Moore’s Law has been around for 46 years. It’s a descriptor for the trend we’ve seen in the development of computer hardware for decades, with no sign of slowing down, where the number of transistors that can be placed on an integrated circuit doubles every two years.
The law is named after Gordon Moore, who described this pattern in 1965. He would know a thing or two about integrated circuits. He co-founded Intel in 1968.
Moore has said in recent years that there’s about 10 or 20 years left in this trend, because “we’re approaching the size of atoms which is a fundamental barrier.” But then, he said, we’ll just make bigger chips.
Ray Kurzweil, who we mentioned in last weekend’s piece on transhumanism, is known for his thoughts on another subject even more than he is known for his thoughts on transhumanism. That subject is the technological Singularity.
The singularity comes after the time when our technological creations exceed the computing power of human brains, and Kurzweil predicts that based on Moore’s Law and the general trend of exponential growth in technology, that time will come before the mid-21st century.
We’ll see artificial intelligence that exceeds human intelligence around the same time, he says. But there’s more to it than just having created smarter intelligences. There are profound ramifications, but we’ll get to those soon.
Technological singularity was a term coined by Vernor Vinge, the science fiction author, in 1983. “We will soon create intelligences greater than our own,” he wrote. “When this happens, human history will have reached a kind of singularity, an intellectual transition as impenetrable as the knotted space-time at the center of a black hole, and the world will pass far beyond our understanding.”
He was unifying the thoughts of many of his predecessors, Alan Turing and I. J. Good among them.
The idea is that when we become capable of creating beings more intelligent than us, it stands to reason that they — or their near-descendants — will be able to create intelligences more intelligent than themselves. This exponential growth of intelligences would work much like Moore’s Law — perhaps we can call it Kurzweil’s Law — but have more profound significance. When there are intelligences capable of creating more intelligent beings in rapid succession, we enter an age where technological advances move at a rate we can’t even dream of right now.
And that’s saying something: thanks to the nature of exponential growth, technological advance is already making headway at the fastest pace we’ve ever seen.
The singularity doesn’t refer so much to the development of superhuman artificial intelligence — although that is foundational to the concept — as it does to the point when our ability to predict what happens next in technological advance breaks down.
What Will the Singularity Look Like?
Singularitarians say that we simply can’t imagine what such a future would be like. It’s hard to flaw that logic. Imagine, in a world where human intelligence is near the bottom of the ladder, what the world would look like even a short decade later. The short answer is: you can’t! The point is that as more intelligent beings they’ll be capable of not just imagining, but creating things we can’t even dream about.
We can speculate as to the changes the Singularity would bring that would enable that exponential growth to continue. Once we build computers with processing power greater than the human brain and with self-aware software that is more intelligent than a human, we will see improvements to the speed with which these artificial minds can be run. Consider that with faster processing speeds, these AIs could do the thinking of a human in shorter amounts of time: a year’s worth of human processing would become eight months, then eventually weeks, days, minutes and at the far end of the spectrum, even seconds.
There is some debate about whether there’s a ceiling to the processing speed of intelligence, though scientists agree that there is certainly room for improvement before hitting that limit. As with speculation in general, nobody can really speculate as to where that limit may sit, but it’s still fascinating to imagine an intelligence doing the thinking that a human does in one year in one minute.
With that superhuman intelligence and incredibly fast, powerful processing power, it’s not a stretch to imagine that software re-writing its own source code as it arrives at new conclusions and attempts to progressively improve itself.
The Age of the Posthuman
What’s interesting is that there is potential for such post-Singularity improvements to machine speed and intelligence to crossover to human minds. Futurists speculate that such advanced technology would enable us to improve the processing power, intelligence and accessible memory limits of our own minds through changing the structure of the brain, or ‘porting’ our minds on to the same hardware that these intelligences will run on.
In last week’s piece I asked whether we’d be able to tell when we crossed the line from transhuman to posthuman, or whether that line would be ever-moving as we found new ways to augment ourselves.
