Vernor Vinge on the Singularity and the End of Humanity & Christmas Cards & More
Science fiction novelist and Singularity inventor Vernor Vinge talks with the excellent h+ , the transhumanist mag of record.
From the condensation of Vinge's interview:
"I'd personally be surprised if it hadnt happened by 2030," he announces, saying humankind may become "the only animal that has figured out how to outsource its cognition" to superintelligent machines. "It is very unsettling to realize that we may be entering an era where questions like 'What is the meaning of life?' will be practical engineering questions," 64-year-old Vinge agrees.
"On the other hand, I think it could be kind of healthy, if we look at the things we really want—and look at what it would mean if we could get them."
Reason Contributing Editor Mike Godwin (yes, that bastard who made it that much more difficult to haul out the reductio ad hitlerum in schoolyard debates) interview Vinge for the mag of Free Minds and Free Markets in May 2007. A snippet:
It's a truism that science fiction is always about the present. That is, the stories are simply a reflection of the concerns of the era in which they are written. That's a good insight, but imprecise: Science fiction is almost always a reflection of the author's present. Looking back, I see how I was immersed in stories that pointed in this direction, including stories by Olaf Stapledon, Poul Anderson, and John W. Campbell Jr. Entire generations of science fiction writers had enchanted me with visions of how different the future could be. Many of these writers had speculated on the consequences of superintelligence. The notion that those consequences might be in the near future was often missing, but by the time of my childhood it was obvious to anyone of overweening optimism.
Speaking of sf, here's Katherine Mangu-Ward on Tor Books, the world's leading publisher of speculative fiction, especially stuff that's anti-death and anti-taxes!.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I have nothing profound to say, but Vernor Vinge on reason makes me inarticulably happy.
That is all.
According to Frank Tipler, by 2050, we will have quantum computers and the ability to turn matter directly into energy, thereby creating weapons "that are to nuclear bombs as nuclear bombs are to spit wads."
He goes on to explain that this will necessitate the return of Jesus. Don't say I didn't warn you.
I want those super-cool contact lenses now!
(and a bunch of focused slaves could be nice...)
The answer to Life, the Universe and Everything is...42.
I think the problem is that you didn't know what the Question was.
Deep thought,
What do you get if you multiply six and nine.
Duh.
No one makes jokes in Base 13.
Let's just nuke those new-mex bastards before they have time to bobble up!
Bring it on.
There are 10 kinds of people in this world . . .
I am the Eschaton. I am not your God.
I am descended from you, and exist in your future.
Thou shalt not violate causality within my historic light cone. Or else.
Godwin's Law is total B.S. How can you take the instigator of the most significant world event of the 20th Century out of a discussion? When I'm on the IMDB comment boards screaming at someone that "BUSH = COLONEL GREEN!!!", do you have any idea how ridiculous I look?
Hey SugarFree, you have read Scratch Monkey, yes? It's kind of an earlier, darker vision of the Eschaton storyline.
@High Every Body
Those that understand binary, those that don't, and those that use trinary to screw with the others.
X,
Yes, but I sort of prefer "Antibodies" because it is a tighter story. Sadly, the only Stross novel come out until next year is another of the Merchant Prince series, a series I find extremely blah.
Think about how much resistance substantial new technologies continue to face. Stem cells, cloning, test tube babies in the 70s, genetically engineered crops, etc. I think there are too many crazy groups that would not let the Singularity or anything like it come easy.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Stem cell research in general has not faced any resistance whatsoever. The small subset of it that requires destroying human life has, but the people who oppose that have no problem with adult or umbilical stem cell research.
Now your failure is complete!
If someone posted that the Rapture was going to happen by 2030, they probably wouldn't be getting the laudatory comments that we've seen here thus far. I guess transhumanists get a pass on the whole unfalsifiable belief thing because they don't have a bearded man in the sky.
"I guess transhumanists get a pass on the whole unfalsifiable belief thing because they don't have a bearded man in the sky."
...did Vernor Vinge shave!?
I'm curious how one distinguishes the singularity from a religious proposition? I ask that in all seriousness because the same folks who laugh at Jehova's Witnesses many predictions of the return of Jesus will turn around and, with a straight face, and say things like "I'd personally be surprised if it hadnt happened by 2030." What's the difference, really? I know someone is going to say that the singularity is an outcome of trends we already see, but it's presented as some sort of total change in the nature of humanity and fits all sort eschatological and mythological tropes.
Strip out the specific arguments about the mechanism (returning deity, super-powerful computers) and these things don't look too different. It starts to look a lot like Christians arguing pagans were really stupid to believe in that crap. The transhumanists say that Christians are stupid to believe in Christian crap while the transhumanists have New and Improved Crap+? to sell you.
