46 replies to this topic

[RighteousReason]

The most intelligent people are Singularitarians(1). How the conscious processes of intelligence integrate with the accelerating(2) growth of technology and computing power in the near future is what will define the future of the entire Universe.

(1)
http://www.accelerat...ritarianism.htm

(2)
http://www.kurzweila...tml?printable=1

Also see:
http://sl4.org/wiki/TableOfContents
http://www.singinst.org/
http://www.singinst....ingularity.html

[MichaelAnissimov]

Everybody: ignore the title of this post. My "Who are Singularitarians?" paper is relatively old and I haven't looked at it in a couple years, but it's fairly short anyway. The Law of Accelerating Returns paper is definitely worth looking at if you haven't seen it. A visit to singinst.org is definitely informative if you've never been there as well.

While people are being linked to my website, I recommend World Peace Through World Domination and Quotes I Like.

[RighteousReason]

from here

Come on, how many people are Singularitarians, anyway? Not enough to have any bearing.

It doesn't matter how many people are Singularitarians for multiple reasons.

For one, how many people are in the top .0000001% of intelligence? (leave that as an exercise for the reader).

C'mon, haven't you ever been told that what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular?

(1)Secondly, IBM already has a project called Blue Brain, which is the name of a major project designed explicitly for the purpose of simulating the processes of the brain. Granted, this may not directly result in an intelligent computer, but this is only one promising route of many to the Singularity, and certainly adds to the exponential increases in the scientific understanding of the mind.

(2)Tremendous advances in Brain-Computer interfaces are being made today, and nanotechnology will only accelerate their progress. This is another way direct intelligence processing can integrate with computers.

(3)There are over 20 organizations- government, academic, commercial, and non-profit with the explicit goal of creating a general artificial intelligence system of human-equivalent or greater intelligence. A success in any one of these enables the Singularity.

(1) http://domino.watson...egene_cognitive. html
(2) http://en.wikipedia....puter_interface
(3) http://www.agiri.org...hp?showtopic=44

Also, the Singularity is attracting a growing number of people, which is evident based on the overwhelming success of the Singularity Summit at Stanford* and the 2006 Singularity Challenge**.

* http://sss.stanford.edu/
** http://www.singinst.org/challenge/

[Richard Leis]

For many Singularitarians, the Technological Singularity taps into their need for religion and spiritual transcendence. Are they more intelligent? Many technology progressives view the Singularity as nerd Rapture. Are they less intelligent?

It is one thing to believe in and support the Singularity; it is another to convince yourself that this somehow puts you in elite company.

[MichaelAnissimov]

For many Singularitarians, the Technological Singularity taps into their need for religion and spiritual transcendence. Are they more intelligent? Many technology progressives view the Singularity as nerd Rapture. Are they less intelligent?

Actually, this isn't true. People would think this, but if you actually get together with Singularitarians for dinner or whatever, you'll see that they are in fact extremely nerdy and rational, and lack that spiritual spark that characterizes so many other people. They have no desire for religion or spiritual transcendence. They just recognize the fact that a human-equivalent generally intelligent AI is anything but "human-equivalent", due to the massive differences in cognitive architecture. This is a technical belief, not a spiritual one.

I'm talking about SIAI Singularitarians, not just random people who have read Ray Kurzweil's recent book.

It is one thing to believe in and support the Singularity; it is another to convince yourself that this somehow puts you in elite company.

Only Hank believes this. Go to SIAI's website and look at every member of staff, and they're all quite humble, except maybe Eliezer. Tyler Emerson, Executive Director of SIAI, is one of the most humble people I've ever met. In fact, I think that some of them are too humble, and don't trumpet the cause enough.

[Richard Leis]

I have gotten together with some Singularitarians and they have generally been rational. However, some of what I read on the Internet seemed to portray the Singularity as spiritual transcendence. Maybe that has changed and maybe the sources were suspect. I do seem to run into technology progressives who think the Singularity is silly.

So I guess I was describing a problem that does not exist any longer

I have also only met humble Singularitarians. My comment was directed only to those who might think their belief in the Singularity somehow made them more intelligent than other people.

[RighteousReason]

Everybody: ignore the title of this post.

Ah you dirty, damned, bastard. Haha.

It is one thing to believe in and support the Singularity; it is another to convince yourself that this somehow puts you in elite company.

Oh ok you are one of those insane relativists who believe that nobody is more intelligent than anyone else. Ok- here in reality- some people actually are smarter than others.

And NO... just believing in the Singularity or dedicating your life to it doesn't cause you to be more intelligent (you have to be retarded for that thought to even occur to you).

