[soulofmischief]

My question to you was whether you know something about technology that von Neumann, the guy behind the idea, misunderstood, such that you would so flippantly dismiss it.

The ball is in your court to prove why the singularity is not real, because many experienced, decorated technologists disagree and have already laid out their arguments. If you can't prove that, then there's no argument for us to have in the first place.

[adastra22]

Beyond the (absolutely correct) sibling comment about von Neumann's dated expertise, you are experiencing selectivity bias. Technologists who believe in the Singularity (and it really is belief, not a rigorous technical argument), are very vocal about it. Those that don't have faith, don't bother speaking about it.

There are a lot of people out there who believe in technological progressivism and continued advancement of socially beneficial technologies. They just don't speak about a "singularity" beyond which predictive power is not possible, because the idea isn't worth spending time on as it isn't even self-consistent.

It's not our job to show why the Singularity won't happen. It's the nutjobs who believe in the Singularity who have the responsibility of showing why. In the 70 years in which people have been bitten by this idea, nobody has. I'll wait.

[soulofmischief]

> It's not our job to show why the Singularity won't happen

No, but shallow dismissal of a subject that many intelligent technologists have spent their life considering just comes off as arrogant.

Predicting technological timelines is a largely pointless exercise, but I wouldn't be hard pressed to imagine a future N decades or centuries from now in which, assuming we do not destroy ourselves, human affairs become overshadowed by machine intelligence or technological complexity, and an increasingly complex technosocial system becomes increasingly difficult to predict until some limit of understanding is crossed.

[staticman2]

This is a epistemological problem, you think Neumann's expertise on 1950s technology gives him insight into the technology of, let's say the 2040s. You muddle the issue by calling him an expert on "technology" rather than an expert on "technology as of when he died in the 1950s".

If we don't grant that expertise on 1950s technology gives insight into 2040s technology, then there's little reason to consider his writing as something other than a cool story.

[soulofmischief]

> You muddle the issue by calling him an expert on "technology" rather than an expert on "technology as of when he died in the 1950s".

That's not my intention. It's more that, he simply looked at the historical progress of technology, recognized an acceleration curve, and pondered about the end game.

My argument is that it warrants consideration and not shallow dismissal. Plenty of opponents have criticized the concept, and some decent arguments revolve around rising complexity slowing down technological advancement. That is possible. But we can't just dismiss this concept as some fleeting story made up "like a 12 year old who just watched Terminator".