Talk:Technological singularity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleTechnological singularity was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
August 7, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
July 19, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 7, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Merge from Intelligence explosion into Technological singularity given the scope overlap and that Technological singularity is broader. Klbrain (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I propose that Intelligence explosion be merged into Technological singularity. They're really quite similar and the sources often don't make any distinction between the two. K.Bog 04:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose – The topics are closely related, but distinct. The technological singularity is a point in time. It is the instant in which the very first computer or robot that has human-level or better intelligence comes into existence. Its article is analogous to the article gravitational singularity, a phenomenon which is immediately followed by the Big Bang. Those two phenomena are very closely related. Analogously, it is believed that the technological singularity will be followed immediately by an intelligence explosion (the progression towards superintelligence). They are also very closely related. And just like the singularity and the Big Bang, technological singularity and intelligence explosion are distinct concepts. It is important to make the distinction between the beginning of AI and what comes after. Like covering the stages in the evolution of the universe, or the stages in the evolution of a star, all of which have an article on them. They each have notability as a distinct topic, kind of like embryo and human body (one turns into the other, but they are worthy of their own articles). The Transhumanist 20:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no question that technically they are different ideas. But the first relevant question is whether sources actually make a distinction between the two. They generally do not, and therefore it would be extremely hard to write an article without giving personal intepretations and doing original research. The second relevant question is whether you can have separate articles without the content mostly being duplicate. Look at the article for intelligence explosion right now: it talks about speed and intelligence of AI, superintelligence, existential risk, and the rate of improvement. All these topics are covered in detail in the technological singularity article.
A gravitational singularity happened to occur at the time of the Big Bang, but there is plenty of potential for a gravitational singularity to exist elsewhere, like in a black hole. On the other hand, I can't fathom how an intelligence explosion could exist without a technological singularity. The intelligence explosion and the singularity happen concurrently, not one followed by the other. K.Bog 21:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support for pretty much the exact same rationale the OP gives, initially and in response to the oppose !vote. Particularly: But the first relevant question is whether sources actually make a distinction between the two. They generally do not, and therefore it would be extremely hard to write an article without giving personal intepretations and doing original research. and I can't fathom how an intelligence explosion could exist without a technological singularity. Those quotes represent my views exactly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, though I'd prefer the merged article be called Intelligence explosion, which is less ambiguous than technological singularity. Kurzweil and Robin Hanson are the only ones I'm aware of who lean mainly on extrapolating trendlines to the point where they believe the singularity can refer to something besides the intelligence explosion. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
It probably should be called Technological singularity after all, given page view statistics. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support because the articles seem to be about the same predicted event. I have no opinion on what would be the best title.PopSci (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – Thank you Rolf, for the heads up on the upcoming closing of this discussion, and the opportunity to post additional comments. As it appears a merge is imminent, let me point out that "Technological singularity" is the more common term, recognized throughout the field of AI as the coming of human-level-or-greater AI. First comes the singularity, then the explosion. You could say it's the spark that will set it off. If there is to be a subheading titled "intelligence explosion", the redirect should point to that section. Thank you, and I look forward to reading the merged article.    — The Transhumanist   07:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for essentially the same reasons that were laid out by The Transhumanist in March. The two topics are notable and distinct enough to have separate pages. I don't see what is wrong with the current setup of having a hatnote at the top of the "intelligence explosion" section within the Technological Singularity page that links to the Intelligence Explosion page. Abierma3 (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Abierma3 To be more specific, what are you personally proposing that the scope of Technological singularity should be? (One resource is that [1] collects distinct definition in the literature.) Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Rolf h nelson Thank you for that link; I wasn't aware that the term "technological singularity" could be defined quite ambiguously depending on what literature one looks at. I am now realizing this issue goes beyond my working knowledge of the subject and haven't had the time to delve into it, so I don't know the answer to what the scope of Technological singularity should be. Given that the merger proposal has been open for well over a year now, I would support if an editor wants to be bold and go ahead with merging the articles. I agree with you and others that the merged article should be titled Technological singularity based on Pageviews Analysis comparison. Abierma3 (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Organizations trying to advance the singularity[edit]

Plausibility section, 3rd para concludes "...non-human artificial the most popular option for organizations trying to advance the singularity."

Are there such organisations? The activities of certain organisations could inadvertently lead to technological singularity, but are there actually organisations consciously and explicitly seeking to bring it about? If so they must be properly cited. Captainllama (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


Ostensible Hawkins quote[edit]

@WeyerStudentOfAgrippa [2] could be sourced if desired, it looks like the first half is a quote from Hawkins [3] who goes on to make the offbeat claim that exponential improvement requires exponential resources, and the second half looks like it's paraphrasing vinge's singularity essay (presumably it got swept into the Hawkins quote by accident at some point). I don't have a strong opinion about whether it should or shouldn't remain. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The quote was too long anyway. I added a more concise note of Hawkins' position and moved the sentence about a million-fold increase in speed to a different section. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

SmartStarWiki free app graph[edit]

Keyword search one word "SmartStarWiki" Free iOS Android app. Shows humankind tech advancement focus (refer graph).

Unblock Gedium user. I do not wish to be a sock puppet - 5 years now ridiculous = poor Wikipedia admins. Obviously you can see I am the smartest human animal = happy to be challenged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding the hindi translation[edit]

Im trying to link the hindi translation of this same topic, but seems like someone's locked the page, what's the problem? विदुर (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

We use Wikidata for that now. See Help:Interlanguage_links#Links_in_the_sidebar - MrOllie (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)