The singularity has already happened.

[John Galt]

It's the rate of change not the actually changes. It doesn't matter what the technology is.



It's still moving at a slope that is defined. Soon, but in the meantime, you're wrong

[exploited]

Your graph stops at personal computer, which is 25-30 years ago, and does not account for the technology we're talking about.

Yet another fallacy.

It is getting tedious, Galt. Literally everything you've posted has been fallacious.

Where is gene editing, cloning, 3D printing, advanced robotics, the internet, sequencing of the genome, mind-to-mind telepathy over great distances, the advances made in space travel, automation, or any other of the things that have popped up during the time not accounted for on that graph? What about the massive advances in plastics, chemistry, machine learning, etc.? Shit, I also forgot about nanotechnology - you'll need to account for the fact that we have already developed the primitive ability to target specific cells in our body with nanotechnology (such as Abraxane).

[EDIT] Oh, yeah, internet-mediated currency. That's another one. Worth a minimum ~$300,000,000,000, accounting for all of the various coins.

[John Galt]

[exploited]

[John Galt]

an "soft take off singularity" is an abortion of the english language. it is singular and peculiar. it can't be a soft takeoff of the singularity, it's a singular unique point. in mathematics it a point at which a given mathematical object becomes undefined.

what we are arguing about is the definition of the singularity. you present a novel idea to redefine singularity to be "whatever the f**k exploited wants" and i'm arguing what the people who coined the term technological singularity meant when they introduced the phrase, what the term means in mathematics, and what the term means in common usage. but whatever, i'm the one being fallacious

[spacemonkey]

Computer generated automated stock trades already exist. Thousands happen in nano seconds. No living human being knows the long term impact of that.

[exploited]

[John Galt]

of course the concept has to do with math. it's why the f**k term was used; a professor of mathematics came up with it.

jesus christ i'm not suggesting that people work tirelessly in some waterfall fashion and produce the final product of "AI". no, it is iterative, but the point in time where the singularity is is abrupt. getting to there is iterative, but unlike a fetus, all you gotta do is turn a machine on. once we're there the machine will be able to start improving itself without outside involvement, afterward the rate of technological progress is unfathomable.

but whatever you got the guy who thinks that there are forbidden histories and whatnot backing you

[exploited]

A professor of mathematics came up with a concept, so the concept is necessarily about math? I'm a web designer and I've presented this conception of a singularity - therefore the singularity must be about the internet!

Yet another fallacy. That is your fifth or sixth in as many posts.

Yes, it is iterative. And we are already seeing unfathomable amounts of technological and social change.

You have utterly failed to dispel that point - you have apparently decided that it is possible for a human being to fully understand all the changes we see every day as a result of the mating of people and machines. It is absurd, and so plainly false that I'm having a hard time believing that you believe it.

Unfortunate, really. I was hoping you'd be able to discuss this intelligently.

[John Galt]

no. the term being used as a singular point in math, and particular a singular point of which an object becomes undefined, as well as the etymology of it being a peculiar, singular thing, should be taken into account, to contrast with your definition of it meaning "whatever", which is a completely f**k useless definition. it has to be a singular point: it's in the f**k name.

we can understand the rate of change. it's fast, not unfathomable, but suppose i am severely overrating your ability to comprehend f**k basic concepts. no, we don't, as a human being, need to understand the changes to all tech, just the rate of change as a whole. if your newly purchased iPhone is obsolete technology from a bygone age before you even finish singing your name to buy it then yeah, we're now past the singularity, but instead they have a whole year between releases. can you grok the concept of a year? can you grok the concept of how fast a processor was a year ago to today? can you understand the concept of megapixels? okay well look at you, fathoming the changes in technology