Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic
Locked
Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic
 
|
Given our conversations on the meaning of "faith" and various attempts to discuss the singularity hypothesis, I thought this might be interesting. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-32560-1_19 Selmer Bringsjord, Alexander Bringsjord and Paul Bello > Abstract We deploy a framework for classifying the bases for belief in a category > of events marked by being at once weighty, unseen, and temporally removed > (wutr, for short). While the primary source of wutr events in Occidental philos- > ophy is the list of miracle claims of credal Christianity, we apply the framework to > belief in The Singularity, surely—whether or not religious in nature—a wutr event. > We conclude from this application, and the failure of fit with both rationalist and > empiricist argument schemas in support of this belief, not that The Singularity > won’t come to pass, but rather that regardless of what the future holds, believers in > the ‘‘machine intelligence explosion’’ are simply fideists. While it’s true that > fideists have been taken seriously in the realm of religion (e.g. Kierkegaard in the > case of some quarters of Christendom), even in that domain the likes of orthodox > believers like Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz, and Paley find fideism to be little more > than wishful, irrational thinking—and at any rate it’s rather doubtful that fideists > should be taken seriously in the realm of science and engineering. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com Morality cannot exist one minute without freedom... Only a free man can possibly be moral. Unless a good deed is voluntary, it has no moral significance. -- Everett Martin ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic
|
|
Glen -
It probably means nothing more than that I should go find (and clean) my reading glasses, but my first read of your subject line gave me "Fidel-istic" as in Castro. And applying cold-war rhetoric, it is easy to think of our man Fidel as having operated his entire "career" as a Fideist as well, with his "faith" in communism at odds with (some of) the reason surrounding him of various market economies and the utility of allowing capital to concentrate outside the context of a state or political party. And then there is that little illusion (barely captured by the rhetoric of "the people's party"?) of self-determination that our form of representative democracy seems to maintain (the illusion, whether or not the fact) somewhat more effectively. I know that you have a particular hard-on *against* the Singularist rhetoric. I myself share a huge mistrust of said rhetoric when it is running on the jet fuel of people wanting to live forever, if only as a ghost inside of an advanced machine intelligence. Just below immortality, is the general technophilia that most here also are infected with. There is nothing more heady than asking the question "what if?" in one breath and then expounding on the answer for the rest of the day. I suspect there are few here who didn't mis-spend a portion of their lives (at least youth) reading speculative fiction. I attribute Kurzweil's (as the nominal leader of the popular Singularian movement) motives to seeking personal immortality. I've coincidentally been visiting places where he was giving a keynote/capstone/public speech on each of his two Singularity Books and he made NO bones about appealing to dreams of immortality with the audience. There is an undercurrent of megalomania as well, as if the "first to ascend" will somehow have special status as founders or as elders or just "get a head start" on the later ones. The logic does not hold... just as interstellar space travel in SF is filled with early missions being *passed* by later ones with advanced technology. "Leave early, arrive late" probably applies to ascendence into the singularity matrix (enter early, suffer early-adoption woes). I attribute much of the remainder of Singularian dreams to technophilia and it's developmentally challenged sibling "because we can!". What remains after those two "obvious" issues are dismissed is still interesting to me: In the same way that various other innovation "revolutions" are interesting. Where feedback loops in a system helped to generate diversity and then subsequent complexity. This could be any one of the evolutionary "explosions" we have measured in the fossil record, or it could be the human technological "explosions" that settled out into things we call (after the fact) the "neolithic age", "bronze age", "iron age" then much later "steam era", "industrial revolution", "communication age", "transportation age", "electronics age", "computer/information age", etc. I understand that the natural myopic perspective across history has our "recent" events seeming more important or auspicious than perhaps the older ones, but even factoring that out, I believe there IS some significant acceleration in technological progress. I'm not sure that our prognostications of the present are any more meaningful than those of say, Jules Verne's or HG Well's era. Or why we might think they should be. Some will turn out to be spot on, others totally outlandish. I suspect there