Only Hank believes this.

Haha. Ok, I admit that this is an emotional ejaculation rather than a factual assertion. I haven't taken down the statistics of every known grouping of people and measured their intelligence in some standardized manner and concluded that Singularitarians just happen to be, statistically, more intelligent than any other grouping. But I can assure you they aren't anywhere near the average by any measure.

And for Christ's sake don't toss around statements about my supposed beliefs. My beliefs are exactly reality. Coincidentally, my state of knowledge/volition about my beliefs is never entirely complete or consistent at any given time.

My comment was directed only to those who might think their belief in the Singularity somehow made them more intelligent than other people.

See above statement about your insanity and stupidity.

[RighteousReason]

An excerpt from The Diamond Age, by Neal Stephenson (actually a great sci-fi book loaded with nanotechnological goodies):

"You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices," Finkle-McGraw said.
"It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticise others-
after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism?"
Finkle-McGraw paused, knowing that he had the full attention of his audience, and began to withdraw
a calabash pipe and various related supplies and implements from his pockets. As he continued, he charged
the calabash with a blend of leather-brown tobacco so redolent that it made Hackworth's mouth water. He was
tempted to spoon some of it into his mouth.
"Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love
nothing better than to criticise others' shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it
from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you
can find grounds to criticise another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually
done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the
morality of his behavior- you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all
political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy.
"You wouldn't believe the things they said about the orgininal Victorians. Calling someone a Victorian
in those days was almost like calling them a fascist or a Nazi."
Both Hackworth and Major Napier were dumbfounded. "Your Grace!" Napier exclaied. "I was naturally
aware that their moral stance was radically different from ours- but I am astonished to be informed that they
actually *condemned* the first Victorians."
"Of course they did," Finkle-McGraw said.
"Because the first Victorians were hypocrites," Hackworth said, getting it.
Finkle-McGraw beamed upon Hackworth like a master upon his favored pupil," As you can see, Major
Napier, my estimate of Mr. Hackworth's mental acuity was not ill-founded."
"While I would never have supposed otherwise, Your Grace," Major Napier said, "it is nonetheless
gratifying to have seen a demonstation," Napier raised his glass in Hackworth's direction.
"Because they were hypocrites," Finkle-McGraw said, after igniting his calabash and shooting a few
tremendous fountains of smoke into the air, "the Victorians were despised in the late twentieth century. Many of
the persons who held such opinions were, of course, guilty of the most nefandous conduct themselves, and yet
saw no paradox in holding such views because they were not hypocrites themselves- they took no moral
stances and lived by none."
"So they were morally superior to the Victorians-" Major Napier said, still a bit snowed under.
"-even though- in fact, *because*- they had no morals at all."
There was a moment of silent, bewildered head-shaking around the copper table.
"We take a somewhat different view of hypocrisy," Finkle-McGraw continued. "In the late-twentieth-
century Weltanshauung, a hypocrite was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned
campaign of deception- he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy. Of course,
most hypocrites are not like that. Most of the time it's a spirit-is-willing, flesh-is-weak sort of thing."
"That we occasionally violate our own stated moral code," Major Napier said, working it through, "does
not imply that we are insincere in espousing that code."
"Of course not," Finkle-McGraw said. "It's perfectly obvious, really. No one ever said that it was easy to
hew to a strict code of conduct. Really, the difficulties involved- the missteps we make along the way- are what
make it interesting. The internal, and *eternal*, struggle, between our base impulses and the rigorous demands
of our own moral system is quintessentially human. It is how we conduct ourselves in that struggle that
determines how we may in time be judged by a higher power."
All three men were quiet for a few moments, chewing mouthfuls of beer or smoke, pondering the
matter.

Edited by hankconn, 24 August 2006 - 11:29 PM.

[olaf.larsson]

The most intelligent people are Singularitarians

I must disagree. Im not intressted in singularity. )

Edited by wolfram, 24 August 2006 - 08:28 PM.

[MichaelAnissimov]

It is true that the IQ average among Singularitarians is quite above normal, and is in fact much greater than the vast majority of human groupings. I think a survey on the SL4 list found the average IQ to be somewhere in the realm of 145, IIRC. Even if some people were lying, a 135 average IQ would not be bad. This probably exceeds the average IQ at places like Yale or Harvard.

An excerpt from The Diamond Age

The format makes it impossible to read without giving me a headache.

And for Christ's sake don't toss around statements about my supposed beliefs.

I will freely speak on what your statements seem to imply, and the mental processes likely to have generated them.

My beliefs are exactly reality.

