[extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity

[Samantha Atkins]

On Dec 21, 2005, at 12:35 AM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:

> Given definitions like "the S is accelerated exponential growth
> becoming vertical, with more change in seconds than now in years,
> change triggering new change, and no prediction is possible from
> here", clearly S is a family of possible scenarios. At the same time I
> am not persuaded that a S will happen.

This is not what  Singularity is about.  See http://www.singinst.org and
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix/vinge/vinge-sing.html

Massively accelerating change is a by-product of Singularity rather  
than its definition or essence.

> You can be an activist for something that apparently hasn't happened
> yet - last time I looked there was no peace on earth, this does not
> mean that one should not try. Rather, the problem with S-ism is that
> the S is not defined in sufficient detail. Saying "I want things to
> change" is not enough imo to motivate activism, one is supposed to say
> something about *what* change she wants to see.

Irrelevant.  The key to Singularity is creating greater than human  
intelligence.  That is quite specific.

- samantha