are aspects of the Singularian rhetoric which will turn out to be inspired... but not likely all of it, just as we are not traveling in steam-driven lighter-than air ships around the world today, or being fired to the moon and other planets inside giant bullets. - Steve > Given our conversations on the meaning of "faith" and various attempts > to discuss the singularity hypothesis, I thought this might be interesting. > > http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-32560-1_19 > Selmer Bringsjord, Alexander Bringsjord and Paul Bello > >> Abstract We deploy a framework for classifying the bases for belief in a category >> of events marked by being at once weighty, unseen, and temporally removed >> (wutr, for short). While the primary source of wutr events in Occidental philos- >> ophy is the list of miracle claims of credal Christianity, we apply the framework to >> belief in The Singularity, surely—whether or not religious in nature—a wutr event. >> We conclude from this application, and the failure of fit with both rationalist and >> empiricist argument schemas in support of this belief, not that The Singularity >> won’t come to pass, but rather that regardless of what the future holds, believers in >> the ‘‘machine intelligence explosion’’ are simply fideists. While it’s true that >> fideists have been taken seriously in the realm of religion (e.g. Kierkegaard in the >> case of some quarters of Christendom), even in that domain the likes of orthodox >> believers like Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz, and Paley find fideism to be little more >> than wishful, irrational thinking—and at any rate it’s rather doubtful that fideists >> should be taken seriously in the realm of science and engineering. > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic
|
|
Steve Smith wrote at 05/16/2013 11:53 AM:
> I understand that the natural myopic perspective across history has our > "recent" events seeming more important or auspicious than perhaps the > older ones, but even factoring that out, I believe there IS some > significant acceleration in technological progress. Aha! In spite of your attempts to change the subject, you couldn't help but say something on topic! And I was lucky enough to catch it. ;-) The assertion is that Singularitarianism is faith-based. It is _not_ about why the followers of Singularitarianism follow the movement. One could easily make the analogy to Catholicism, where many Catholics (most that I know) don't really believe in Transubstantiation ... or even the Trinity. It doesn't matter _why_ the followers follow. What matters are the ontological claims made by the religion. In the Singularitarianism case, the claim is a logical consequence of the claim you just made: There exists significant acceleration in technological progress. Their assertion then becomes that you are stating something you do not _know_. You believe it. But you don't know it. Hence, you are relying on faith to leap the chasm between what you know and what you believe. And that's why it's fideistic. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. -- Steven Weinberg ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic
|
|
I am often known as "The last of the threadbenders" for sure. And here I go contributing to the "Silly Talk" quotient again (at least Doug's sensitive ears are protected for the moment <grin>) (shout if you can hear me talking about you Doug!).Aha! In spite of your attempts to change the subject, you couldn't help but say something on topic! And I was lucky enough to catch it. ;-) But they do like the idea of forgiveness on earth and a cushy life in heaven? Or just the warm feeling of being well inside a herd?The assertion is that Singularitarianism is faith-based. It is _not_ about why the followers of Singularitarianism follow the movement. One could easily make the analogy to Catholicism, where many Catholics (most that I know) don't really believe in Transubstantiation ... or even the Trinity. It does to me. And I think it IS relevant to the conversation. If they believe because they *want to* as opposed to *because there is persuasive evidence* then... well...It doesn't matter _why_ the followers follow. Oh, I do understand (implicitly) the point that the authors don't believe that the Singularians *have* evidence to support their beliefs. I agree with a lot of the Singularians "beliefs" not just all of their "conclusions".What matters are the ontological claims made by the religion. In the Singularitarianism case, the claim is a logical consequence of the claim you just made: There exists significant acceleration in technological progress. Their assertion then becomes that you are stating something you do not _know_. You believe it. But you don't know it. Hence, you are relying on faith to leap the chasm between what you know and what you believe. And that's why it's fideistic. I'm still not sure if you hold a hard line against: It *is* a pretty slippery phrase:There exists significant acceleration in technological progress. what means significant? what means progress? out of my treasure trove of anecdotal observations, I don't know what would suffice as "evidence" if tracked at least as far as a refereed publication. The number of patent applications per fortnight over time?We