But here’s another, contrary question: could the Singularity, should it arrive, bring the age of the posthuman? If we are able to create superhuman intelligence and then upgrade our own intelligence by changing the fundamental structure of our minds, is that posthuman enough?
Augmentation is one thing, and upgrading human blood to vasculoid and allowing us to switch off emotions when we need to avoid an impulse purchase are merely augmentations. Increasing our baseline intelligence and processing speed seems to me to be much more significant: an upgrade over an augment.
There is, of course, no reason to think that our creations would have any interest in us or improving the hardware on which we currently run. Many science fiction authors have postulated that superhuman artificial intelligence would in fact want us extinct, given that our species’ behavior doesn’t lend itself to sustainability.
Is the Singularity Near?
The real question, of course, is whether such a technological singularity will ever happen. Just because it has been predicted by some doesn’t mean it will, and there’s plenty of debate on both sides of the argument. Ever the technological optimist, I’m going to avoid the question in this piece — though that’s not to say I don’t think it’s an important one. You can have a look at David Brin’s fantastic article, Singularities and Nightmares: Extremes of Optimism and Pessimism About the Human Future, for more discussion of that question. I’m fond of this quote from Brin’s piece:
“How can models, created within an earlier, cruder system, properly simulate and predict the behavior of a later and vastly more complex system?”
Of course, if you accept that quote as the basis for any argument, it’s just as hard to map the progress of and towards the singularity as it is to deny that it will happen.
According to Kurzweil’s predictions, we will see computer systems as powerful as the human brain in 2020. We won’t have created artificial intelligence until after 2029, the year in which Kurzweil predicts we will have reverse-engineered the brain. It’s that breakthrough that will allow us to create artificial intelligence, and begin to explore other ideas like that of mind uploading.
Current trends certainly don’t oppose such a timeline, and in 2009, Dr Anthony Berglas wrote in a paper entitled “Artificial Intelligence Will Kill Our Grandchildren” that:
“A computer that was ten thousand times faster than a desktop computer would probably be at least as computationally powerful as the human brain. With specialized hardware it would not be difficult to build such a machine in the very near future.”
Important to consider is that if Kurzweil’s predictions come true, in 2029 when we’ve reverse engineered the brain we would have already had nine years of improvement on those computer systems with brain-like power and capacity. In this timeline, as soon as we create artificial intelligence it will already be able to think faster and with faster access to more varied input than humans thanks to the hardware it runs on.
By 2045, Kurzweil says, we will have expanded the capacity for intelligence of our civilization — comprised by that stage of both software and people — one billion fold.
One only needs to look at history to see our capacity for rapid improvement in retrospect. One of my favorite metrics is life expectancy. In 1800, the average life expectancy was 30, mostly due to high infant mortality rates — though the kind of old age we see as common today was a rare event then. In 2000, the life expectancy of developed countries was 75. If we can more than double the average life expectancy in our society in the space of a historical blip, there’s much more to be excited about ahead.















This is probably one of the most interesting articles I’ve ever read. Well done.
Nevertheless there’s an interesting point of view but I believe that the ceiling of this technology will be reached not necessarily because of the technology evolution but to the spirit of human beings in terms of using the free-will! The Moore’s law is valid as long as the machines could breach the barrier of computing level and the atom level but the capability to develop feelings in a genuine way – for a machine is pretty hard to imagine! I believe that the complexity of the human being resides in the capacity to understand and less in predict, in “folding” concepts and not task performance and the capacity to suffer, be desperate and sacrifice itself for an idea, !
Perhaps the singularity induced by the technological advance will be a fact but the conscience of humans can transcend the knot space-time by not be subjected to fixed rules even if the origin is based in the number of computing capabilities!
The valuable achievements have been done not only by using the computing intelligence but using the capacity to build dillema’s, to interrogate the inner self – and seek for answers! The time was an ally and not a Competitor – inner metabolism of a question being itself the very beauty of the quest!
No matter how many transistors will be incorporated on a single silicone chip – I believe that the answer stays somewhere else!
