Re: Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

Hi, Do most in the filed believe that only a war can advance technology to the point of singularity-level events? Any opinions would be helpful. My view is that for technologies involving large investment in manufacturing infrastructure, the US military is one very likely source of funds. But

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

On 10/28/06, Bill K wrote: I've just seen a news article that is relevant. I'm aware that robot fighters of some sort are being built by the military, it would be ridiculous to believe that with technology as advanced as it is, th

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

On 10/22/06, Anna Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/22/06, Bill K wrote: >But I agree that huge military R&D expenditure (which already supports >many, many research groups) is the place most likely to produce >singularity-level events. I am aware that the military is the most likely plac

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

Josh Cowan wrote: Issues associated with animal rights are better known then the coming Singularity. Issues associated with animal rights are easy to understand, they make you feel good when you help. The general public can pick up a phone, donate money and feel rewarded that it is helping a ca

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

Chris Norwood wrote: When talking about use, it is easy to explain by giving examples. When talking about safety, I always bring in disembodied AGI vs. embodied and the normal "range of possible minds" debate. If they are still wary, I talk about the possible inevitability of AGI. I relate i

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

Subject: Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk I found more on Freitas' SQ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience_Quotient The ratio of the highest and lowest values, 10^120 depends only on Planck's constant h, the speed of light c,

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

On 9/24/06, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Anyway, I am curious if anyone would like to share experiences they've had trying to get Singularitarian concepts across to ordinary (but let's assume college-educated) Joes out there. Successful experiences are valued but also unsuccessful on

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

ROTECTED]> To: singularity@v2.listbox.com Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:46:55 AM Subject: Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk On 9/24/06, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyway, I am curious if anyone would like to share ex

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

On 9/24/06, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Anyway, I am curious if anyone would like to share experiences they've had trying to get Singularitarian concepts across to ordinary (but let's assume college-educated) Joes out there. Successful experiences are valued but also unsuccessful one

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

On Oct 23, 2006, at 7:00 PM, Anna Taylor wrote: On 10/23/06, J. Andrew Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So you could say that the economics of responding to the mere threat of war is adequate to drive all the research the military does. Yes I agree but why is the threat of war always the mot

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

On Oct 23, 2006, at 6:43 PM, Gregory Johnson wrote: I most certainly am not a proponent of the military industrial complex as opposed to the Japanese and German business models , but it is my sense that that is not where the world is headed at the moment. Huh? J. Andrew Rogers -

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

On 10/23/06, Joel Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Then I think we should record some singularity music. If you have lyrics to describe exactly what the singularity will be, I would love to hear your music:) This reminds me off talking with Ben about creating a musical interface to Novamente.

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: singularity@v2.listbox.com To: singularity@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:43:44 -0500 I note that Ray Kurzweil, is also an advisor to some milita

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

On 10/22/06, Anna Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ignoring the mass is only going to limit the potential of any idea. People buy CD's, watch tv, download music, chat, read (if you're lucky) therefore the only possible solution is to find a way to integrate within the mass population. (Unless o

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

Sorry, that should have read: "Do you not think that there are other possible economical ways to motivate the...". My mistake. Anna:) On 10/23/06, Anna Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/23/06, J. Andrew Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So you could say that the economics of respond

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

On 10/23/06, J. Andrew Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So you could say that the economics of responding to the mere threat of war is adequate to drive all the research the military does. Yes I agree but why is the threat of war always the motive? Do not think that there are other possible e

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

I note that Ray Kurzweil, is also an advisor to some military computational projects. If I was Ray I would find the gauranteed profit in servicing a market that does not have to respond to the market and social  ups and down might be just what I need to see some AGI  R&D turned into prototypes pos

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

On Oct 22, 2006, at 11:10 AM, Anna Taylor wrote: On 10/22/06, Bill K wrote: But I agree that huge military R&D expenditure (which already supports many, many research groups) is the place most likely to produce singularity-level events. I am aware that the military is the most likely place

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

On 10/22/06, Bill K wrote: But I agree that huge military R&D expenditure (which already supports many, many research groups) is the place most likely to produce singularity-level events. I am aware that the military is the most likely place to produce singularity-level events, i'm just trying

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

On 10/22/06, Anna Taylor wrote: Gregory, this is a very damaging responsive. Posthuman has nothing to do with "supersoldiers". Technology is not there to enhance war like behavior. What part of history made you think that? Unfortunately history tells us that war drives technology forward. Af

