I think the data supporting Huebner's conclusion that innovation is declining is weak.
- In fig. 1, what is the justification for dividing by population? Isn't the absolute rate of innovation more important than innovation per person? - Isn't the fact that we can support a rapidly growing population a significant innovation in itself? - Who is to say if an innovation is "significant" or not? - In fig. 3, a possible reason for the decline in patents is that they are getting more expensive. - Huebner gathers empirical data and supposes that the graph fits a Gaussian curve, when many different functions would also fit. It is his choice of function that leads to the conclusion that innovation will go to 0. The empirical data doesn't justify this, however. I think a stronger argument against a Singularity is that you just can't predict the future. You could give many examples of long range forecasts that have been wildly wrong, "people will never fly", etc. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ---- From: Lúcio de Souza Coelho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2006 5:27:07 PM Subject: Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Some argue that the Singularity will not be reached because of economic barriers. As the "easy" scientific and technological advances are reached, the difficult ones will demand more and more sums of money/time/effort to be accomplished, and so at some point it will simply not be financially attractive to invest in innovation anymore. This argument was one of the many exposed by John Horgan in his "The End of Science" in the 90s. And there is a more recent and highly controversial article that claims it is already happening: http://tinyurl.com/n6zsk On 10/4/06, Joshua Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Could I offer Singularity-list readers this intellectual challenge: Give an > argument supporting the thesis "Any sort of Singularity is very unlikely to > occur in this century." > > Even if you don't actually believe the point, consider it a > debate-club-style challenge. If there is already something on the web > somewhere, could you please point me to it. > > I've been eager for this piece ever since I learned of the Singularity > concept. I know of the "objections" chapter in Kurzweil's Singularity is > Near, the relevant parts of Vinge's seminal essay, as well the ideas of > Lanier, Huebner, and a few others, but in all the millions of words out > there I can't remember seeing a well-reasoned article with the above claim > as its major thesis. (Note, I'm looking for "why the Singularity won't > happen" rather than "why the Singularity is a bad idea" or "why technology > is not accelerating".) (...) ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
