Talk:Singularitarianism

From Academic Kids

Old talk

"Singularitarians are Technological Singularity activists, specially people who are dedicated to effecting a positive Singularity." I feel 'specially' is likely a typo here, but I will let Gordon correct it himself as he sees fit rather than put words into his mouth. 4.65.244.206 06:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Minority Report, you give the Singularity Institute too much credit. The term "Singularitarian" predates SIAI and many Singularitarians are not affiliated with them. There are Singularitarians who openly denounce SIAI. If you want to erase an article, please try not to replace it with such a misleading statement. I'm reverting to your previous edit. Also, I'm removing several more of the links, as most of them seem to be only distantly related to the topic of the article. — Schaefer 20:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I find it difficult to find any mention of this word online that isn't obivously directly from these same half dozen or so of people. I'm concerned about making this appear to be a major intellectual movement of some kind, when it has all the appearance of being some kind of coffee club. The ruritanian titles, vastly overinflated speculation based on no factual data, I'm not seeing signs that would enable me to endorse as confirmed the claims in the original article. Show me something that will make me take these people's claims seriously. Some references to papers published in peer-reviewed professional science or engineering journals would convince. --Minority Report (IT or PR enormity) 21:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You don't have to take their claims seriously. All of Singularitarianism could be one big delusional cult and it shouldn't matter as far as Wikipedia is concerned. The fact that some people believe it is what's being reported. As the article stands now, it doesn't take any stance on whether this singularity thing is going to happen. There are plenty of people that think the whole idea is absurd, and I and others have tried to represent their views in the criticisms sections of technological singularity and transhumanism (both of these articles, admittedly, have problems regarding unattributed speculation, which is possibly grounds for a neutrality dispute).

I see where you're coming from, and I agree that these articles may give unfamiliar readers the impression that more people subscribe to these ideas than actually do. The number of actual Singularitarians (that is, people who conciously and explicitly work to bring about the Singularity) is quite small. The number of people who believe in the Singularity, or at least the number of people who buy Singularity-themed futurist books like The Spike and The Age of Spiritual Machines, is many many times larger. I don't have actual numbers, so I don't supply them. However, I must object to the current method you're employing to counteract this possible miscommunication. You use qualifiers like "self-styled" and "so-called" which are, in my opinion, inherently and irredeemably POV. Please see Wikipedia:Words to avoid. The use of quotation marks also contributes to a discrediting tone, possibly more so than you intended. There must be better, more neutral ways to epxress what you're trying to get across.

Your most recent edit changes the meaning of the word "Singularitarian". A major purpose of this article is to clarify the distinction between Singularitarians and futurists: that futurists speculate about a singularity while Singularitarians work towards it. You changed "dedicated to effecting" to "believes that it is possible to achieve", which eliminates the distinction being stressed. I'm guessing you did this because you felt the original sentence seemed to take the POV that the Singularity is possible, which I don't believe it does. Defining a Frogglebobblist as a person who is dedicated to effecting a global ascension to spiritual oneness with treefrogs does nothing to validate those goals.

Finally, I'm changing the word "futurist" to the less-common "futurologist" to clear any confusion with the artistic/political movement. — Schaefer 23:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• All of Singularitarianism could be one big delusional cult and it shouldn't matter as far as Wikipedia is concerned.
  • I beg to differ. An encyclopedia should try to maintain a separation from the beliefs (correct or incorrect) of others. When reporting, it should try to distinguish between its own standards of reasoning and that of those upon whom it reports.

• • On taking singularitatianism seriously, I'm afraid it really does come down to peer reviewed research papers published and cited, not popular books sold. I would be failing as an encyclopedist if I gave equal space and equal weight to every single human belief, however ill defined and poorly supported. The thoughts of Rene Descartes merit more time and space than those of George Michael. A movement that relies for its chief reasoning tool a misapplication of Moore's Law, well it doesn't merit as much time and space as serious AI research.

• You use qualifiers like "self-styled" and "so-called" which are, in my opinion, inherently and irredeemably POV.
  • On the contrary, they are neutral. If Yudkowsky's qualifications as an AI researcher extend beyond the bounds of his imagination, then I will feel comfortable to stop calling him a "self-styled" AI reseacher. The use of the term "so-called" was in relation to the use of the term "futurists", which is well known to most educated people as a school of art.

• You changed "dedicated to effecting" to "believes that it is possible to achieve", which eliminates the distinction being stressed.
  • You and I as encyclopedists cannot possibly know whether singularitarians are or are not capable of achieving such a goal. The most we can do is observe that they appear to have a sincere belief that it is achievable and are doing what they believe will achieve it. Having said that I have no objection per se to the use of the word dedicated, especially in the context in which it appears in the current version. If you go back to my version you will see that I made it plain that they not only believed that the benign transformation would be possible, they were attempting to bring it forward. --Minority Report (IT or PR enormity) 00:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On taking singularitatianism seriously, I'm afraid it really does come down to peer reviewed research papers published and cited, not popular books sold.

• Again, it doesn't have to be taken seriously. Futurology is by no means an established and respected scientific process, and concepts like technological singularities are obviously the products of futurologists' speculations. I'm not seeing any attempt to pass this off as real science. Upon reading the article technological singularity, did you think it was real science? Did you read it and get the impression that everyone that's anyone in AI research believes all this? I should hope not. It's clear to everyone that all this is based on futurology, not on falsifiable science. If you think it isn't clear, maybe a few of the especially speculative articles need "In futurology," tacked on the first line. I wouldn't recommend it for this particular one, as it's mostly here to contradistinguish Singularitarianism with futurology.

On the contrary, [terms such as "self-styled" and "so-called"] are neutral.

• I strongly disagree, but this is now a non-issue since the word "futurist" has been changed and Yudkowsky no longer has an article.

The most we can do is observe that they appear to have a sincere belief that it is achievable and are doing what they believe will achieve it.

• Agreed, and that's all I intend to report. — Schaefer 12:19, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Upon reading the article technological singularity, did you think it was real science?
  • No, but there is a clear attempt to pass science fiction off as science--perhaps because many of the participants are not really aware or don't care about science. My first impression was that this is a quasi-religious movement that uses some of the concepts of science with the language of religion. Perhaps "science fiction religion" fits best. --Minority Report (IT or PR enormity) 16:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • As interesting as this discussion is, I think we've strayed a bit off topic for this talk page. If you'd like to discuss this further, please contact me at edmund.schaefer@REPLACE with the word "REPLACE" replaced with "gmail.com" (I'm paranoid about spam robots). -- Schaefer 18:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Move to "Singularitarianism"

I'm moving this article to Singularitarianism, for the same reason there's redirects at Buddhist, communist, Nazi, etc. I'll obviously have to change some wording around to fit the title, but I'll try to keep everything fairly close to what it is now. -- Schaefer 20:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Religion?

Do singularitarians believe in the Singularity, or do they simply think it is highly likely to happen and act accordingly? The difference between a religion, based on unshakable belief, and philosophical movement based on facts and scientifc method verification of those (i.e. allowing doubt and such) is both clear and important. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)