Dan Cosma
I wonder whether we are already capable of creating machines that would be capable of cloning the human brain within a short amount of time but we cannot come up with the technology because our self-defense mechanism keeps us from doing so.
@Paul Benigeri Hey, what happened to my usual crowd of detractors? ;) Thanks Paul.
I think you misunderstood what he means by life expectancy being 30. It doesn’t necessarily mean that most people didn’t live past 30. It’s just that a lot of them died at young ages, and even as babies, due to a lot of factors, including diseases that couldn’t be easily or cheaply cured, famine, crimes, and so on.
Even though we hear about people living to 120 today, almost the same kind of factors are restricting us from achieving that age, but also one more: aging. But aging is not the only factor why our life expectancy is “only” 75 years. If we could easily and cheaply replace any failing organ in a human’s body,and we had nanobots that could go inside and fix just about anything that is broken, not only we’d we see a LOT more people living past 75, but they’d also look and feel younger and healthier.
Some people fear overpopulation because of this. But consider that once young people start seeing others among them living up to 200 years, or perhaps even more in the future because of very advanced technology, would they really want to have a kid by age 30? Aren’t they more likely to “live their life till they’re 50″, and THEN consider having a baby ?
All this is a bit hard to imagine right now, because we don’t currently have any technology that can significantly and visibly slow down our aging, but that doesn’t mean we won’t have such technology.
Simply the “technological or otherwise singularity” is just another marketing con, designed to fleece a few more bucks out of your wallets with promises of a new and improved snake oil. Though thesedays with the increased regulation, it is less likely to be snake oil, than a book and lecture tour, with the charlatan preacher in the pulprit, offering promises of tomorrow for slavery today.
As Buddha noted several thousand years ago, the singularity, or rather eschaton is a personal event, or rather rememberance of what we always were.
“The idea is that when we become capable of creating beings more intelligent than us, it stands to reason that they — or their near-descendants — will be able to create intelligences more intelligent than themselves.”
Stands to reason, right? It kinds of amounts to say that if you get a chicken to lay an egg bigger than average once, then you will witness an exponential growth in chicken size. Come on, “it stands to reason” that the bigger egg will hatch as a bigger chicken which in turn will lay bigger eggs.
If I have an IQ of 120 then I could build an AI with an IQ of 240, but if I have an IQ of only 110 I could only an AI with an IQ of 220? Totally makes sense.
3 things :
-Intelligence is not an absolute, it is rooted in an environment (conceptually similar to the “no free lunch” theorem)
-There are environment-induced limits to how intelligent you can get
-Intelligence is not something you can build just out of intelligence (you have to “develop” it, in relation to an environment)
‘Intelligence’ is a silly concept. Human intelligence is hyperspecialized to begin with, heavily slanted towards what we evolved towards and virtually blind and stupid in other areas. It wont be hard to have sweeping effects on human society, and a LOT of people will suffer indescribable misery far before we’ll have anything such as ‘across the boards “smarter-than-human-selfdirecting-devices’.
Then we”ll probably allow Facebook to trigger the onset of these devices, and we wont have a Singularity,but we’ll have a Psychopathularity, run in secret by Russian mobsters.
My guess humanity is screwed, 40 years from now. And I won’t give a damn, insofar I’ll be either really old or dead by then. If I’ll be young, healthy, smart for some reason, I’ll care. If I won’t the world can go to hell for all I care, since I’ll be dead or dying. This has any relevance for me insofar I’ll be alive. Without the remote probability of me experiencing these matters on a personal level, they remain a quaint and amusing theoretical type of entertainment. An entertaining philosophical narrative if you will.
But it does’t look as if I will benefit anywhere from this (rather the opposite – I’ll probably end up dying horribly or miserably poor as a result of all this, with a small bunch of people really rich that are completely disinterested in me to begin with). So this field only remains a ‘hobby’ for me.