Completely delusional statement. You can say that your beliefs match reality more closely than most, and you're working to improve their accuracy, but to say that your beliefs are exactly reality makes you sound like another great nutcase; Jesus Christ.

Coincidentally, my state of knowledge/volition about my beliefs is never entirely complete or consistent at any given time.

Clearly not, but you do have some interesting ideas.

[RighteousReason]

Completely delusional statement. You can say that your beliefs match reality more closely than most, and you're working to improve their accuracy, but to say that your beliefs are exactly reality makes you sound like another great nutcase; Jesus Christ.

Can you take two seconds to filter through the semantics a little bit? lol, I'm certainly not asserting that I am omniscient or any such nonsense.

Bonehead.

The format makes it impossible to read without giving me a headache.

Yeah I don't blame you. My fault. I'll fix it now.

[olaf.larsson]

My beliefs are exactly reality.

I must disagree again. It is my beliefs which are exactly reality not yours. [8)]

[RighteousReason]

Ah shut up wolfram

Although after some thought I'd have to say my wording was rather confusing and needlessly belligerent.

Haha.

[stephen]

I'm tempted to make some comment about the nature of intelligence and how the "most intelligent" are often the least capable of screening ideas effectively outside of their (often) narrow fields of interest.

But I won't, because I think this thread quickly devolved into a point where it will be buried forever in the nether-reaches of the internet.

Instead -- Kudos to "The Diamond Age" quote! One of the most intriguing (and therefore best) books ever written!

[RighteousReason]

I'm tempted to make some comment about the nature of intelligence and how the "most intelligent" are often the least capable of screening ideas effectively outside of their (often) narrow fields of interest.

But I won't, because I think this thread quickly devolved into a point where it will be buried forever in the nether-reaches of the internet.

Instead -- Kudos to "The Diamond Age" quote! One of the most intriguing (and therefore best) books ever written!

Oh yes.

I'm mostly through Snow Crash now, too. Cryptonomicon was amazingly good... I really like this author.

[stephen]

I'm mostly through Snow Crash now, too. Cryptonomicon was amazingly good... I really like this author.

I thought Cryptonomicon was decent, but I really struggled with the Baroque Cycle (Quicksilver, etc...) Just far too wordy and long. Entertaining, but he needed a better editor.

Wish he'd go back to writing novels like the Diamond Age and Snow Crash!

[MichaelAnissimov]

Can you take two seconds to filter through the semantics a little bit? lol, I'm certainly not asserting that I am omniscient or any such nonsense.

"My beliefs are exactly reality." What is there to filter?

Bonehead.

You have a consistent problem with being very impolite, which either comes from 1) your upbringing, or 2) your peer group. In a serious organization, this way of talking would get you fired so fast it would make your head spin. In a group of mostly-mature-adults like Singularitarianism, it will only cause others to look down on you.

This is not my opinion. It is objective fact. If you don't believe me, ask others.

[JohnDoe1234]

I second Michael, This place needs to remain as profressional as possible for prospective "beleivers" to look upon.

[olaf.larsson]

"My beliefs are exactly reality." What is there to filter?

I think mr. hankconn means that he belives in the reality and his belive is exactly the reality. This has the consequence that he does not know what he belives.
Mr. is therefore not omniscient and does not have the exact knowledge of the the exact reality he belives in.

[Richard Leis]

Oh ok you are one of those insane relativists who believe that nobody is more intelligent than anyone else. Ok- here in reality- some people actually are smarter than others.

No, I am not "one of those insane relativists". Some people are more intelligent, whatever intelligence turns out to be. My warning is about over generalization. If I am reading your postings correctly, you are taking personally our disagreement with your "the most intelligent people are Singularitarians" statement. Why?

[RighteousReason]

If I am reading your postings correctly

You are not.

I think mr. hankconn means that he belives in the reality and his belive is exactly the reality. This has the consequence that he does not know what he belives.
Mr. is therefore not omniscient and does not have the exact knowledge of the the exact reality he belives in.

He is.

[RighteousReason]

our disagreement with your "the most intelligent people are Singularitarians" statement.

The gist (of the justification) of my statement was more clearly and diplomatically phrased by Michael...

It is true that the IQ average among Singularitarians is quite above normal, and is in fact much greater than the vast majority of human groupings. I think a survey on the SL4 list found the average IQ to be somewhere in the realm of 145, IIRC. Even if some people were lying, a 135 average IQ would not be bad. This probably exceeds the average IQ at places like Yale or Harvard.

