Seasonal Singularities

[Nathan G]

As I mentioned in a previous post, the meaning of the Singularity is misunderstood by people who assume technology increases linearly (as opposed to cyclic like Strauss and Howe). Although the improvement of technology is not seasonal (at least not in a generational sense), the paradigm for that improvement is. People look at the rise of uniformity through communication technology today, and project that indefinitely into the future.

What these people do not realize is that the appeal to uniformity is a product of our Crisis period. When computers were first invented in the 1940's, the machines were so large that every institution could only have one. All other devices were merely interfaces that accessed the same mainframe. This was, in a sense, an era of maximum uniformity in computers. However, as time went on, these other devices became more and more autonomous until the personal computer was invented in the 1980's. The personal computer came at a time of maximum individuality. Now, with the growth of the internet, we seem to be heading back towards uniformity.

By the 2020's (or early 2030's), the internet will have homogenized to the point that our devices (computers, iPads, etc.) will merely be interfaces to the larger, virtual mainframe. (Either this is the Singularity, or the Singularity is one part of this movement.) Later on, something will happen that will increase autonomy in the internet, creating a "maximum individualism" in the 2060's. Perhaps this will come with the diversification of AI, as each android will require a close-circuit computer with as much power as the internet in itself. Or perhaps various groups will create "personal internets" that will create factions within technology like a Tower of Babel.

Thus, Singularities are seasonal. There will probably be another era of uniformity in the beginning of the 22nd century.

[John]

Technology grows exponentially.

[Nathan G]

Technology grows exponentially.

Yes, and in the short term that is a very accurate means of prediction. As I said in the other topic, computers have only been around a short while, so predictions about information technology (based on precedent alone) can only apply to the next couple of decades (otherwise, such extrapolation would be unscientific). Compared to the rise and fall of civilizations, the entire history of computers is mere blip on the graph. Thus, the exponential growth we track is only tied to this generational cycle. After the next crisis (and the one after that), things could be completely different.

In other words, to simply say that "Technology grows exponentially" marginalizes how paradigms change over generations, even though technology in general does grow. It also assumes that technology (in relation to the Singularity) takes a linear end behavior (that is, continuing to increase without bound). If generational dynamics teaches us anything, it is that nothing grows without bound.

That does not mean that technology isn't always growing. It means that the appeal to different kinds of technology shifts back and forth (like from individuality to uniformity and back). It means that the Singularity is not the end of the world.

I hope that clarifies everything,
Nathan G

[John]

Ray Kurzweil has traced the exponential growth of computer technology
starting from the punched card machines of the 1800s, and numerous
inventions since then.

Perhaps you're referring to social trends related to technology, such
as the Luddites. Technology grows without any practical bounds, but
social trends are cyclic.

[John]

See the following:

** Book I -- Chapter 11 -- Trend Forecasting
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... .trend.htm

[Nathan G]

Ray Kurzweil has traced the exponential growth of computer technology
starting from the punched card machines of the 1800s, and numerous
inventions since then.

Perhaps you're referring to social trends related to technology, such
as the Luddites. Technology grows without any practical bounds, but
social trends are cyclic.

What I mean is that technology is affected by social trends. I agree with Kurzwiel's predictions in the short term, but I disagree that the Singularity will be the end of history as we know it. Rather, I see the Singularity as the latest technological peak that comes on a periodic basis. You are right, technology will continue to grow after the Singularity, but the direction that it takes will be determined by the generational cycle.

I would also point out that technology will not always grow in the long term (like centuries from now), because dark ages will inevitably happen.

Respectfully,

Nathan G

[John]

> I would also point out that technology will not always grow in the
> long term (like centuries from now), because dark ages will
> inevitably happen.

Technology continued to grow exponentially during the dark ages.

However, nobody knows what will happen after the Singularity. In my
book chapter on The Singularity, I hypothesized a "Singularity #2,"
where technology development reaches a kind of steady state. If such
a point exists, it may only be a century or so away.

** Book II - Chapter 7 - The Singularity
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... 2.next.htm

[Nathan G]

Technology continued to grow exponentially during the dark ages.