are on (yet another) cusp... and the nature of cusps is that it is hard to predict what is on the other side of it. I get why you don't want to give credence to the cusp being exponential... but are you denying the cusp? I have this wild belief that my Grandparents, born in the late 1800s observed something similar... from the first horseless carriage and heavier than air flying machine to transoceanic air travel and watching a televised moving image of a man walking on the moon. But at the same time, people were declaring that all of physics had been discovered and Russell and Whitehead conspired to put a cap on Mathematics as well. Or that at the end of the 15th Century, the era of Gutenberg, DaVinci, Galileo, Columbus, that nothing new or society changing was afoot like... half a world discovered, the center of the universe shifting 1AU to the Sun, an explosion in printed material of all kinds, and all that stuff we give Leonardo credit for (being clever and writing everything down?). In my work in studying/supporting Scientific Collaboration, it was a given (perhaps we should have double checked?) that the speciation of scientific sub-disciplines and specialized vocabularies is growing to the point of becoming a problem. It is also assumed that the total amount (number and complexity) of collaboration has increased since the advent of the internet. If you accept that, then you can still argue "so what?" and claim that this is just more "action" not necessarily more "progress". I'm a bit of a humanist luddite on the topic, questioning the *value* in human terms of said "progress" and perhaps it is this very "questioning" that motivates me to fear that the bogey-man IS coming and he's getting bigger every night around bedtime. So, is it that you would claim that there IS no bogey-man (technological progress either doesn't exist or isn't in any way threatening?) or that there *might be* but his reputation is overblown, or that it doesn't matter because he exists, is part of our life, get over it? Or something else entirely? The singularians seem to suggest this bogey-man is the tooth fairy, whose coins under the pillow follow an exponential growth curve... how many baby teeth do we have and what do we get if the tooth fairy doubles down every time we put one under our pillow? What kind of a person would trust a stranger with such a lust for human body parts as offerings who has access to their bedroom? - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic
|
|
Steve Smith wrote at 05/16/2013 02:45 PM:
> We are on (yet another) cusp... are you denying the cusp? I am denying the evidence for the cusp (though not necessarily the cusp, itself). I'm a skeptic, which means I'm interested in whatever evidence you think you have. As such, you rightly focus on the measures. What are the measures? To me, all observations are theory-laden. And that means that no matter what measures you choose, they will be biased to reflect (in some way, directly or inversely) the perspective from which they arose. Let's consider the ones you list above: o Number of patents over time. o Number of articles in tech journals over time. o Number of consumer products over time. What is a patent? Is it a reflection of novelty? Or is it a reflection of the social-legal-political structure by which (some of us) make money? (I changed "new ideas or devices" to articles because measuring "new" vs. warmed over old seems problematic, as does distinguishing an idea or device from the paper on which it's described.) Do these articles exist as a result of the ideas or devices? Or is the cause-effect actually reversed, do the ideas/devices exist because of the articles? Or, more likely, are they independent processes? I.e. there aren't more/accelerating new ideas and devices now than there were 10,000 years ago. It's just that _now_ we publish articles on our new ideas and devices, whereas before we did not. In fact, one might make the argument that _now_, tech progression has _slowed_ because documenting them in articles and IP ownership forces the inventor to scour stacks of paper instead of spending time inventing. Same arguments apply with consumer products. Is it that there are more products changing our lives? Or is it simply that any particular product is more widespread, homogenous across a larger clique, so that we _think_ there are more products when there may actually be fewer? ^^^^^^^ here ends the meat, only empty calories below ^^^^^^^ >> One >> could easily make the analogy to Catholicism, where many Catholics (most >> that I know) don't really believe in Transubstantiation ... or even the >> Trinity. > But they do like the idea of forgiveness on earth and a cushy life in > heaven? Or just the warm feeling of being well inside a herd? The latter. The ones I know don't care about lofty nonsense like heaven or forgiveness. They just do what they do because everyone around them does it. I've noticed a similar trend with self-identified atheists. > Oh, I do understand (implicitly) the point that the authors don't > believe that the Singularians *have* evidence to support their beliefs. > I agree with a lot of the Singularians "beliefs" not just all of their > "conclusions". Not quite. The Bringsjord et al argument isn't so much about there being a lack