Hacker News Reader

Comment by iwwr | Hacker News Reader

My main issue with the Singularity is the idea of exp-exp growth (growth that makes exponential look linear). Or am I misunderstanding things?

View on HN

To repost a link from last discussion, there are three major schools of though on "The Singularity": http://singinst.org/blog/2007/09/30/three-major-singularity-...

All three of those "major schools" are just different stages of the same theory. Accelerating change leads to the intelligence explosion which leads to the event horizon (the actual singularity).

Actually, the point of "Accelerating Change" is that it doesn't lead to an intelligence explosion - change remains fairly predictable to the participants through the Singularity. And an event horizon can easily happen even with slow and constant change, it's compatible with the other two schools but doesn't depend on them.

You are suggesting that the superintelligence created by "Accelerating Change" does not operate with the same parameters as the superintelligence of the "Intelligence Explosion?"

The time when "Accelerating Change" no longer applies is the same time that the "Intelligence Explosion" and the "Event Horizon" occur or at least that's how it seems to me.

You nailed it with your first sentence there. The superintelligences created in an "Accelerating Change" scenario are subjectively a lot like gods. The first superintelligence created in the "Intelligence Explosion" scenario will be subjectively a lot like God.

Also, the point of the "Accelerating Change" scenario is that there isn't an intelligence exposion. The "Intelligence Explosion" scenario might or might not have a period of accelerating change before the intelligence explosion, but that doesn't make it the "Accelerating Change" scenario.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com