Talk:Technological singularity/Archive 3

message: This paragraph, added in this edit by Dysmorodrepanis, lacks NPOV and source:
:Another drawback of the concept of technological singularity is that all data used in attempting to prove it is derived from a time when key resources for technological growth were limited by human ability to exploit or tap them, not by physical availability. This is very likely to change in the near future for the key resources water, energy, most nuclear fuels and, most of all, petroleum. Since modern technology and technological innovation is essentially based on ready availability of affordable petroleum, mainly as a source of plastics and other organic compounds as well as a major energy source, the proven fact that at least in some aspects technological development is accelerating and close to the presumed point of singularity holds no real predictive accuracy, because the fundamental conditions underlying this development, indeed making it possible in the first place, are set to change in the foreseeable future. It is rather unlikely for example that projects like Mars colonization will continue at the current pace when a barrel of crude oil has a price of, say, 85 US dollars, as the all-permeating cost carryover will be prohibitive.
Can anyone please identify the source of this opinion to confirm its notability? --Schaefer 04:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't score any non-wiki google hits. My bet is it's not a quotation, by opinion of one of our editors. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: "Singularity advocates generally postulate that as the Singularity approaches, it goes undetected. Humans, however, are both externally and internally aware of change; therefore the likelihood of such a change going undetected in the environment is small. And the effects? One answer might be societal entropy to the point that the Singularity is impeded from occurring. If it is generally known that the Singularity is being approached—with its unknowns—then learning, investment, and technology enhancement collapse under a weight of uncertainty. Devoid of the next level of technical infusion the Singularity is never approached while human society collapses in a deflationary wait for the Big Bang or a variant of intellectual Cargo Cultism."
This appears to be written by the author of the comment beginning with the words "First I believe that a Singularity event could be in the offing" on this blog post. Note that both mention the Singularity going "undetected" and both use the phrase "intellectual Cargo Cultism" with both C's capitalized. I can't find any more encyclopedic source for this. Either way, if it's to stay it needs some NPOV rewording. --Schaefer 07:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation request for potential original research 

message: "White introduced a formula P=E*T, where E is a measure of energy consumed, and T is the measure of efficiency of technical factors utilizing the energy. In his own words, "culture evolves as the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year is increased, or as the efficiency of the instrumental means of putting the energy to work is increased." The Russian astronomer Nikolai Kardashev extrapolated this theory to create the Kardashev scale, which categorizes the energy use of advanced civilizations. A Dyson sphere is Type II on this scale, and humanity is currently at about 0.7."
What is * supposed to represent here? If multiplication, then it is superfluous and confusing -- standard convention is represent multiplication by simple adjacency of symbols, thus P=ET. 
The symbol P is completely undefined! Despite the pseudo-scientific nature of the theories discussed in this article, at least some attempt at coherency needs to be made. Likewise the descriptions "E is a measure of energy consumed, and T is the measure of efficiency of technical factors utilizing the energy" are too vague to be meaningful. E is a measure of energy consumed in what time, by what or whom? and the definition of T needs to be made clearer. What does "measure of efficiency mean" in this context. 
"Dyson sphere is Type II on this scale, and humanity is currently at about 0.7". Pray tell how Type II relates to 0.7? this is not at all clear to the casual reader. Do you mean to say "A Dyson sphere is 2.0 on this scale"? Instead of expecting readers to have to open the page on the Kardashev scale to get an explanation, it would be better to make it clear here.
And further, a Dyson sphere does not use energy, it generates it. Does "energy use" here mean energy expenditure, or generation? Or some muddled combination of the two? 203.51.108.111 07:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call Leslie White or Dyson sphere a pseudoscience, both are respected academic concepts. * means, obviously, multiplication. Feel free to read up more on those subjects, be bold and expand and clarify the relevant articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formulae 

message: See the wikipedia entry on sentience for an explanation of why sci-fi writers and other nerds should stop imitating each other's habitual misuse of this word.  All instances of "sentience" and "sentient" in this article should be replaced with "intelligent," or, arguably, "sapient," or simply removed. --24.22.58.51 11:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, don't forget sophont --WhiteDragon 16:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I ran a search and couldn't find any such examples. --Maru  (talk) Contribs 14:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Oxford English Dictionary describes "sentience" as "The condition or quality of being sentient, consciousness, susceptibility to sensation".  I think the use in the article stands.  --Plumbago 16:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What use in the article? There isn't a single instance of the words "sentient" or "sentience" anywhere in the article. What exactly are you talking about? -- Schaefer 05:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the history again; at around the time the anon was complaining here, an anon removed all instances. --Maru  (talk) Contribs 05:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "sentience" doesn't mean what you think it does 

message: See Talk:History_of_the_World#Graph_straw_poll. Plus, :Image_talk:PPTParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.jpg now has a large description added to it's page, so if you wanted to know what those specific 13 or so sources were, now you can see all the references :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph, revisited 

