Talk:Singularitarianism

message: The paragraph beginning "In July 2009, academics and technical experts, some of whom were Singularitarians ..." appears a bit off topic, or at least a bit too much info on it not related to this Singularitarianism movement. Does anyone else agree? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the best example of what Singularitarians are interested in and actually do but I'm not opposed to the paragraph being shortened. --Loremaster (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I edit the first sentence of the disputed paragraph to say "In July 2009, many prominent Singularitarians..." not only to make the paragrah less offtopic but also for the sake of accuracy. --Loremaster (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  offtopic? 

message: I have problems with this section of the lead - 
::"Singularitarians are distinguished from other futurists who speculate on a technological singularity by their belief that the Singularity is not only possible, but desirable if guided prudently. Accordingly, they might sometimes dedicate their lives to acting in ways they believe will contribute to its rapid yet safe realization."
"Desirablity" is just one kind of Singularitairanism. A better definition is that a Singularitarian is a person who strongly believes in the likelihood of a technological singularity in the medium term future, and that this raises issues and attitudes which often arise in theology and extreme forms of existentialism. The belief in near term inevitability and its religious and existential aspects are what define the Singularitarian, who may not find it desireable, or who might want to guide it, but does not have faith in an ability to do so. There are also many other Singularitarian perspectives. Does anyone have any sources to correct the lead? PPdd (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the one with the objection; the onus is on you to find sources. Strebe (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead and desirablity  

message: Other pages covering similar topics have had this same confusion between biological and technological singularity. The reference to "The Singularity is Near", by Raymond Kurzweil seems out of place to me, since his book seems to cover biological singularity, while this article would seem to more be referencing technological singularity Dreamstohack (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technological Versus Biological Singularity 

message: I have added some sourced information to the article and these include key content to the Reception section, which I hope would clarify the criticism that it is more of a religion than science (from the view of critics). Please let me know if you have questions regarding the edit. Thanks! Darwin Naz (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the issue: When you write "Science journalist John Horgan ...", how does that evade the earlier comment on this talk page; I quote: I confess to being too lazy to bother reading Horgan's arguments, but I infer that the guy is a lazy idiot from first principles, and hence I doubt his notability. I infer 'lazy idiocy' from his assertions, which fly in the face of experts who have made careful estimates and best possible extrapolations. To conflate (necessary) extrapolations re a potentially incredibly dangerous possibility with religious wishful thinking is egregiously shonky thinking. It is also poor thinking to deduce impossibility from lack of published techniques, given the enormous military and economic advantages that might conceivably be gained from superintelligence, and also given that the smartest people (Joy, Hawking, Gates) have advocated Relinquishment / great caution. 203.214.155.72 (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sorry, I see you did not add that.  I'm thinking I should remove the Horgan quote, per above comments from 203.214.155.72 ... 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the Horgan quote. There is a meta-issue -- distinguishing "the singularity" from "singularitarianism" -- the former is indeed profoundly important and discussed by profound thinkers; the latter does indeed have lots of mindless NPC adherents who don't really know what they are talking about. In that context, does "singularitarianism" differ in any way from ecofacism, ecosocialism, alt-right, alt-left, antifa, lesswrong, QAnon, SJW or any other memetic tribe?  It's a ball of beliefs that "stick together" and are appealing enough that lots of people like to believe in them. To answer my own question: the distinction is that singularitarianism is a set of beliefs about technologies that will actually transform (and possibly destroy) the world; its about existential risk. The others are a collection of beliefs about justice and meaning in society. And QAnon seems to be a paranoid-delusional, schizophrenic idea-salad. Horgan seemed to suggest that all these memetic tribes are on the same footing; I'd suggest that they're not. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion on the WP:RELIABLE reference is not WP:RELIABLE. It's clear Horgan's comment is about putting faith in (imminence/desirability/problems that will be solved by) the singularity, which is a defining trait of singularitarianism. Strebe (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Horgan's a crack-pot ... so now, we are citing crackpots? Bill Joy, Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking are "notable" critics of singularitarianism, Horgan is not. If you wish to critique it, quote them, not him.67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

text: And now IP editor 67.198.37.16 has accused me of edit warring, by edit warring. This is on a fast track to dispute resolution. 67.198.37.16's rationale is that the quote is not "notable". To start with, WP:NOTABLE refers to topics, not references. The question is whether the reference is WP:RELIABLE. Given that it appears in IEEE Spectrum, whereas 67.198.37.16's opinion appears as self-published on a Wikipedia Talk page, I think it's pretty clear where this is going. Calling notable people you disagree with "a crackpock" is not a path to credibility. Strebe (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

text: I confess to being too lazy to bother reading Horgan's arguments, but I infer that the guy is a lazy idiot from first principles, and hence I doubt his notability. You imagine that is as a credible source for deleting a relevant quote from a WP:RELIABLE source? It does not work like that. You cannot sit around deciding who or what is "credible" by resorting to whatever tortured rationalizations occur to you. The onus is on you to provide WP:RELIABLE sources that demonstrate that an author published in WP:RELIABLE media is a crackpot, rather than inventing crackpot reasons yourself. I am reverting the article to its original use of the quotation, and will defend its inclusion throughout the real process for making these decisions. Strebe (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Aw, come on. Don't distort facts and truth. It's not conducive to any discussions. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh. Strebe, please reconsider your actions. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your personal opinions and fringe beliefs. It is a dis-service to all readers when crackpot-content is added to an article. I removed this content twice, you restored it twice. It's not a credible reference, it's obviously nutty. So why are you defending it? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update