I know that some of the True Believers (who would reject that title because they don't believe in religion) are going to assume I'm just being a troll or am being stupid because I'm not endowed with their infinite wisdom to see past Error and into Truth (a mirror darkly anyone?), but these are the same claims that every new religion makes. They are the ones who have gotten it right. While I certainly see the benefits of technology on a daily basis, the idea that it is going to make us into something new and of a different kind starts sounding like the good old Apocalypse of John... Isn't that the claim of every huckster, sincere wanna-be prophet, and everyone else with something to sell you on?
So it is a serious (and sincerely meant) question. What, besides the object of faith, distinguishes talk of the singularity from talk of Jesus coming back? I'd like an answer that actually amounts to more than "we're right and they're wrong"...
Untermensch,
This is doesnt really answer your question, but I have "faith" that both the return of Jesus and the singularity will happen. And will mock anyone who tries to predict a date for either.
In both cases, I dont expect to see either in my lifetime, but wouldnt be surprised either.
? Bob Dylan
Color me skeptical.
...did Vernor Vinge shave!?
Only his balls.
What's the difference, really?
One glorifies Man, one glorifies God.
What, besides the object of faith, distinguishes talk of the singularity from talk of Jesus coming back?
Seriously, you don't see a distinction between the projection of existing trends (however unlikely or fanciful) and the return of a man dead for 2000 years?
robc, your answer is a fair one. I appreciate it.
Anonymous qua?:
Not sure this is an operative distinction. In practical terms both promise some sort of salvation from the limitations of this world and transformation into some sort of better state of being. In classical Christian terms, in any event, the eschaton does bring about the glorification of man (beatification), at least those who merit it. Some discussion of the singularity even promises some sort of supra-organic consciousness as we converge with machines and join the network, so we even have a secular equivalent to glorification in God.
So, while I see your point, I'm not entirely sure that it works quite as you intend it, or at least not without so many footnotes and provisos as to destroy it as a simple distinction. But thank you for an answer that points maybe in the direction of a real distinction.
I, too, have nothing of any practical import to say. Thank you.
Seriously, you don't see a distinction between the projection of existing trends (however unlikely or fanciful) and the return of a man dead for 2000 years?
He was only dead for three days.
They wrote a book about it.
"...promise some sort of salvation from the limitations of this world and transformation into some sort of better state of being..."
I think you've defined technology.
Therein lies part of the problem. Either the singularity guys are right or they are wrong. To me it looks pretty darn fanciful. Any sort of prognostication is tricky, but when people get grandiose in it, it's really hard not to see it as fanciful. I keep wondering why this sort of prognostication gets street cred in libertarian circles among people who otherwise pride themselves on their critical ability to discern fact from fiction.
Both Jesus returning and the singularity assume that the speaker actually gets the prediction right. For some of these guys its not a matter of if something like a singularity will happen, it's a matter of when the Singularity will happen.
Trends tend not to work out in the way people think they will. (Whatever happened to the "permanent Republican majority" for instance?) In both cases I have to buy the reasoning behind them. To me the singularity looks like some sci-fi guys got together and said, "wouldn't it be cool if?" and then started taking themselves seriously. Even the name (singularity) evokes religious notions.
But again, thanks or a serious answer. I don't think that gets past my skepticism, but I take it as a serious response worthy of consideration.
I guess I've missed out on the part where I'm a different kind of being than my cavemen ancestors. If anything I'm less capable because I'm so dependent on technology. But I've not become a better or more capable person because of technology. Mind, I'm not knocking technology, but I don't see it as providing the sort of salvation the singularity proponents regularly talk about (abolishing death, remaking my body into whatever I want).
Seriously, you don't see a distinction between the projection of existing trends (however unlikely or fanciful) and the return of a man dead for 2000 years?
If someone said that there will come a day when we'll be able to produce a processor with 10^100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
transistors per square millimeter on it...they'd just be extrapolating current trends.
To me the singularity looks like some sci-fi guys got together and said, "wouldn't it be cool if?"
Actually, the concept of a technological singularity comes mainly from various academics, not science fiction writers.
The basic concept is that (1) technology can and has wrought transformational change on human society, (2) technologies now accelerating (information processing, genetics, etc.) are at least as transformational as such technologies as agriculture and industrialism, and (3) the rate of technological change is accelerating.
Given these three assumptions, which look reasonably solid to me, questions about when the next technological transformation of society will take place and what it will look like seem to be pretty legitimate, and in no way similar to religious speculation about the Second Coming.
Strip out the specific arguments about the mechanism (returning deity, super-powerful computers) and these things don't look too different.
That's like saying that these two statements are the same:
1. That man is about to be hit by a car.
2. That man is about to be struck down by the hand of God coming down from the sky.
After all, the only difference between the two is the specific mechanism of our person's demise.