message: :Singularity advocates generally postulate that as the Singularity approaches, it goes undetected. Humans, however, are both externally and internally aware of change; therefore the likelihood of such a change going undetected in the environment is small. And the effects? One answer might be societal entropy to the point that the Singularity is impeded from occurring. If it is generally known that the Singularity is being approached—with its unknowns—then learning, investment, and technology enhancement collapse under a weight of uncertainty. Devoid of the next level of technical infusion, the Singularity is never approached, and human society collapses in a deflationary wait for the Big Bang or in a variant of intellectual Cargo Cultism.
This paragraph makes absolutely no sense to me. The fact that the Singularity has a Wikipedia article is a good sign that it's not going undetected. I can't make head or tail of what "externally and internally aware of change" means, or of the sudden shift in topic at the end to cosmology and cargo cultism. The bit about the Singularity being impeded by mass confusion and what not is more coherent, but even that is unattributed opinion. I'm removing the paragraph. If someone else knows what this is about and can clean it up, feel free. -- Schaefer 02:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph 

message: This article has absolutle nothing on criticisms on technological singularity. What there is seems OK but its so one sided. It fails NPOV a criteria for a good article, hence removed. 
It seems liike there was a criticism section a while back. --Salix alba 01:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: why are there no criticisms on the earth page about the world being round? 
--130.191.17.38 18:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It also seems to me that the two "main ideas" — creation of AI and the singularity as as a result of exponential technological growth — are kinda of dangling out there independant of each other. They are not exclusive of one another. The creation of AI can be subsumed within the idea of exponential growth. I think that the article might benefit from a more coherent overall structure, as well as a balancing of the POV. - Beowulf314159 04:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed good article 

message: "Vinge's Singularity is often misunderstood to mean technological progress will rise to infinity, as does a mathematical singularity. Actually, the term is a metaphor from physics, not mathematics: as one approaches the Singularity, models of the future become less reliable, just as conventional physics models fail as one approaches a gravitational singularity."
This is incorrect. Shall I delete it? WAS 4.250 15:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. In fact, I'll do it for you. I don't see anything along these lines in the Vinge essay either. -- Schaefer 15:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: incorrect

message: I didn't do it, even thought the reverter went back to my re-write. You mentioned discussion? You may want to read the debate that was ongoing here. - Beowulf314159 15:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: W:AS 4.250, This sort of mass revert is absurd. Picking out bits of an old version that you think are better and repasting them in the new version is one thing, but your revert nullified several perfectly valid corrections. I'm reverting back to the previous version. If you have specific objections, voice them here. -- Schaefer 15:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. WAS did it him-/herself. -- Schaefer 15:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Revert, I did not do 

message: I thought I found a good last version before some obvious misconceptions were introduced. I was wrong. What I believe to be misconceptions have been in there from the start. What I'm going to do is list what I find wrong with the article and then go away. I'm trying to wikipedia less and getting into all of this is too much. Anyway, now on to creating my list. WAS 4.250 15:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be interesting to see the list. I too think the article is fundamentally flawed: see the section on why it (briefly) had "good" status. However, as you might be able to tell from the discussion here, just rewriting the intro has been a hotly disputed event. - Beowulf314159 15:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK on point #1. This is an article about technological singularity, not generalized cultural singularities. Otherwise, I think the list is good - I've re-added (and tightned) the section I had in the intro explaining this. - Beowulf314159 16:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: There is no good last version

message: #"Technological": Not "social". The whole we may not know it when it comes part is that it is technological. Maybe also social. ... maybe not. Visualizing this for you is more than I care to type in . Use google.
#"Singularity": Popularized by a mathematicion to describle an inflection point shown on a graph as a mathematical inflection point (also called "a singularity" in mathematics) and can be seen by nonmaths as a kink, a corner, a point where two lines meet like at the bottom of a V, and for math people where there is no derivative. The line does not have to go straight up. The derivative is nonexistent (or "infinite") at a point. The derivative does not have to be infinite forever after the point (the line does not have to go straight up). Gravitational singularities only commonality with "technological singularity" is that people comparing the two know nothing of either and so describe one unknown with another and it makes them feel better. Look up black hole on wikipedia. I always tell people: spend as much time learning on wikipedia as teaching.
#Article structure: I agree with earlier critisisms. I would guess everyone agrees the structure needs an overhaul.
#Sourcing: provide a least one source per paragraph. Or else people can just ramble on with their own personal speculations. But that's not gonna happen right? Well, I recommend more referencing to sources. Start with one per section at least.
#OK. I'm done now. Bye and good luck. Cheers. WAS 4.250 15:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK on point #1. This is an article about technological singularity, not generalized cultural singularities. Otherwise, I think the list is good - I've re-added (and tightned) the section I had in the intro explaining this. - Beowulf314159 16:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WAS 2.250's list

message: There seems to be growing unhappiness with the structure. I took a very tired stab at it in Removed good article. Does anyone want to expand on that, replace it, make rude remarks about it? I think many people think the article needs an overhaul and/or point-of-view balance and/or more referancing. Thoughts people? = Beowulf314159 16:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structural Overhaul 