One does not need create a consciousness with an IQ of 240. “Intelligence” is thought to be an emergent property of systems capable of it, which receive some form of stimulus. Please imagine our species in its much younger days and how we may have “developed” intelligence, it is a similar concept. Once our brains (hardware) were the correct size and were stimulated in some (?) way, intelligence resulted.
I have to agree with Paul — this article is very well written and kept me interested until the last word.
Be sure to check out my earlier piece on this ! http://thenextweb.com/media/2011/02/10/the-singularity-hits-mainstream-but-what-more-have-we-learned/
Point completely missed in rush to sarcasm.
@yodhe I can’t speak for others who might warp futurist topics into messianic crap, but when I talk about topics such as transhumanism and the singularity I’m talking purely about technology and its advance. The singularity is just one popular prediction about how that might happen in which I have no personal investment, but I’m certainly not talking about self-improvement or religion. Just plain old technology.
@Courtney Boyd Myers Great piece as always CBM
Somewhere distant I hear that question about a god being able to create a hole so big he can’t jump over it.
But next to the religious implications, which you can dismiss but are obvious, I love the way you wrote this, very interesting, challenging and makes me want to be 58 right now!
Agreed, very nice article.
Makes me willing to get back to some good science fiction book… any suggestions? ;)
@yodhe Yuck! Buhddism what a bunch of religious nonsense.
Considering all what’s going on this planet, this singularity thing is a fast track to anihilation. Building more intelligent machines doesn’t mean that they will do better than us since we are the ones who program them. Improving human consciousness seems to be the way to go to make a better planet. This singularity is just a cop out!
The only reason people are trying to develop IA is because they are starting to get lazy and try to invent machines to work instead of them
in 100 years even to go 200 m to a shop to buy food will be an effort or will be a waste of time and energy for people
even now many off the people order junk food to be delivered at there home because they don’t have “time” to go to market to buy food and to prepare it
As for the human body is in continually evolution and adaptation
if u lift weight your muscle are getting stronger if u run your andurance is goring
but if u stay all day at home and do nothing just watch TV or whatever u do in house , your body will become like an ” vegetable”
The only reason people are trying to develop IA is because they are starting to get lazy and try to invent machines to work instead of them
in 100 years even to go 200 m to a shop to buy food will be an effort or will be a waste of time and energy for people
even now many off the people order junk food to be delivered at there home because they don’t have “time” to go to market to buy food and to prepare it
As for the human body is in continually evolution and adaptation
if u lift weight your muscle are getting stronger if u run your andurance is goring
but if u stay all day at home and do nothing just watch TV or whatever u do in house , your body will become like an ” vegetable”
Long livE the Humanity :D
The AI is just a pretext for some people to overcome and rule the world
by make u lazy to do nothing until u are completely harmless to them an easy to manipulate
In one of my opnions
Long livE the Humanity :D
The AI awill be an mecanism for some people to overcome and rule the world
by make u lazy to do nothing until u are completely harmless to them an easy to manipulate
@Benoit Archambault I bet you define human conciousness as something non physical? Am I right
” Kurzweil predicts that based on Moore’s Law and the general trend of exponential growth in technology, that time will come before the mid-20th century.”Mid – 21st century, not 20th.A model is proposition stated in today’s language of what it believes might be an explanation of a current or future condition or behavior. A model is a guess, a postulation. A model probes the world outside of its lexical bubble with terms and ideas which mimic what might be, not what is.
@Laoch Cáiliúil de Búrca
Frankly: I don’t know!
Well luckily the evidence points in the direction of physical. So while you don’t actually know how human conciousness works, you have good enough reason to believe it’s physical.
“You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that!” – John von Neumann
@Laoch Cáiliúil de Búrca
Even Einstein was puzzled by this question. Sir Roger Penrose stated that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness. So I bet this will remain an open question for awful lot of time. Very interresting indeed!
@Laoch Cáiliúil de Búrca
Wiki about Penrose’s work on AI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose
It is already here. See http://www.ai-one.com to see the first SDK that allows artificial intelligence to be built into software applications.