Of course that isn't why I believe it to be true. *Why* I believe it is true is because, once you understand and accept the premises that we live in a mechanical universe, operate mechanical bodies, and are conscious via our mechanical minds (created as such through natural selection)- why, the IJ Good hard take-off "intelligence explosion", the Vingean "singularity", and Yudkowsky's Friendly AI all seem quite natural and obvious. If this isn't all perfectly obvious to you (and thus you have dedicated your life to the development of Friendly AI), either you are ignorant or unintelligent, or so my hypothesis goes.

If you think what I'm saying is offensive and ridiculous, just ignore me and observe the facts yourself and come to your own conclusions. It's almost unnecessary to say- if you reject the ideas because of the way I present them here, you probably aren't smart enough to ever agree with me, and I have no desire to try to convince you.

Edited by hankconn, 29 August 2006 - 05:35 PM.

[RighteousReason]

“My manner of thinking, so you say, cannot be approved. Do you suppose I care? A poor fool indeed is he who adopts a manner of thinking for others!”

[jaydfox]

I like the Barfield quote. BTW, which essay is the Yudkowsky quote from?

[Richard Leis]

Hankconn, you make two statements to begin this topic:

The most intelligent people are Singularitarians(1).

The author of the essay you footnote suggests that his piece is out of date. I argue that there is no clear link between intelligence and believing in the Technological Singularity. It is not probable that the #1 - #N most intelligent people on the planet Earth are Singularitarians, going simply by the number of Singularitarians assumed to exist at the present time. There is currently no scientific evidence to support your first statement.

How the conscious processes of intelligence integrate with the accelerating(2) growth of technology and computing power in the near future is what will define the future of the entire Universe.

What are we to learn from this statement? Are your words absolute and shall we simply nod our heads in agreement to avoid personal attacks on our own intelligence?

If this isn't all perfectly obvious to you (and thus you have dedicated your life to the development of Friendly AI), either you are ignorant or unintelligent, or so my hypothesis goes.

I do not mind discussing your statements further; I do mind sifting through unwarranted personal attacks against those who simply thought you started an interesting if controversial conversation. Keep in mind there are currently two threads at work in this topic: (1) The merits of your original statements, and (2) the unprofessional tone of your rebuttals. Let us continue with the first thread and abandon the second with a new sense of professionalism and respect.

[RighteousReason]

The author of the essay you footnote suggests that his piece is out of date. I argue that there is no clear link between intelligence and believing in the Technological Singularity. It is not probable that the #1 - #N most intelligent people on the planet Earth are Singularitarians, going simply by the number of Singularitarians assumed to exist at the present time. There is currently no scientific evidence to support your first statement.

The essay referenced was somewhat arbitrary. Secondly the whole point of this discourse is practically moot because there is no clear definition of intelligence (if that's what you decide the point of this discourse to be).

What are we to learn from this statement? Are your words absolute and shall we simply nod our heads in agreement to avoid personal attacks on our own intelligence?

[lol] Make of it what you will. It's interesting that you come out and say this so explicitly because rarely does anyone acknowledge such an obvious point. Why did anybody respond to this assertion at all? It was mostly an emotional impulse... no rational purpose was meant to be served. Maybe this impulse was actually counter-productive to my own asserted rational purposes ... ! Makes my excerpt from the Diamond Age rather fitting in this light, doesn't it?

What do you want to say, that the process by which direct intelligence computations are integrated with the accelerating growth of computer power on Earth is *not* going to define the future of the entire Universe? (am I just fishing for someone to contradict the assertion as grounds for further argument? Why don't I actually do something productive and try to give substance to an actual point, a justification or argument to back up what I am asserting, instead of making loud statements and responding to anybody who will listen? Destroying an argument is much easier than creating one, not to mention, as has been noted, very poor form.)

I do not mind discussing your statements further; I do mind sifting through unwarranted personal attacks against those who simply thought you started an interesting if controversial conversation. Keep in mind there are currently two threads at work in this topic: (1) The merits of your original statements, and (2) the unprofessional tone of your rebuttals. Let us continue with the first thread and abandon the second with a new sense of professionalism and respect.

I left ImmInst temporarily a while ago... got into an argument and didn't take the time or make the necessary effort to conduct myself properly... ended up making childish statements and such nonsense, coming off rather foolish. Looks like we're back full swing (Hah! I need to slow down and make meaningful conversation, I believe!). My ideology has been drastically inconsistent with my behavior... plagued by rather extreme impatience (nearly to the point of absurdity- but I have at least maintained very strongly in my undergrad studies). So your messages are all duly noted.

[MichaelAnissimov]

The author of the essay you footnote suggests that his piece is out of date.