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

es and intentions > than we're basing these efforts on. > > See the Second Enlightenment Conference: http://www.2enlightenment.com > Elizabet Sahtouris will be keynote (http://www.ratical.org/LifeWeb/) > > Kind Regards, > > Bruce LaDuke > Managing Director > >

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

I had bit of a cute experiencel last week. An associate in a group that advises our goverment found in her housecleaning of old printed materials a book in which one of my futurist  essays from back in 1971 appeared.  I  thought it was a neat way to review the subject to see if the future for 2008

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

deering <[EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 1:40 PM wrote: I think I have come across an epiphany. 'Normal' people, not like us, make all of >their decisions based on arguments from authority. I would love for you to write what is a descriptive paragraph of "normal people", then maybe i

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

In reference to the original question of this thread, 'How to convince non-techy types of the Singularity.'  I think I have come across an epiphany.  'Normal' people, not like us, make all of their decisions based on arguments from authority.  They don't feel competent to think for themselve

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

Russell Wallace wrote: - though with luck and if things go as I hope they will, a lot more intelligently than they do today. Hopefully... Anna:) On 9/27/06, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/27/06, Anna Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, my apology, I was thinking on the

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

On 9/27/06, Anna Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes, my apology, I was thinking on the terms of say 20-35 years. Sure, in that timescale we'll still be looking at computers just doing what humans program them to do - though with luck and if things go as I hope they will, a lot more intelligently

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

In the same way that the soup of organic chemical reactions led to evolutionary systems and eventually led to *us* thinking. -- -Joel Yes you're right. I was thinking on the lines of the first ape description and moving it along from there:) Anna:) On 9/27/06, Joel Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

On 9/28/06, Anna Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bruce LaDuke wrote: I don't believe a machine can ever have intention that doesn't ultimately trace back to a human being. I was curious to know what the major opinions are on this comment. Most of my concerns are related to the fact that I too

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

Robert wrote: Well, ever's a long time. Yes, my apology, I was thinking on the terms of say 20-35 years. Anna:) On 9/27/06, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/27/06, Anna Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bruce LaDuke wrote: > I don't believe a machine can ever have intention

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

On 9/27/06, Anna Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bruce LaDuke wrote:I don't believe a machine can ever have intention that doesn'tultimately trace back to a human being.I was curious to know what the major opinions are on this comment. Well, ever's a long time. I think it will be true for the fo

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

singularity@v2.listbox.com Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:47:49 PM Subject: Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Bruce LaDuke wrote: I don't believe a machine can ever have intention that doesn't ultimately trace back to a huma

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

ows From: "Hank Conn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: singularity@v2.listbox.com To: singularity@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:36:57 -0400 Bruce I tend to agree with all the th

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

nstant Innovation, LLC Indianapolis, IN [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hyperadvance.com Original Message Follows From: "Hank Conn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: singularity@v2.listbox.com To: singularity@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

Indianapolis, IN [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hyperadvance.com Original Message Follows From: Randall Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: singularity@v2.listbox.com To: singularity@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn&#x

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

Bruce I tend to agree with all the things you say here and appreciate your insight, observations, and sentiment.   However, here is where you are horribly wrong:   "In my mind, singularity is no different.  I pesonally see it providing justanother tool in the hand of mankind, only one of greater po

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

Copycat and Metacat are both open source.   And I second your complaint about the AGI book. It's getting rediculous at this point.   -hank  On 9/25/06, Josh Treadwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:     Even though I've come to grips with what the Singularity represents and it's vast implications, most

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

On Sep 25, 2006, at 10:05 PM, Bruce LaDuke wrote: We're not looking into singularity yet, but the convergence has already started. Consider that the molecular economy has the potential to bring total social upheaval in its own right, without singularity. What you're speaking of *is* sin

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

On 9/26/06, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/25/06, Josh Treadwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there anything we underlings can do for the Ph.D guys? Has anyone written a "track" to follow for someone incredibly interested in AGI? Now, Ben was saying awhile ago, IIRC,

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: singularity@v2.listbox.com To: singularity@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 23:16:12 +0200 I'd suggest looking at Joy's "Why the future doesn't need

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

Russell Wallace wrote: Now, Ben was saying awhile ago, IIRC, that he's doing simulated 3D worlds as sort of a side project, relatively loosely coupled to the rest of Novamente, that would be therefore relatively easy for someone else to contribute to without requiring face to face meetings, ful