of evidence. It's about the Singularity Hypothesis not being _challengable_, or at least not well challenged, especially amongst its proponents. Summon Popper and the other dead white man ghosts! The point is that the Singularians are not _rational_. They are reasoning based on justificationism, one particularly egregious form of that being faith-based reasoning. > So, is it that you would claim that there IS no bogey-man (technological > progress either doesn't exist or isn't in any way threatening?) or that > there *might be* but his reputation is overblown, or that it doesn't > matter because he exists, is part of our life, get over it? Or > something else entirely? If you mean me, personally, then my answer is none of the above. I am merely skeptical. The singularity argument is so ill-formed my skeptical homunculus can jump in anywhere at any time. A good question to ask a moron like me is: What would constitute sufficient evidence to convince you? To that, my answer would be something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophilia_hypothesis except the affinity felt would be with a _machine_, not what we currently regard as life forms. In the end, it would have to be some form of artificial life that piqued my empathy. If/when you can show me such a machine, my skepticism will begin to wane. The device would have to "take on a life of its own" in some sense that appealed to my intuition. To convince _me_ (distinct from Bringsjord et al or anyone else), that's where we should hunt for appropriate measures ... measures that demonstrated progress in lifelike machines. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com Morality cannot exist one minute without freedom... Only a free man can possibly be moral. Unless a good deed is voluntary, it has no moral significance. -- Everett Martin ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic
|
|
Glen -
All good fun, meat, empty calories and silly talk alike... I realized near the end of your last post that we are not even really talking about the same thing. I discounted machine intelligence and the transference of the human mind (if not soul??? whatever that wold mean) into hardware immediately when I began reading Singularian stuff a couple of decades ago. So I'm not even talking about that. I just realized how misleading it must have been to imagine that I was? What I'm talking about is the (as yet to be identified in quality?) human experience of accelerated technology. The fact that Kurzweil and Co turn it into life extension (in one's own body, albeit enhanced and prostheticized to the max) and ascendence into "the cloud" is a tangent for me. The (much) softer version involves "who do we become as we assimilate or become assimilated by these new technologies?". The Amish took a tack about a century ago that discounted the value of the advancing technology to their selves and their communities. They chose to ask "who do I become if I adopt this new technology" each time something was presented to them and generally the answer was roughly "nobody I want to be". I don't discount the possibility of machine intelligence or even ultimately the possibility of download/upload of the human "mind" but it does seem highly problematic and the issues not as easily swept under as the Kurzweilian Singularians would imply. *I* am not holding *my* breath waiting. And I expect that even if it comes about, the early nanoseconds will look pretty Frankensteinianly Nightmarish by any standard and the later picoseconds will be completely unrecognizeable to mere humans such as myself. I get a little befuddled about metrics (partly based on what you are calling theory-laden) on this topic because they always seem to deserve some normalization. As you suggest, the rate of patent generation is not a simple nor clear measure of innovation, in fact there may be some negative corrolation today. Similarly with refereed publications. There is probably some model of the number of humans on the planet, the number of them with mathematical skills above a certain level (geometry and algebra if not trigonometry and calculus?), the number with access to "modern" technology ( > Steve Smith wrote at 05/16/2013 02:45 PM: >> We are on (yet another) cusp... are you denying the cusp? > I am denying the evidence for the cusp (though not necessarily the cusp, > itself). I'm a skeptic, which means I'm interested in whatever evidence > you think you have. As such, you rightly focus on the measures. What > are the measures? > > To me, all observations are theory-laden. And that means that no matter > what measures you choose, they will be biased to reflect (in some way, > directly or inversely) the perspective from which they arose. Let's > consider the ones you list above: > > o Number of patents over time. > o Number of articles in tech journals over time. > o Number of consumer products over time. > > What is a patent? Is it a reflection of novelty? Or is it a reflection > of the social-legal-political structure by which (some of us) make > money? (I changed "new ideas or devices" to articles because measuring > "new" vs. warmed over old seems problematic, as does distinguishing an > idea or device from the paper on which it's described.) Do these > articles exist as a result of the ideas or