I find this to be a bit of chronological snobbery. Are you saying that the present day is the only point in history that technology increases this quickly? I would agree that our level of technology is more than any other time (they obviously never had computers), but our acceleration is nothing new.

Let's make sure I'm on the same page:
If by "the Singularity" you mean that functional AI is invented, then that would (and will) be a great technological revolution. However, similar revolutions have happened before. Think of inventions like the internet, the printing press, and the alphabet, all of which came without disrupting the generation cycle.

If by "the Singularity" you mean an acceleration of technological progression, then again that would be monumental. However, once again this is not new. Remember the Renaissance, the Roman Republic, or Classical Greece, where similarly technology advanced quickly and then plateaued. Today, we tend to think of the Renaissance as one revolution. However, at the time it was considered to be many revolutions happening successively, just like today. Eight cycles from now, people will look back on the "Age of Information" as one, indispensable revolution.

If by "the Singularity" (# 2) you mean a flat-lining of technological advancement, then that has also happened many times before. In fact, there have been times when technology has been lost, such as in a dark age. By the Third Intermediate Period of Egypt, no one had the faintest idea how to build a Pyramid. A similar problem happened in Western Europe about the Megaliths, and in Italy about Roman Architecture. The idea that technology has never been lost sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

If by "the Singularity" you mean an incredible, unprecedented disruption in civilization leading to either a technological utopia or dystopia, then even that apocalyptic vision has been seen before. Think about the predictions of cold war specialists in the 1960's, Tomorrow-land in the 1950's, George Orwell in the 1940's, or H. G. Wells in the 19th century. All of their predictions were wrong because they assumed (fallaciously) that their generational era will continue indefinitely. Our crisis era causes a homogenization of society; (ergo, the internet) however, future eras may cause online information to fraction instead. (Take note, this fracturing is still an advancement of technology, but interpreted differently)

However, nobody knows what will happen after the Singularity.

I would propose that humanity will progress as scheduled. An awakening around 2050, an unraveling around 2060, a crisis around 2100, etc.

Please let me know if I misinterpreted something,

Respectfully,
Nathan G

[John]

Technology continued to grow exponentially during the dark ages.

I find this to be a bit of chronological snobbery. Are you saying that the present day is the only point in history that technology increases this quickly? I would agree that our level of technology is more than any other time (they obviously never had computers), but our acceleration is nothing new.

I mean that technology always grows exponentially -- before the dark
ages, during the dark ages, after the dark ages, last century, this
century.

The term "Singularity" refers to a bend in the exponential growth
curve, because super-intelligent computers will become exponentially
more intelligent, and will use that intelligence to develop new
technology, so you have an exponential growth on exponential growth
effect, resulting in an even fast exponential growth curve.

[Nathan G]

I mean that technology always grows exponentially -- before the dark
ages, during the dark ages, after the dark ages, last century, this
century.

So this is my only issue: You are implying that technology grows like population: one smooth, continuous curve from the beginning of time through the Middle Ages and to the present day. That would imply that our situation is unique: no other time in history had technology grow this fast, just as no time in history had a population rate like today. However, there have been many times in the past when technology grew this quickly. There have also been times when technology slowed down, plateaued, or even gone backwards. Yes, there have been times when great amounts of technology have been lost; the examples are numerous.

The term "Singularity" refers to a bend in the exponential growth
curve, because super-intelligent computers will become exponentially
more intelligent, and will use that intelligence to develop new
technology, so you have an exponential growth on exponential growth
effect, resulting in an even fast exponential growth curve.

This is exactly the kind of unprecedented shift in technology that has been predicted before (unsuccessfully), and is unlikely to ever happen (at least in my humble opinion). Assuming that it was possible to create an AI smart enough to design its own technology, why would anyone do that? Throughout all of history, the purpose of technology has been the same: improve the well-being of humans and protect humanity. So why would we build a machine designed to improve it's own well-being at the expense of humanity? It just seems to be astronomically improbable to me.

Respectfully,
Nathan G