I'd still love if you would read it and try to understand it. One of my early mistakes in transhumanism was that I had assumed that everyone else had read everything, when in reality most people are inclined to read nothing. The problem is that everyone works 60-hour weeks, and is too tired to read anything but chicken scratch by the time they arrive home. Luckily, I was introduced to transhumanism when I was in High School and had tons of free time.

Of course that isn't why I believe it to be true. *Why* I believe it is true is because, once you understand and accept the premises that we live in a mechanical universe, operate mechanical bodies, and are conscious via our mechanical minds (created as such through natural selection)- why, the IJ Good hard take-off "intelligence explosion", the Vingean "singularity", and Yudkowsky's Friendly AI all seem quite natural and obvious. If this isn't all perfectly obvious to you (and thus you have dedicated your life to the development of Friendly AI), either you are ignorant or unintelligent, or so my hypothesis goes.

There must be other necessary premises, or Yudkowskian Singularitarianism would be accepted by a much larger number of people already. There is clearly some threshold of necessary reading, that I think it lies over a thousand pages. I had to read Creating Friendly AI four times before I understood it, and I am blessed with a very high IQ. But at least I was smart enough to realize that it was worth understanding.

To quote Eliezer, when asked if his Meaning of Life FAQ was still valid:

"The Meaning of Life FAQ needs revision; things are now more complicated since it was written. I still believe, however, the the Singularity represents an optimal fixed point of altruistic philosophy. That is, if you're a rational altruist of any kind, then as your worldview converges toward truth, your actions should converge toward working on the Singularity. It is simply the most effective way to accomplish good, for most known definitions of "good." I also think it's important to recognize that even if your quest is to find out what "good" really is, the Singularity is the most effective way to accomplish that as well. It's a fixed point of both philosophical questioning and philosophical altruism. In order to pursue the Singularity, you don't need to know "what is good," or even to know what the right questions are. As long as "what is good" is knowable to a sufficiently advanced intelligence, that will be enough.

It's possible to build a philosophical construct that provides a full interim answer, with specific concrete actions, to the entire question of moral philosophy, and the real-world expression of this interim answer is "Work toward the Singularity." This is relevant to SIAI in two ways. First, it means that people who are looking for deep answers may therefore decide to contribute to the Singularity. And second, I am personally looking for deep answers and the deep meaning of the Singularity, which is part of why I'm with SIAI. I want to accomplish as much good as possible, whether "good" is people getting what they choose, or "good" is something that I'm not smart enough to understand yet. I would still like to make the right decisions and take the right actions. The best expression of doing so is to pursue the Singularity."

[Richard Leis]

I'd still love if you would read it and try to understand it.

I did and I do I have found your work to be very informative and inspirational. You write with a refreshing bluntness.

[Richard Leis]

Make of it what you will. It's interesting that you come out and say this so explicitly because rarely does anyone acknowledge such an obvious point. Why did anybody respond to this assertion at all? It was mostly an emotional impulse... no rational purpose was meant to be served. Maybe this impulse was actually counter-productive to my own asserted rational purposes ... !

If you started this topic as an emotional impulse, then why do both you and I feel compelled to continue responding? There are issues being discussed here that I feel should be discussed.

I oppose the elitism that I think I see in your words, that I see in myself. I grant you that some people are more intelligent than others, but in the end my response is "so what"? So what if the most intelligent people in the world are Singularitarians?

What do you want to say, that the process by which direct intelligence computations are integrated with the accelerating growth of computer power on Earth is *not* going to define the future of the entire Universe?

Sure, I will bite. The process by which direct intelligence computations are integrated with the accelerating growth of computer power on Earth is NOT going to define the future of the entire Universe. Humans and posthumans, technological singularity and hyperexponential progress...the material Universe is not something that could care one way or the other, and it is too vast to be anything more than a playground, a playground that easily resists any fundamental changes to itself. My entry into existence, my journey through the Singularity, and my eventual exit from existence - these have no meaning, no intrinsic value in this universe. I might someday wield power to move galaxies, but doing so will mean nothing. The universe will always remain ignorant of our existence.

[RighteousReason]

the material Universe is not something that could care one way or the other

...Duh

these have no meaning, no intrinsic value in this universe.

Again, duh.

I might someday wield power to move galaxies, but doing so will mean nothing.

Mean nothing *to whom* exactly?

The universe will always remain ignorant of our existence.

No, it won't. The Universe can't remain ignorant becaue it can't be ignorant, and it can't be ignorant, because ignorance is a word to describe intelligent minds, which the Universe is NOT.


Why does your response have absolutely no connection to the question it purported to address, and why are you implicitly defining the Universe as an uncaring intelligent entity?