devices? Or is the > cause-effect actually reversed, do the ideas/devices exist because of > the articles? Or, more likely, are they independent processes? I.e. > there aren't more/accelerating new ideas and devices now than there were > 10,000 years ago. It's just that _now_ we publish articles on our new > ideas and devices, whereas before we did not. In fact, one might make > the argument that _now_, tech progression has _slowed_ because > documenting them in articles and IP ownership forces the inventor to > scour stacks of paper instead of spending time inventing. Same > arguments apply with consumer products. Is it that there are more > products changing our lives? Or is it simply that any particular > product is more widespread, homogenous across a larger clique, so that > we _think_ there are more products when there may actually be fewer? > > ^^^^^^^ here ends the meat, only empty calories below ^^^^^^^ > >>> One >>> could easily make the analogy to Catholicism, where many Catholics (most >>> that I know) don't really believe in Transubstantiation ... or even the >>> Trinity. >> But they do like the idea of forgiveness on earth and a cushy life in >> heaven? Or just the warm feeling of being well inside a herd? > The latter. The ones I know don't care about lofty nonsense like heaven > or forgiveness. They just do what they do because everyone around them > does it. I've noticed a similar trend with self-identified atheists. > >> Oh, I do understand (implicitly) the point that the authors don't >> believe that the Singularians *have* evidence to support their beliefs. >> I agree with a lot of the Singularians "beliefs" not just all of their >> "conclusions". > Not quite. The Bringsjord et al argument isn't so much about there > being a lack of evidence. It's about the Singularity Hypothesis not > being _challengable_, or at least not well challenged, especially > amongst its proponents. > > Summon Popper and the other dead white man ghosts! The point is that > the Singularians are not _rational_. They are reasoning based on > justificationism, one particularly egregious form of that being > faith-based reasoning. > >> So, is it that you would claim that there IS no bogey-man (technological >> progress either doesn't exist or isn't in any way threatening?) or that >> there *might be* but his reputation is overblown, or that it doesn't >> matter because he exists, is part of our life, get over it? Or >> something else entirely? > If you mean me, personally, then my answer is none of the above. I am > merely skeptical. The singularity argument is so ill-formed my > skeptical homunculus can jump in anywhere at any time. > > A good question to ask a moron like me is: What would constitute > sufficient evidence to convince you? To that, my answer would be > something like this: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophilia_hypothesis > > except the affinity felt would be with a _machine_, not what we > currently regard as life forms. In the end, it would have to be some > form of artificial life that piqued my empathy. If/when you can show me > such a machine, my skepticism will begin to wane. The device would have > to "take on a life of its own" in some sense that appealed to my > intuition. To convince _me_ (distinct from Bringsjord et al or anyone > else), that's where we should hunt for appropriate measures ... measures > that demonstrated progress in lifelike machines. > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic
|
|
Steve Smith wrote at 05/16/2013 04:40 PM:
> What I'm talking about is the (as yet to be identified in quality?) > human experience of accelerated technology. [...] The (much) softer > version involves "who do we become as we assimilate or become > assimilated by these new technologies?". Interesting. I still think we're talking about the same thing. But I'm wrong _all_ the time. ;-) I truly believe that we have always been in the midst of what you're calling "accelerated technology". It's no different now than it was 10 millenia ago or 10 millenia from now. This is where I think we disagree. You (seem to) believe that now is somehow fundamentally different from previous eras. I base my belief on my personal experience and skepticism toward competing hypotheses. It's the same argument I give for my claim that idealism is delusion, that actions speak louder than words, and that good mathematicians will be Platonic, by definition. You've heard the argument before. > I don't discount the possibility of machine intelligence or even > ultimately the possibility of download/upload of the human "mind" but > it does seem highly problematic and the issues not as easily swept > under as the Kurzweilian Singularians would imply. *I* am not > holding *my* breath waiting. And I expect that even if it comes > about, the early nanoseconds will look pretty Frankensteinianly > Nightmarish by any standard and the later picoseconds will be > completely unrecognizeable to mere humans such as myself. In this regard, I may be more idealistic than you. I'm convicted by the conclusion that mind can't exist without the body ... without the inextricable _embedding_, holarchically enmeshed with the environment. So, although I believe artificial/machine intelligence is likely, it won't be logically abstracted inside a purely syntactic machine. A logical consequence of my conviction is that there won't be (CAN'T be) a Frankensteinianly Nightmarish transition of any kind. The transition will be banal, experienced in the same way a person experiences growth from a zygote to a "middle-aged, pear-shaped, fart machine." (How did I get here? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1wg1DNHbNU) -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom. -- E.O. Wilson ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic
