is eternal. So
> this juncture will provide the real working surface for change...those
> in the Singularity will be
> beyond view, anyway.
>
> By "resistive term" I mean that nothing works perfectly and the
> separation of a fraction will be interrupted by glitches, failures of
> power/support. And if a fraction proceeds beyond view, it won't affect
> the bulk of humanity, who will barely be aware anyway. Plus, those who
> pass through will still have to fight the tough laws of the universe.
> They won't fly faster than light, exploring the galaxy, etc.
> But conceptually they can go beyond our horizon and if so, more power to
> them. But commanding PHYSICAL power will again depend upon interfacing
> with the rest of us.
A few observations on what I think Mr. Benford is saying, and my
responses, if any.
1. The comment presupposes that a "singularity" will occur.
2. It is not clear what the "singularity" is supposed to entail, at the
level of detail. What are the supposed enabling technologies for
Mr. Benford's singularity? What is the decisive point?
3. This comment does indicate an interesting "sharp" delineation between
people who have "passed through" the Singularity, and people who haven't.
The Singularity is sometimes portrayed as something that will occur very
quickly; the "alternate" point of view is that it will take longer.
This comment suggests a different way of thinking about the
time-scales: there is a timescale for the individual, and a timescale
for larger groups. These two timescales need not coincide, or even be
closely related. They also need to be separately argued.
4. Mr. Benford's main point seems to be that "...most of humanity
won't take part, for every singularity can be made non-singular by a
simple resistive term...and there are always such", and then defines
"By "resistive term" I mean that nothing works perfectly and the
separation of a fraction will be interrupted by glitches, failures of
power/support."
The logic of the statement can be attacked in various ways. What if
the coming of the Singularity is brought about by a superintelligence
that is able to circumvent all the "resistive terms"? Even if such
interruptions do occur, they may only be temporary; what is to stop
the rest of humanity from following after the interruption has been removed?
5. I'm not sure what the last sentence means (?)
To sum up: The "separation of timescales" is a good point that I
hadn't fully appreciated before. I find the main point of Mr
Benford's comment rather questionable. It needs more supporting
evidence to be tenable.
Michael Nielsen
http://theory.caltech.edu/~mnielsen/index.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:33 MST