|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Social Implications Of "The Singularity Moment" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I am still confused as to what Crash is saying (and to what those disagreeing with him are disagreeing about) Well, I feel like I've only said it five times or so, but for the sixth time: the notion of the "singularity" is that the rate of technological change is increasing and has only ever increased; but there's no evidence that the rate at which humans can grapple with technological change is increasing, or increasing at a comparable rate. Thus, technology will eventually begin to change faster than humans can keep up the change. This is obvious and must, mathematically, come to pass. That's it. That is the extent of the position I've taken in this thread. Attempts to predict what society will be like after that point are stupid; the point of the singularity is that it represents an effective predictability horizon on the social effects of technological change. Theodoric, on the other hand, apparently believes that technology will be predictable forever. Yet, in spite of this view, he doesn't seem to be willing to take a stab at predicting what life will be like in 2100.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You will have to ask Crashfrog. It is his idea. Uh, no, it's not "my idea." I'm not the one who came up with the idea for the "singularity." I'm not even the one who opened this thread about it. Is there some reason you can't stop telling lies about me, Theodoric?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But hasn't then always been happening. Yes, Theodoric, which is why the burden of evidence is on you to defend your contrary position that the rate of technological change will not always increase.
Why is now so different? Nothing now is "so different", which is why the singularity will obviously occur. Your position that it will not occur is what needs to be evidenced; you're the one that is asserting that conditions are suddenly so different now, or will be different in the future, such that the trends of technological change and social adaptation to technology that currently exist will be reversed. What's your evidence for that assertion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Crash I actually have much more respect for creationists than you.
Most of the creationists do not know that they are wrong or are unwilling to face their own ignorance. You on the other hand continue to build strawmen and out right lie. I have no respect for that.
Theodoric, on the other hand, apparently believes that technology will be predictable forever.
Please show where I have said or even implied such a thing. Oh an while you are at it please show me when technology was predictable. Or are you saying it is currently? Actually just forget it it. Your lies and dishonesty make it impossible to have any sort of conversation with you. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Crash keep up. You are the one that brought up the concept of cultures ability to absorb technological change.
That is what Straggler was commenting about. The idea of the "singularity" is not what I or Strag were referring to. So that lie you are claim I made, is that another misrepresentation by you? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Crash I actually have much more respect for creationists than you. I see, so your repeated attempts to misrepresent and misquote me are the result of a personal grudge you hold against me. Well, that's fair.
Please show where I have said or even implied such a thing. It's that part where you keep disagreeing with me when I say "the effect of technology on society will become increasingly unpredictable."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You are the one that brought up the concept of cultures ability to absorb technological change. No, I'm not. My understanding is that Kurzweil is the one who came up with these notions, for the most part, and Phat is the one who started the thread. What does it mean for society to absorb technological change? It means something akin to "is your grandmother on Facebook?" The singularity, very roughly, is the point at which technology is changing so fast that everybody will become the equivalent of an octogenarian trying to use an iPhone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
"the effect of technology on society will become increasingly unpredictable." Please show where I have said or implied such a thing. My question is your comments about the ability of culture to absorb technological changes. That some how we are going to hit a point where we can no longer "absorb" (still waiting for an explanation of what that means) technological change. My problem is your implication that the effect of technology on society was some how predictable in the past and now. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Ray Kurzwiels' pretty much predicting science fiction, but the notion that the rate of technological change will increase past our ability to culturally absorb the changes is clearly true. Did you or did you not post this in Message 7 Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Please show where I have said or implied such a thing. Half of the difficulty you have in these exchanges, Theodoric, is that you don't read closely and thus don't understand what I'm saying to you. I'm the one taking the position that the effect of technology on society will become increasingly unpredictable. That's my position. Your position, which you adopt when you disagree with mine, is that technology's impact on society will always be predictable, forever, because the singularity will never occur. Which is fine. You're entitled to hold that position. What is your evidence for it? Be specific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Did you or did you not post this in Message 7 Obviously I did, and have never claimed otherwise. Again - you need to slow down, calm down (because you're clearly very upset) and learn to read for comprehension, not for words of mine that you can quote out of context and misrepresent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Trying to get you to explain your position is not worth the effort, I can go elsewhere and get a gish gallop.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Well, I suppose if the pissing contest is over we might as well get back to the topic at hand.
Please refer to my message Message 57 above as a starting point. Then maybe we can help answer Phat's OP. If we use Ray Kurzweil's own definition of the Singularity then, my dear Phat, we will all understand the new technologies quite well since we will all be plugged into the common human knowledge bank which will give us the intellect (augmented by technology) to understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes: Well, I suppose if the pissing contest is over we might as well get back to the topic at hand. Please refer to my message Message 57 above as a starting point. Then maybe we can help answer Phat's OP. If we use Ray Kurzweil's own definition of the Singularity then, my dear Phat, we will all understand the new technologies quite well since we will all be plugged into the common human knowledge bank which will give us the intellect (augmented by technology) to understand. Or if history and reality is considered, we will mostly be home watching the latest entertainment while a very few understand the technology and play with it. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
A kill joy realist.
Just think. After so many eons of intellectual development we end up with Ghost Hunters. Imagine the inanity we can achieve with a technologically-augmented thousand-fold intellect!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024