|
|
Glen, Steve,
Glen's latest retort on this thread (see below) gave me this thought: It would be interesting if you guys could offer an (admittedly oversimplified) analytical model of your best guesses on what the productivity function and the acceleration function (2nd derivative of the production function) of "technology" over time would be. Such a model, though simplistic, would force some careful thinking. For example, if you believe that the production of technology over time (p) is linear, or p = mt, then the acceleration would be 0. If you think p is strict exponential, or p = e**t (as Steve might), then the acceleration would be e**t. If you think it is cyclical (periodic) (say, p = sin(t)), then the growth rate is cyclical, e.g. p = -sin(t). (Maybe Glen thinks something like that.) Of course, the productivity function is actually none of these but probably some analytic series, or whatever. Anyway, this kind of thinking could at least be subjected to past history and be a more quantifiable conversation promoter. Just an idea. Grant On 5/17/13 10:20 AM, glen e. p. ropella wrote: > Steve Smith wrote at 05/16/2013 04:40 PM: >> What I'm talking about is the (as yet to be identified in quality?) >> human experience of accelerated technology. [...] The (much) softer >> version involves "who do we become as we assimilate or become >> assimilated by these new technologies?". > Interesting. I still think we're talking about the same thing. But I'm > wrong _all_ the time. ;-) I truly believe that we have always been in > the midst of what you're calling "accelerated technology". It's no > different now than it was 10 millenia ago or 10 millenia from now. This > is where I think we disagree. You (seem to) believe that now is somehow > fundamentally different from previous eras. > > I base my belief on my personal experience and skepticism toward > competing hypotheses. It's the same argument I give for my claim that > idealism is delusion, that actions speak louder than words, and that > good mathematicians will be Platonic, by definition. You've heard the > argument before. > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic
|
|
Great idea! I actually think an accurate approximation would involve an impredicative hierarchical model. I don't think one can isolate technology from the humans that create it. But absent the time to put that together, I'll go with something like: { 1/(1+e^-(h-h_o)), h near h_o p(h) = { { 1/(1+e^(h+h_f)), h >> h_o where h is the population of humans and h_o is some tech-accelerating-maximum population of humans. h_o becomes some sort of "optimal clique size". h_f is some sort of failure size larger than h_o. Grant Holland wrote at 05/17/2013 11:51 AM: > Glen's latest retort on this thread (see below) gave me this thought: It > would be interesting if you guys could offer an (admittedly > oversimplified) analytical model of your best guesses on what the > productivity function and the acceleration function (2nd derivative of > the production function) of "technology" over time would be. Such a > model, though simplistic, would force some careful thinking. > > For example, if you believe that the production of technology over time > (p) is linear, or p = mt, then the acceleration would be 0. If you think > p is strict exponential, or p = e**t (as Steve might), then the > acceleration would be e**t. If you think it is cyclical (periodic) (say, > p = sin(t)), then the growth rate is cyclical, e.g. p = -sin(t). (Maybe > Glen thinks something like that.) Of course, the productivity function > is actually none of these but probably some analytic series, or whatever. > > Anyway, this kind of thinking could at least be subjected to past > history and be a more quantifiable conversation promoter. > > Just an idea. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com Liberty is the only thing you can't have unless you give it to others. -- William Allen White ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic
|
|
Glen,
