The reference to the origin of the concept of a singularity was better than most, but still misunderstood it:
> In 1993 Vernor Vinge drew on computer science and his fellow science-fiction writers to argue that ordinary human history was drawing to a close. We would surely create superhuman intelligence sometime within the next three decades, leading to a “Singularity”, in which AI would start feeding on itself.
Yes it was Vernor, but he said something much more interesting: that as the speed of innovation itself sped up (the derivative of acceleration) the curve could bend up until it became essentially vertical, literally a singularity in the curve. And then things on the other side of that singularity would be incomprehensible to those of us on our side of it. This is reflected in Peace and Fire upon the deep and other of his novels going back before the essay.
You can see in this idea is itself rooted in ideas from Alvin Toffler in the 70s (Future Shock) and Ray Lafferty in the 60s (e.g. Slow Tuesday Night).
So AI machines were just part of the enabling phenomena -- the most important, and yes the center of his '93 essay. But the core of the metaphor was broader than that.
I'm a little disappointed that The Economist, of all publications, didn't get ths quite right, but in their defense, it was a bit tangental to the point of the essay.
> In 1993 Vernor Vinge drew on computer science and his fellow science-fiction writers to argue that ordinary human history was drawing to a close. We would surely create superhuman intelligence sometime within the next three decades, leading to a “Singularity”, in which AI would start feeding on itself.
Yes it was Vernor, but he said something much more interesting: that as the speed of innovation itself sped up (the derivative of acceleration) the curve could bend up until it became essentially vertical, literally a singularity in the curve. And then things on the other side of that singularity would be incomprehensible to those of us on our side of it. This is reflected in Peace and Fire upon the deep and other of his novels going back before the essay.
You can see in this idea is itself rooted in ideas from Alvin Toffler in the 70s (Future Shock) and Ray Lafferty in the 60s (e.g. Slow Tuesday Night).
So AI machines were just part of the enabling phenomena -- the most important, and yes the center of his '93 essay. But the core of the metaphor was broader than that.
I'm a little disappointed that The Economist, of all publications, didn't get ths quite right, but in their defense, it was a bit tangental to the point of the essay.