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

I'd suggest looking at Joy's "Why the future doesn't need us" article in Wired.For some reason, which isn't clear to me, that article was a huge hit, drawingin people that normally would never read such stuff.  I was surprised when various educated but non-techie people I know started asking me abo

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

On 9/25/06, Josh Treadwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:     Is there anything we underlings can do for the Ph.D guys?  Has anyone written a "track" to follow for someone incredibly interested in AGI? A very fair question; and the answer is basically no. I don't have anything coherent enough

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

    Even though I've come to grips with what the Singularity represents and it's vast implications, most people I've discussed the implications with see it as something that "will just happen" or "smart people will figure it out".  Sometimes, they will latch on and get interested, only to fall

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

Maybe I don't understand why we need to explain the Singularity to others.  Years ago I realized that if we can make machines smarter than ourselves, then so can they.  I also realized that the growth of knowledge is faster than exponential over the long term.  The time constant gets shorter as we

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

Peter Voss wrote: I have a more fundamental question though: Why in particular would we want to convince people that the Singularity is coming? I see many disadvantages to widely promoting these ideas prematurely. If one's plan is to launch a Singularity quickly, before anyone else notices, the

RE: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

disadvantages to widely promoting these ideas prematurely.   Peter   From: Hank Conn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 7:04 AM To: singularity@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk  

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

I am usually able to convince people that the Singularity is possible, if not even plausible, although I have never actually 'converted' (so to speak) someone to be a Singularitarian.   As always, though, I like to get the idea out into the open, and one thing I am interested in right now is gettin

RE: Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

Maybe I’m a fool to try, but maybe I can also turn this discussion 90 degrees and look at it from a different angle…    On my blog -- http://pj-manney.blogspot.com/ -- I talk about the issue of bilingualism (and eventual multilingualism) as pertains to futurist communication in a piece called “A

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

Olie, It seems to me that the time-scale issue is very critical here, and is indeed the most dubious aspect of popular Singularitarian prognostications. It's quite possible to accept that a) the advent of greater than human intelligence will likely lead to a total transformation of reality, min

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

On 9/24/06, Michael Anissimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ben,From what I've seen the Kurzweil approach is among the mosteffective... if by "Singularity" you mean "smarter than humanintelligence making everything fly out the window", only a couple hundred people even understand this, and most of the

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

Mark, you do have a good point. The viability of speculations about future tech cannot be rationally assessed by people who simply lack knowledge about current science and technology. I think Kurzweil does do an excellent job in this regard: his book spends a lot of time just educating the reade

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

From what I've seen the Kurzweil approach is among the most effective... if by "Singularity" you mean "smarter than human intelligence making everything fly out the window", only a couple hundred people even understand this, and most of them arrived at it through Staring Into the Singularity. Hm

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

I have been able to convince maybe one or two people that the Singularity is a plausible scenario that will probably happen in our lifetimes.  I have been able to raise maybe a few more to SL2 status.  But even if you or I were to convince 25 people, I doubt any of them would do anything bey

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

On 9/23/06, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Anyway, I am curious if anyone would like to share experiences they'vehad trying to get Singularitarian concepts across to ordinary (butlet's assume college-educated) Joes out there.  Successful experiencesare valued but also unsuccessful ones.  I

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

I've been talking to everyone who will listen for at least six years about the Singularity.  I've tried Kurzweil's graphs, Yudkowsky's excellent 'Staring...' and numerous arguments of my own design.  I have yet to convince a single person.  Not even my wife.     Mike. This list is sponsored

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

On 9/24/06, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, I have been considering co-authoring some verbiage aimed at explaining the Singularity notion to intelligent, educated non-nerds (together with a writer I know who is more experienced and expert than me at writing for a non-technical audien

Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

Ben, From what I've seen the Kurzweil approach is among the most effective... if by "Singularity" you mean "smarter than human intelligence making everything fly out the window", only a couple hundred people even understand this, and most of them arrived at it through Staring Into the Singulari

[singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk

Hi, I have been considering co-authoring some verbiage aimed at explaining the Singularity notion to intelligent, educated non-nerds (together with a writer I know who is more experienced and expert than me at writing for a non-technical audience). Of course this has been done before, e.g. it ha