We believe that Kurzweil is right about the Technological Singularity but his is wrong about the timing: The Technological Singularity is very near — possibly in the next 5 years. Moore’s Law is robust, stable and predicated on preconceived notions of what defines a computer chip (namely gate arrays). Kurzeil’s predictions about super human intelligence assume that it will be built on chip sets that use the same fundamental (binary) processing principles that have evolved for almost 50 years.
What if something radically different comes along?
What if machines could learn like a human? What if they could do so now?
Our company just launched a software development kit (SDK) that enables programmers to build artificial intelligence into other software programs. Currently we support machine learning of text — but will soon release SDKs for time based and visual information.
The most inspiring part of working here is that we are seeing that AI has the capacity to do very good things for humanity — like cure disease, facilitate democracy and personal freedoms, provide public transparency and accountability and find answers to the most vexing questions in science. Already, our software is being used to develop personalized medical treatments, find criminals, thwart terrorists and develop semantic web applications.
We spend a considerable about of our time researching and questioning the nature of human consciousness. In fact, our technology is modeled after human neurophysiology. It learns like a human.
All technology has the capacity of good and/or evil. Technological progress is the human imperative. Which direction it takes us is entirely up to how humans choose to deploy it.
Bzzt. Error! The increase in life expectancy was (mostly) due to a drop in infant mortality.
We have almost always met our grandparents, it’s just that we never met many of our aunts and uncles.
@Jim Rootham Fair point — I misread a source that was a little unclear; will edit!
Artificial Intelligence has been “about twenty years away” since the 1950s. It’s not a problem of horsepower, or we’d already have robots as smart and adaptive as cats, dogs or horses (we don’t!). The fact remains that for all the advances in both neuroscience and technology, we still don’t really know how to go about building something which is self-aware; we don’t know how the magic works in our own heads although we have lots of theories.
Too many people have said “it will never happen” for me to be ready to categorically say the same about the mythic singularity, but the fact remains that this appears to be a hard problem to solve, and it’s just possible that people aren’t smart enough to do it.
Perhaps Godel’s theorem holds for people too.
@Benoit Archambault You appeal to authority too easily sir. Einstein despite his brilliance was just a man and most of his effort went into physics. However he wouldn’t approve I’d bet of Sir Roger Penrose’s mysterious answer to mysterious questions (“even after the answer is given[by Penrose], the phenomenon is still a mystery and possesses the same quality of wonderful inexplicability that it had at the start”). Do we agree though that conciousness and intelligence are amenable to science? see http://tinyurl.com/mj5vdk
@Benoit Archambault @Laoch Cáiliúil de Búrca
That’s just a bio of Roger Penrose. He’s not an AI researcher. Am I wrong?
I believe we have already achieved one part of the Singularity – technological advances are already happening faster than any individual can fully comprehend, and faster than any organisation or government can control.
http://www.conceivablytech.com/8027/products/intel-exascale-computing-arrives-in-2018
http://copenhagensuborbitals.com/
@Laoch Cáiliúil de Búrca
You are right. However, the point is to bring some insight by other’s people work in order to explain how consciousness/awareness could be used in AI. As you said «evidence points in the direction of physical»: I think this hypothesis is true but not obvious. Personally, I think we will need new advanced physics such as quantum computing to achieve this goal.
@Benoit Archambault @Laoch Cáiliúil de Búrca
Indeed, I’ve met people doing that very thing.
Regarding the David Brin quote:That’s the whole idea with humans, we transcend limitations; thus via our crude brains we think beyond ourselves. The foundation of our brains hinges upon an earlier primitive cerebral system but we have something wonderful within the crudity, we can visualise, we can forecast, we can see a bird flying and we can imagine creating an aeroplane. Via crude metals and electronics and other materials we use our meaty bodies and minds create awesome achievements. Initially when the first person said “let’s create an aeroplane” it was difficult to imagine how primitive beings without natural wings could ever fly so competently. We even imagined how we could leave the Earth in spaceships to visit the Moon or live on-board the International Space Station. Is the creation of the ISS any different to the creation of the Singularity? We use our imaginations to visual what the future will be and via our brains we transcend limitations; we create beyond ourselves. Despite the crudity of our brains and culture it is easy to see how the Singularity will manifest. The intelligence explosion is very thought-provoking but despite the explosive prospect of future intelligence we can think about it now, very easily, with our limited imaginations.
