[thunk]

> Is shaping the singularity the same as averting human extinction? If the singularity itself poses existential risks (this seems obvious,) and if extinction is inevitable without a singularity (this seems likely,) ...

The answer is trivially "no". It's easy to imagine a future in which we continue to exist and the Singularity never arrives. Perhaps the rate of progress will continue to increase at a decreasing rate. Perhaps it will go linear, or even sigmoid. Perhaps we will achieve a Kardashev Type I civilization without ever going properly singular. It's not a given and perhaps not even likely that singularity is synonymous with the survival of our species.

We have the existence proof for general intelligence embodied in about ~3 lbs of protein. No more, no less. Being certain of the inevitability of the Singularity is closer to religious than skeptical thinking.

[rms]

On Less Wrong and at the SIAI house, we quickly learn to stop saying certain or "100%". Do you think a Singularity within the next 50 years is 95% likely? 80% likely?

Also, for certain definitions of inevitable, extinction is inevitable without a Singularity. A Type 1 Civilization could at absolute best colonize a few surrounding solar systems, but eventually the stars will burn out. Though a universe where we hit Type 1 but never Type II would be rather interesting.

[pook]

You and Clippy should put up an Ask HN AMA post.

Though I suspect you'll have to lure Clippy here with the promise of persuading angel investors into funding nanotechnological paperclip foundries.

[indrax]

I did not say that the Singularity was certain or inevitable. I do kind of take it for granted but if you're saying it's not going to happen, that's a whole different argument.

I'm not saying "If humans continue to exist, we will certainly do the singularity thing." I'm saying "We are likely going to go extinct unless things change in a really really big way." And of course those big changes also have to not kill us.