That's very good! And it captures the kind of hypolinearity that you I think you have been suggesting. Looks like to me that your p(h) function's sensitivity to human population size is well-considered. If I understand your parameter constants h_o and h_f correctly, then I believe the exponent of e in both of your cases is a positive integer. I believe this means that your p(h) is monotonically decreasing in both cases. So, the next thing is to consider the acceleration of p(h) - its second derivative. This means that we are interested in its convexity. I suspect that it is always convex for positive h. If so, then its acceleration is always positive. Of course, a more analytical approach to taking these derivatives is called for. So, assuming that the population h is always increasing with time - probably a reasonable case, then p(t) is also convex. This implies, if I am correct, that your production function is always accelerating. Is this correct? Do these considerations reflect your thinking about technology growth? On 5/17/13 2:35 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote: > Great idea! > > I actually think an accurate approximation would involve an > impredicative hierarchical model. I don't think one can isolate > technology from the humans that create it. > > But absent the time to put that together, I'll go with something like: > > { 1/(1+e^-(h-h_o)), h near h_o > p(h) = { > { 1/(1+e^(h+h_f)), h >> h_o > > where h is the population of humans and h_o is some > tech-accelerating-maximum population of humans. h_o becomes some sort > of "optimal clique size". h_f is some sort of failure size larger than h_o. > > > Grant Holland wrote at 05/17/2013 11:51 AM: >> Glen's latest retort on this thread (see below) gave me this thought: It >> would be interesting if you guys could offer an (admittedly >> oversimplified) analytical model of your best guesses on what the >> productivity function and the acceleration function (2nd derivative of >> the production function) of "technology" over time would be. Such a >> model, though simplistic, would force some careful thinking. >> >> For example, if you believe that the production of technology over time >> (p) is linear, or p = mt, then the acceleration would be 0. If you think >> p is strict exponential, or p = e**t (as Steve might), then the >> acceleration would be e**t. If you think it is cyclical (periodic) (say, >> p = sin(t)), then the growth rate is cyclical, e.g. p = -sin(t). (Maybe >> Glen thinks something like that.) Of course, the productivity function >> is actually none of these but probably some analytic series, or whatever. >> >> Anyway, this kind of thinking could at least be subjected to past >> history and be a more quantifiable conversation promoter. >> >> Just an idea. > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic
|
|
In reply to this post by Grant Holland
[Edit: ninja'd by Glen & Grant since I got distracted by explaining the Zooniverse to my science teacher]
I think the distinction between singularists and technologists more generally is how their function curves; the singularity being a cultural asymptote, requiring a quicker function than just the maybe-exponential Moore's Law, or even something like a factorial. The contributing factor to the increasing of the increasing of the slope seems to be said by singularists to be strong AI, as machines can start to design (improve) and build themselves. We are not there yet but surprisingly close, as we discussed with the "Open Google. What Just Happened?" discussion.
There also seems to be, especially in popular perceptions of singularists (or if you think they are more evangelical, Singularitarians with a capital S), an aspect of body modification, and beyond that identity modification, and beyond that mind/hivemind modification. Apropos is this article by rich entrepreneur (founder of HowStuffWorks.com, which I learned about from a book they published that I read as a kid, How Much Does the Earth Weigh?) Marshall Brain which seems very singularist but does not call itself so (it was published in 2005, the same year the Singularity is Near came out, the book that made the singularity a household word although Kurzweil et al had been talking about it for quite a while): The Day You Discard Your Body And the obligatory XKCD reference: Protip: Annoy Ray Kurzweil by always referring to it as the 'Cybersingularity'. And this parody of intellectual discussion of the matter by Aaron Diaz: A Thinking Ape’s Critique of Trans-Simianism -Arlo James Barnes ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic
|
|
In reply to this post by Grant Holland
Damn it Grant. Why do responses to you not go to the list by default? ;-) Grant Holland wrote at 05/17/2013 02:41 PM: > Looks like to me that your p(h) function's sensitivity to human > population size is well-considered. If I understand your parameter > constants h_o and h_f correctly, then I believe the exponent of e in > both of your cases is a positive integer. I believe this means that your > p(h) is monotonically decreasing in both cases. Not quite. The first one is a normal S curve. The second mode is inverted. I don't know if I can add attachments. So, try this: first mode: https://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427eolc4anlkqf second mode: https://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427elo9c75852c So, together, the bimodal function should look like a mesa. > So, the next thing is to consider the acceleration of p(h) - its second > derivative. This means that we are interested in its convexity. I > suspect that it is always convex for positive h. If so, then its > acceleration is always positive. Of course, a more analytical approach > to taking these derivatives is called for. { (e^(h+h_o))/(e^(h+h_o)+1)^2 d/dh = { { -(e^(h+h_o))/(e^(h+h_o)+1)^2 (The sign on h_o doesn't really matter, I suppose.) So, the curvature is positive for the first mode and negative for the second. The 2nd derivative will have the same sign as the 1st derivative, I think, which means the convexity