Is this “intelligence” you’re talking about, something which has to preserve life as ultimate good? Which definition of life? How can you teach a machine to respect the holy complexity of living systems and balance, if we aren’t able to do it ourselves?
@Laoch Cáiliúil de Búrca To which evidence are you referring exaclty Sir?
@Laoch Cáiliúil de Búrca Which is this evidence, Sir? What does it have to do with human choice? Unless you think there is no freedom of choice possible for a living being. But this would take you into many paradoxes, hope you are aware of it.
@Lorenzo Fortunati Evidence for which statement exactly? For the physical nature of the brain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfGwsAdS9DcI don’t believe in contra causal free will.
@Lorenzo Fortunati Humans are far from perfect but on balance during our struggle to survive we have safeguarded our planet and ourselves reasonably well. Things could have been much worse and yes things could be much better but on balance I think as a race evolving from primitive origins we’ve done reasonably well. The transition of a life-form from unawareness to awareness can be problematic, but Earth and ourselves have survived the transition relatively intact. Don’t be too hard on Humanity, we are only just beginning to leave adolescence behind, and there are many good things in the world such as heart transplants and the World Wide Web.Intelligence is applicable to intelligent beings regardless of whether or not the being is artificial of naturally bio-evolved. To help people understand intelligence I wrote the following blog-post a while ago: http://singularity-utopia.blogspot.com/2011/05/definition-of-intelligence.htmlMachines will be no different to humans. They will be intelligent but their arrival at intelligence will have been a different evolutionary route. All intelligent beings will naturally value life. Merely because a machine is not biological this does not mean it is dead. Machines will be alive similar to how humans are alive and we all become more intelligent.
@Lorenzo Fortunati
Lorenzo Fortunati. Humans are far from perfect but on balance during our struggle to survive we have safeguarded our planet and ourselves reasonably well. Things could have been much worse and yes things could be much better but on balance I think as a race evolving from primitive origins we’ve done reasonably well. The transition of a life-form from unawareness to awareness can be problematic, but Earth and ourselves have survived the transition relatively intact. Don’t be too hard on Humanity, we are only just beginning to leave adolescence behind, and there are many good things in the world such as heart transplants and the World Wide Web. Intelligence is applicable to intelligent beings regardless of whether or not the being is artificial of naturally bio-evolved. Machines will be no different to humans. They will be intelligent but their arrival at intelligence will have been a different evolutionary route. All intelligent beings will naturally value life. Merely because a machine is not biological this does not mean it is dead. Machines will be alive similar to how humans are alive and we all become more intelligent. To help people understand intelligence I wrote the following blog-post a while ago: <a href=”http://singularity-utopia.blogspot.com/2011/05/definition-of-intelligence.html”>definition of intelligence</a>
@Lorenzo Fortunati
Humans are far from perfect but on balance during our struggle to survive we have safeguarded our planet and ourselves reasonably well. Things could have been much worse and yes things could be much better but on balance I think as a race evolving from primitive origins we’ve done reasonably well. The transition of a life-form from unawareness to awareness can be problematic, but Earth and ourselves have survived the transition relatively intact. Don’t be too hard on Humanity, we are only just beginning to leave adolescence behind, and there are many good things in the world such as heart transplants and the World Wide Web. Intelligence is applicable to intelligent beings regardless of whether or not the being is artificial of naturally bio-evolved. Machines will be no different to humans. They will be intelligent but their arrival at intelligence will have been a different evolutionary route. All intelligent beings will naturally value life. Merely because a machine is not biological this does not mean it is dead. Machines will be alive similar to how humans are alive and we all become more intelligent. To help people understand intelligence I wrote the following blog-post a while ago: http://singularity-utopia.blogspot.com/2011/05/definition-of-intelligence.html