From: Christian Szegedy (szegedy@or.uni-bonn.de)
Date: Mon Mar 10 2003 - 02:26:57 MST
Dani Eder wrote:
>
>We can define time periods for the purposes of
>discussion as follows:
>
>Near Future - most things are still more similar
>to today than different (<50% change).
>
>Far Future - most things are more different than
>similar to today (>50% change).
>
>Singularity - things are so different that prediction
>is not useful (>95% change)
>
>
Hmmm, "Change" is not a physical quantity that can
be measured. I don't think that this had any essence.
For me the most objective definition of singularity would be
that it is the time when no nonaugmented human mind can
master expertise in any technological field. By expertise
I mean *state of the art* (let us say, above the average)
ability and knowledge in some field.
A weak point is the definition of "unaugmented".
Of course, you could say that even today nobody can
become an expert without paper, pen, books and internet
which is also a form of augmentation. (I don't think it's
true (you can even be a great computer scientist without
using computers at all), but we can assume it.) Therefore,
I would draw the line at augmentation at "hardware" level:
i.e. at neuronal or genetic level augmentation.
This is somewhat arbitrary and not well defined, (using
a computer display could also be viewed as a form of
"neural augmentation") but perhaps it is still clearer
than any other definitions so far.
To put it simply: "Singularity happens when the
old fashioned human hardware becomes obsolete".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:41 MDT