message: From Was 2.250 section
:Singularity": Popularized by a mathematicion to describle an inflection point shown on a graph as a mathematical inflection point (also called "a singularity" in mathematics) and can be seen by nonmaths as a kink, a corner, a point where two lines meet like at the bottom of a V, and for math people where there is no derivative. The line does not have to go straight up. The derivative is nonexistent (or "infinite") at a point. The derivative does not have to be infinite forever after the point (the line does not have to go straight up). Gravitational singularities only commonality with "technological singularity" is that people comparing the two know nothing of either and so describe one unknown with another and it makes them feel better. Look up black hole on wikipedia. I always tell people: spend as much time learning on wikipedia as teaching.
Its is perhaps better to talk of a technological catastrophy. In mathematics a catastrophe is a rapid shift from one stable state to another stable state. The industral revolution can be viewed as such a shift, moving from a primary agricultural pattern to one of factories. Other examples of catastrophes are the transition from liquid to gas.
As Was points out these are different in character from the big-bang/black hole type of singularity in physics. Namely less apocalyptic, a big change yes, but not the end of the world. --Salix alba (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematics 

message: Last paragraph of the lead:
:The term singularity is derived from the concept of the mathematical singularity, a point where a mathematical function is discontinuous, fails to be "well-behaved", or adopts behavior that is difficult or impossible to predict (see Catastrophe theory, Chaos theory). A culture which experienced such a change would be fundamentally altered, and not comprehensible or predictable by its pre-Singularity culture.
Does anyone have evidence that this was the original motivation for using the term singularity, as apposed to an analogy with a gravitational singularity or just the traditional English definition of the word (that is, a synonym for peculiarity). In Vinge's essay The Coming Technological Singularity, the first mention of the word outside of the title and headings is this paragraph:
:I think it's fair to call this event a singularity ("the Singularity" for the purposes of this paper). It is a point where our old models must be discarded and a new reality rules. As we move closer to this point, it will loom vaster and vaster over human affairs till the notion becomes a commonplace. Yet when it finally happens it may still be a great surprise and a greater unknown.
There is no explicit reference to mathematical discontinuities here or in either of the two pre-Vinge Singularity quotes presented in the History and definitions section. Even if this analogy to mathematics is just a post-facto creation, it still might warrant inclusion in the lead if it was originated by someone notable, but no such claim is made in the article. For now, I'm removing the first sentence of the paragraph, lest we risk of perpetuating false information. Any input on the matter is appreciated. -- Schaefer 01:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A mathematical singularity has the property that extrapolation from a given viewpoint (by Taylor series) cannot work beyond it; Vinge's passage quoted above can almost be described as a paraphrase of that, and a number of trendlines are said to fit a model that indicates such a singularity circa 2035.  I'm fairly sure I've heard the mathematical metaphor attributed to Vinge, but hearing isn't verifying.  I'll ask around....  —Tamfang 03:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure Vinge's article was explicitly mathematical. He didn't mention Taylor series by name, but he used the mathematical concept that you can't extrapolate beyond a singularity. --maru  (talk) contribs 04:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation request

message: Hi, I enjoyed reading this article tonight, but may I suggest considering removing the external link at the bottom "More links about The Singularity". It links to some six year old unupdated site that has a bunch of broken links. Perhaps you could find some other more useful link for that purpose. Thanks -- 68.52.71.124
:The link in question has been removed. -- Schaefer 01:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable external link

message: Mind Project: AI Algorithm Steps belongs on the article page because, whether or not it constitutes new research, the Mind project is indeed a Singularity AI project, and has arguably achieved more (in terms of both AI theory and AI software) than other Singularity AI projects mentioned on the article page. Without such a meritorious inclusion, because of deletions of the above external link, the article page is in violation of NPOV.
:What a brilliant idea! Exactly what this article needed, a link to Mentifex's crap! Not. --maru  (talk) contribs 19:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to stay civil. But, I second your sentiment. Mentifex doesn't warrant inclusion. -- Schaefer 23:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desirable external link 

message: User:Marudubshinki, sorry about the cats.  I think it makes more sense to have the order See also, External links, and Citations.  Does anyone else here agree? --CH 01:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the way it goes, though. It is standard to go See Also, References (with hyperlink citations/foot notes in the References section afer the references proper), then External link, followed by Categories and Interwikis. --maru  (talk) contribs 01:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hillman, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style and especially Wikipedia:Section in regards to the order of the final sections. -- Schaefer 02:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And please split references from further reading, mixing those two sections is a serious erros, as the reader has no idea which of the mentioned positions were used in the article. Adapting  more inline citations would be a good idea, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: , perhaps?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, added that last night, thanks Tarcieri 18:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of links, citations 

message: Much of the talk is no longer relevant to the article as it presently exists (e.g. why did you rev my edit, [non-Jan 26] Intro rewrite).  Anyone want to go through and archive the no longer relevant talk, or should I? Tarcieri 19:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk archival?