I think that rather than religious belief the proper comparison to consider is Malthus. Malthus extrapolated current trends and drew conclusions that seemed pretty inevitable, too. He ended up being wrong because the trends he extrapolated didn't hold. But that makes him a social scientist who made an error, and not a Jehovah's Witness.
"I guess I've missed out on the part where I'm a different kind of being than my cavemen ancestors"
Our tools are many levels of magnitude more powerful than caveman had at their disposal. We modify our bodies and minds to make them better, we'll only improve and increase the use of these modifications.
Are you fundamentally different than a caveman? I think it depends on what you're measuring.
Certainly, but it's the Creator of Man (God) making that judgement, not the Creation of Man (Singularity). I think we agree that, either way, Man is rewarded on the terms of the higher authority. The problem is that those terms are going to be very different in each case. Perhaps more importantly, the Singularity is the perfect vehicle for a philosophy whose logical conclusion is death to be completely carried out. If that's what Man wants, in the unthinking manner that's become both vulgar and vogue, then that's what he's capable of creating.
So we got that going for us. Which is nice.
Demographics.
If we assume that you and a prototypical "cave man" are working at both of your full potentials, then it's clear that while he has the knowledge and technology (specifically in hand tools and techniques in using them) for gathering sustenance, you have the knowledge and technology to create new technology that builds on other. That is, if capability is measured in the ability to shape and articulate abstract thoughts, then the contest is over. Whether or not that potential is used is probably a different question, as is whether you could live off the land with minimal industrial technology. (On preview: what SupendousMan said.)
it's presented as some sort of total change in the nature of humanity
Is it? I'm not sure that it is.
I guess we have to define what level of change is sufficient to start talking about a "singularity" first. Because I can certainly imagine a situation where nanotechnology vastly increased the physical powers at my disposal, and where a machine-augmented nervous system vastly increased the mental powers at my disposal, but where I remained the same old asshole me. Just an asshole me with god-like abilities. So is that a "total change in the nature of humanity" or not really?
High Every Body | April 27, 2009, 9:27am | #
There are 10 kinds of people in this world . . .
..those who understand binary and those who don't.
The Singularity is a religion, plain and simple. Religious notions of an afterlife are present. There's heresey and schisms: friendly ai people vs ai rights, cosmos vs terrans, cyborgs vs ai purists. Prophets: Vinge, Kurzweil. Enemies (mostly potential at this point, as common folk are scarcely aware of the secret Singularity agenda): Conservatives, Luddites, Organized Religion, People who buy organic food, animal rights activists, old people who don't know how to use computers, government, etc... There's also a lot of associated cultural things, like how Singulatarians tend to be well educated and have jobs involving computers. They also talk of devoting their lives to making the singularity come about faster, safer, or to make sure it even comes about as all. There are even notions of sin, and some of them are the exact same that we find in a typical ancient religion: Sloth is bad because you should be doing all you can to make the singularity happen, treachery is bad because that means you are now an evil luddite, and making fun of sacred things like computer programming, computer games, math, science, etc. Perhaps NOT believing in idols is also a sin. And there is also an effort to evangelize and spread the good news.
The big difference between the cult of the Singularity and other religions, is that the Singularity is cooler. I haven't heard of anyone falling asleep in a singularity sermon, at least not yet. OK, actually the big difference is that singularity people know that they are making up their own God, whereas the other people know God made them. That and singularity people believe they can make their God appear sooner by their efforts, which other religions typically do not, although many do so that is not much of a difference after all.
But I want to point out one similarity that it seems everyone overlooks: Both singulatarians and christians are nihilists, in that they sacrifice the present to achieve a hoped for future, a future in which life no longer has a purpose anymore. Thus if the singularity happened or Jesus came back and judged everyone, after that life would be pointless. We sacrifice our present to achieve the very things that make our lives devoid of meaning.
Heaven is pointless because you'll be stuck for all eternity with goody two shoes and with nothing to do that you haven't already done. Post-singularity is pointless because you might not exist anymore, and even if you do, just what do you do once you have God-like intelligence? Do you artificially limit your capabilities so you can have challenges again, do you spend eternity calculating the value of pi, do you seek to make the entire universe into a supercomputer to... calculate the value of pi? Do you induce a sense of happiness for no particular reason on yourself forever? Do you try to do something impossible, like prove that 1=2?
Like I said in a different blog post, existence has no ultimate meaning. If you obtain ultimate power, you have not actually advanced in any metaphysically meaningful way. So perhaps we should just make the universe not exist anymore. Or at least self destruct if that isn't possible after all.
Like that fictional product of a fictional singularity said, "The purpose of life is to end."