flips at h_o. > So, assuming that the population h is always increasing with time - > probably a reasonable case, then p(t) is also convex. This implies, if I > am correct, that your production function is always accelerating. Is > this correct? Given the above, no. It goes through a high acceleration period near h_o, but much less h << h_o and switches to mode 2 at h >> h_o. > Do these considerations reflect your thinking about technology growth? Well, as I said before, I don't think it's accurate. But I do think my "mesa" function might generally capture what people like Steve _perceive_. I actually think that technology doesn't grow any faster or slower on any variable. But I can see how one might _think_ it does. E.g. with Geoff West's concept of more innovation in higher densities. > On 5/17/13 2:35 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote: >> But absent the time to put that together, I'll go with something like: >> >> { 1/(1+e^-(h-h_o)), h near h_o >> p(h) = { >> { 1/(1+e^(h+h_f)), h >> h_o >> >> where h is the population of humans and h_o is some >> tech-accelerating-maximum population of humans. h_o becomes some sort >> of "optimal clique size". h_f is some sort of failure size larger >> than h_o. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom. -- E.O. Wilson ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic
|
|
Glen,
Thanks for that. That makes your p(h) function very much more interesting than what I had surmised. Depending on the value of h, acceleration can be either positive or negative - as can be inferred from your derivatives. So both cases get covered. Does Steve's position also get included under the right conditions? Grant On 5/17/13 4:16 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote: > Damn it Grant. Why do responses to you not go to the list by default? ;-) > > Grant Holland wrote at 05/17/2013 02:41 PM: >> Looks like to me that your p(h) function's sensitivity to human >> population size is well-considered. If I understand your parameter >> constants h_o and h_f correctly, then I believe the exponent of e in >> both of your cases is a positive integer. I believe this means that your >> p(h) is monotonically decreasing in both cases. > Not quite. The first one is a normal S curve. The second mode is > inverted. I don't know if I can add attachments. So, try this: > > first mode: > https://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427eolc4anlkqf > > second mode: > https://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427elo9c75852c > > So, together, the bimodal function should look like a mesa. > >> So, the next thing is to consider the acceleration of p(h) - its second >> derivative. This means that we are interested in its convexity. I >> suspect that it is always convex for positive h. If so, then its >> acceleration is always positive. Of course, a more analytical approach >> to taking these derivatives is called for. > { (e^(h+h_o))/(e^(h+h_o)+1)^2 > d/dh = { > { -(e^(h+h_o))/(e^(h+h_o)+1)^2 > > (The sign on h_o doesn't really matter, I suppose.) So, the curvature is > positive for the first mode and negative for the second. The 2nd > derivative will have the same sign as the 1st derivative, I think, which > means the convexity flips at h_o. > >> So, assuming that the population h is always increasing with time - >> probably a reasonable case, then p(t) is also convex. This implies, if I >> am correct, that your production function is always accelerating. Is >> this correct? > Given the above, no. It goes through a high acceleration period near > h_o, but much less h << h_o and switches to mode 2 at h >> h_o. > >> Do these considerations reflect your thinking about technology growth? > Well, as I said before, I don't think it's accurate. But I do think my > "mesa" function might generally capture what people like Steve > _perceive_. I actually think that technology doesn't grow any faster or > slower on any variable. But I can see how one might _think_ it does. > E.g. with Geoff West's concept of more innovation in higher densities. > >> On 5/17/13 2:35 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote: >>> But absent the time to put that together, I'll go with something like: >>> >>> { 1/(1+e^-(h-h_o)), h near h_o >>> p(h) = { >>> { 1/(1+e^(h+h_f)), h >> h_o >>> >>> where h is the population of humans and h_o is some >>> tech-accelerating-maximum population of humans. h_o becomes some sort >>> of "optimal clique size". h_f is some sort of failure size larger >>> than h_o. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Belief in The Singularity is Fideistic
|
|
Grant Holland wrote at 05/17/2013 03:28 PM:
> Does Steve's position also get included under the right conditions? I think so. If the first mode were sharp enough 1/(1+e^(-t*(h-h_o))), where t >> 1 ("t" for threshold), then when h is just below h_o, the perceived acceleration of tech would seem very high, only to begin slowing after we crossed h_o. For example, if Steve were kidnapped and sold into slavery in India or Indonesia, to him h > h_o. But at the near optimal population density for him where he is, he sees it accelerating. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trust either of them. -- P. J. O'Rourke ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |