From: dwayne (dwayne@pobox.com)
Date: Sun Mar 31 2002 - 07:36:32 MST
Damien Broderick wrote:
>
> >Other than wanting to coin a neologism, why don't you use "the singularity"
> >like everyone else?
>
> Well, I do, of course, but back in 1996 I figured that
>
> 1) short words are more easily remembered and repeated than long ones (one
> syllable beats five)
TRue.
> 2) `singularity' is unfamiliar and conveys nothing directly except to
> math/physics nerds
Mind you, it gives you ample opportunity to then explain it to people, the
first time I came across the term I had no clue and asked what the hell it
meant and was treated to a rather lengthy monologue :)
> 3) `spike' is graphically direct, although it still needs some explaining
Well. Once it is explained, yes, it is a useful phrase. Otherwise it is not
immediately obvious what you are referring to.
Mind you, graphically, "spike" might be a better term to describe the
industrial revolution: nothing nothing kapow radical technological change,
over extension and then massive collapse (spot the pessimist in the audience).
It doesn't bother you that the phrase "spike" suggest rapid collapse soon
after the rapid rise?
This aspect just occurred to me, actually, but I suppose you've thought of
this before.
> This line of thought has the disadvantage that it might seem disrespectful
> of Dr Vinge,
This is basically the problem I have with it. Nifty term, fairly superfluous.
> which I regret, and of the several Singularitarians such as
> Eliezer who have been discussing the topic since the mid-1990s and earlier;
> also that it mightn't even be true: we know that people call the machines
> they heat their pizzas and coffee in `microwave ovens' rather than `radar
> ovens' (which Heinlein and others expected in the 1940s), and type on `word
> processors' rather than `screens' or `mills' or `texters'.
Well. There's not a lot of things whose name accurately reflects their
function. Cars? Planes?
> I don't care. It's not an ego issue. My shot seems to have fallen short, if
> only because its small impact so far has been restricted mostly to
> Australia, and Kurzweil's book will crush my neologism in one fat blow.
Heh.
I bought your book but was sort of disappointed you kept referring to "the
spike" as opposed to "the singularity" it involved some mental translation
every time I came across the term.
Funny book, I felt like I was on this list half the time :)
> That's okay. I can still feel satisfied about `virtual reality'. Yeah, that
> was me too. Yeah, nobody knows. Too bad, so sad.
Really?
Where did you utter it? When?
Dwayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:10 MST