Re: "True Names," chat with Vinge, and Cypherpunks

[tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)]

Benjamin McLemore writes:

> Any newer Vinge estimates of arrival time for the Singularity? I saw an
> article a while back by Vinge and I think he was estimating 2013-2030
> timeframe.

We discussed the Singularity at length (thus delaying the arrival by
some number of seconds). 

Vinge is not at all strident in his estimates. In fact, I am more
strident in my _deep doubts_ that anything like his timetable is at
all reasonable.

(I look at the progress needed, the current slow rate, and the
conceptual issues which are not yet solved. And the all-important
issue of economic incentives, and the difficulty of "crossing the
desert." I've written about his before, and won't here.)

> I've been thinking of starting a Singularity Watch type Web-page/email
> list, as I am often struck by technological newsbits that seem enough
> out-of-the-ordinary and potentially status quo shattering that they seem to
> indicate some sort of potential for breakthrough.

This is actually counter-productive, in my odd opinion. Many bright
folks I know here are affected by Toffler's "overchoice" dilemma: too
many exciting areas to study...and, after all, if the Singularity is
coming on Feb 13, 2016, why design boring things like 10-million
transistor chips?

The focus on the mythical "Singularity" is not very useful.

Also, most of the "tidbits" of technology that get reported are
marketing hype. I won't recapitulate points I used to make at length
on another list (Extropians), but most discoveries cited are not at
all steps toward "the Singularity." 


> Some recent examples:

> *human genome project

Of interest, but not even as interesting as other things.

> *quantum mechanical teleportation

Aharonov-Bohm may exist, but it ain't teleportation! I don't want to
sound rude here, but it does a disservice to even call it this.

> *high energy ion bombardment of nuclei in Germany yields something besides
> quarks, gluons in protons (potential challenge to QCD, is this our
> photoelectric effect finally?)

I don't know anything about this (references?), but it seems pretty
clear that the Singularity will or will not arrive based on fairly
standard technologies, certainly no technologies involving gluons and
whatnot are going to be of engineering importance anytime soon. Maybe
I'm wrong, but I don't seen any connections.

> *quantum computing
> 

Like quantum teleportation, probably not real.

In any case, I support Vinge's point that the main enabling technology
he was thinking of was the truly powerful, artificially intelligent
computer, able to design an even better successor, etc. (The
long-awaited, and much-delayed "runaway" situation, a la "The Forbin
Project.)

Vinge assumes no oddball physics. As an ex-physicist, I concur.


> Despite the romantic appeal of the idea, though, I think it is a bit
> farther off than Vinge imagines--maybe 2050.

Maybe. But only maybe.

--Tim May



-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."