According to Vinge’s definition, the Singularity is the creation of greater than human intelligence. Vinge says this could happen in four ways:

1. The development of computers that are “awake” and superhumanly intelligent. (To date, most controversy in the area of AI relates to whether we can create human equivalence in a machine. But if the answer is “yes, we can”, then there is little doubt that beings more intelligent can be constructed shortly thereafter.)

2. Large computer networks (and their associated users) may “wake up” as a superhumanly intelligent entity.

3. Computer/human interfaces may become so intimate that users may reasonably be considered superhumanly intelligent.

4. Biological science may find ways to improve upon the natural human intellect.

I personally consider all of these plausible except for 2, which I can debunk in a separate post if there is any interest. I am also skeptical about 4, but I know some scientists that assure me it is plausible in the relevant time frames.

“Singularitarianism”, as defined in 2000, basically just means, “we want to deliberately do that” (create greater than human intelligence). It doesn’t specify why, except saying that you have to want it to benefit everyone, not just yourself. Maybe you want a Singularity to revive your dead father. Maybe you want a Singularity because you decided it’s a better way to pursue humanitarian goals than working on them with human intelligence alone. Maybe you want to become a greater than human intelligence yourself so that you can be a wiser person less prone to human psychological frailty and error. Maybe you think that a Singularity is inevitable eventually, and it might as well be done in a guided rather than unguided fashion. Maybe you think that a greater than human intelligence could wipe us all out, and taking an active role in its creation is necessary to avoid global doom. There are literally hundreds of reasons why someone might want a Singularity, ranging from the banal to the enlightened.

Singularity advocacy is often subjected to accusations of techno-utopianism. In fact, “Singularitarianism” is linked in the “See also” section of technological utopianism on Wikipedia. According to Bernard Gendron, a professor of philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, there are four principles of technological utopians:

1. We are presently undergoing a (postindustrial) revolution in technology;
2. In the postindustrial age, technological growth will be sustained (at least);
3. In the postindustrial age, technological growth will lead to the end of economic scarcity;
4. The elimination of economic scarcity will lead to the elimination of every major social evil.

As a Singularitarian, what do I think of these principles? Well, 1 seems true. Technological advances in recent decades have been amazing. The world is very different than it was just 15 or so years ago, when I started to pay close attention to what was happening in technology. This wave of technology seems likely to continue, albeit somewhat slowed by the current recession.

What about 2? Seems true as well. It appears that there’d have to be a pretty severe Depression for technological growth to actually stop rather than just slow.

Already, I’m slightly confused. How are 1 and 2 controversial at all? Are they supposed to be?

Alright, on to 3 and 4, the meaty parts. #3 is the idea that technological growth will lead to the end of economic scarcity. Wouldn’t that be nice! Unfortunately, people are never satisfied, so in a certain sense, ending economic scarcity will be impossible forever. By the standards of the Middle Ages, many would say that economic scarcity is already over. Even a not-so-wealthy person such as myself can buy a wheelbarrow full of buttered bread if they want to. The issue is that new, expensive products keep getting introduced, pushing the economic scarcity bar further away. I cannot afford a wheelbarrow full of iPods.

So, keeping in mind the moving goalposts, will economic scarcity ever be solved? Not likely. Perhaps what is meant by “elimination of economic scarcity” is that economic scarcity (by a lenient definition, such as having all the food and water you need) would be eliminated on the entire planet. Surely this will take a while. My concern with principle #3 here is that one can arbitrary define “economic scarcity” in a convenient way such that that goal is never achieved. If one is looking to confirm one’s expectations that “techno-utopians” are idiots, then one will merely define that goal in such a way that even mentioning it could be achieved is silly. Very convenient. Setting up strawmen is an easy way of avoiding debates with real people.

But still, if economic scarcity could ever be defeated, how else could it be done but with technology? By wishful thinking? Magic? Religion? Are you “techno-utopian” if you think that economic scarcity will be largely solved in 20 years? Or 50? or 100? Or 10,000? If you claim that economic scarcity wouldn’t be solved even after 10,000 years of technological progress, then are you being sincere, or do you just believe that eventually eliminating economic scarcity would be a really bad thing, or make technology sound too useful, when we’re supposed to be exclusively focusing on social issues and pretty much ignoring technology? If technological progress continues, it seems that either 1) “economic scarcity” will eventually be eliminated, or 2) eliminating economic scarcity is a receding goal that can never be achieved. Which is it?

Now, on to #4, the idea that “the elimination of economic scarcity will lead to the elimination of every major social evil”. This is so obviously false, I can’t help but consider it a strawman. Did anyone ever make this claim? If so, it’s pretty ridiculous, as having more toys often seems to make people more materialistic, elitist, and competitive, not less. By associating Singularity advocacy with this ridiculous claim, critics seek to demolish our work towards a much simpler goal: creating greater than human intelligence (superintelligence). Yes, if superintelligence were created, it could invent many new technologies, some of which we may find tremendously useful. Superintelligence could even be consulted on how to mediate our disputes and arrange society for the greatest good for the greatest number. Superintelligence could provide help on anything for which intelligence is useful, including logistics, philosophy, economics, aesthetics, and much more. Technology is only a tiny piece of the picture.

Of course, Kurzweil’s viewpoint of the Singularity places extreme emphasis on technology, not the unique benefits of superintelligence in its own right. Because I disagree with this emphasis on technology, I am left but no choice but to reject Kurzweil’s presentation of the Singularity, even if I find his detailed analyses and philosophical viewpoint unique and interesting. I don’t actually think that Kurzweil is techno-utopian in the sense as defined by Gendron’s principles, because he never explicitly says that all social ills will be solved by technology. However, his near-exclusive emphasis on technology and its capacity to solve problems has a techno-utopian flavor that turns off millions of reasonable people. Thus, it’s worth distancing ourselves from.

For me, the goal of greater than human intelligence is great for the same reasons that human intelligence is great: thoughtfulness, reason, creativity, concern, brilliance, spontaneity, unpredictability, character. I want us to take the greatness of humanity and magnify it by attaching it to cognitive mechanisms with superior problem-solving, idea-imagining, mental imagery-manipulating, information synthesizing, and category forming abilities. The notion that superintelligence would also invent technologies that could help people is a secondary effect. The source of the help is not the technology, it’s the intelligence that creates it and deploys it and adds personal touch and care to that deployment. This is crucial, and all the critics of the Singularity miss the fact that that’s what many of us have meant by “Singularity” all along.