<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Kurzweil responds: Don&#8217;t underestimate the Singularity</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity</link>
	<description>Accelerating Intelligence</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 08:11:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cazbot</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-49315</link>
		<dc:creator>Cazbot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 09:03:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-49315</guid>
		<description>I think Mr. Paul Allen is completely wrong about AI&#039;s Ability to extrapolate patterns from complex systems. Already, since 2009 actually, AI is capable of LEARNING new laws of physics. I do mean learn btw, the link below provides more information. Capable of defining laws from large data sets. Maybe even data sets on neural connectivity one day.  

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/newtonai/

Even more so is he wrong about our ability to learn how neurons work and interact with each other. More and more researchers are discovering the basics of neural processes. With every new experiment we learn in greater detail how individual clusters of neurons interact. Through this data, the already existing AI can assist us in developing new methods for testing simulated neural models. As a programmer you would think he would understand this. Researchers already know that computers and our brains are in a similar language. Using what we&#039;ve learned from these experiments will help us build more realistic AI. For example, through experimentation we know that neural connectivity is a form of reward/punishment system. If you are receiving data good, strengthen this connection, if you aren&#039;t, then bad, you have contribute nothing. Nerve clusters at the eyes, ears, nose, and tongue, show us that more information leads to greater connectivity. A reason our noses are less important to us then they are to dogs.

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-11-02/tech/brain.dish_1_brain-cells-neurons-brain-works?_s=PM:TECH
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/how-to-train-yo/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/science/29brain.html

Also, his accusations of brittleness, &quot;their performance boundaries are rigidly set by their internal assumptions and defining algorithms, they cannot generalize&quot; are completely outdated. MIT researchers programmed a bot capable of reading and learning a game. Examples of this will continue to pop up as programming becomes a second language and likely a required class in the future.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/language-from-games-0712.html

So AI is already learning, it may only be learning at small levels of a grasshopper or a fruit fly, only able to handle so many computations within its given computer before lagging, but its still learning, something I think is light years ahead of the 80&#039;s and yet a doubling every year and a half will allow us to go further. 

And this is with us not even coming close to exhausting all of our options or methods of simulation. We still have cloud based, neural networking/AI that we could try where either large servers could connect with other servers to assist in neural networking experiments, or where millions of personal computers simulate clusters of neurons receiving input from other clusters. We can still integrate multiple promising systems together, for example the two mentioned above and watson. The point is there is a lot to still try and we are already making huge leaps without resorting to other methods, what makes him think we will not accelerate our understanding.

Either ignorance in part of the facts, or maybe just a rigid predefined algorithm.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Mr. Paul Allen is completely wrong about AI&#8217;s Ability to extrapolate patterns from complex systems. Already, since 2009 actually, AI is capable of LEARNING new laws of physics. I do mean learn btw, the link below provides more information. Capable of defining laws from large data sets. Maybe even data sets on neural connectivity one day.  </p>
<p><a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/newtonai/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/newtonai/</a></p>
<p>Even more so is he wrong about our ability to learn how neurons work and interact with each other. More and more researchers are discovering the basics of neural processes. With every new experiment we learn in greater detail how individual clusters of neurons interact. Through this data, the already existing AI can assist us in developing new methods for testing simulated neural models. As a programmer you would think he would understand this. Researchers already know that computers and our brains are in a similar language. Using what we&#8217;ve learned from these experiments will help us build more realistic AI. For example, through experimentation we know that neural connectivity is a form of reward/punishment system. If you are receiving data good, strengthen this connection, if you aren&#8217;t, then bad, you have contribute nothing. Nerve clusters at the eyes, ears, nose, and tongue, show us that more information leads to greater connectivity. A reason our noses are less important to us then they are to dogs.</p>
<p><a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2004-11-02/tech/brain.dish_1_brain-cells-neurons-brain-works?_s=PM:TECH" rel="nofollow">http://articles.cnn.com/2004-11-02/tech/brain.dish_1_brain-cells-neurons-brain-works?_s=PM:TECH</a><br />
<a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/how-to-train-yo/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/how-to-train-yo/</a><br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/science/29brain.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/science/29brain.html</a></p>
<p>Also, his accusations of brittleness, &#8220;their performance boundaries are rigidly set by their internal assumptions and defining algorithms, they cannot generalize&#8221; are completely outdated. MIT researchers programmed a bot capable of reading and learning a game. Examples of this will continue to pop up as programming becomes a second language and likely a required class in the future.</p>
<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/language-from-games-0712.html" rel="nofollow">http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/language-from-games-0712.html</a></p>
<p>So AI is already learning, it may only be learning at small levels of a grasshopper or a fruit fly, only able to handle so many computations within its given computer before lagging, but its still learning, something I think is light years ahead of the 80&#8242;s and yet a doubling every year and a half will allow us to go further. </p>
<p>And this is with us not even coming close to exhausting all of our options or methods of simulation. We still have cloud based, neural networking/AI that we could try where either large servers could connect with other servers to assist in neural networking experiments, or where millions of personal computers simulate clusters of neurons receiving input from other clusters. We can still integrate multiple promising systems together, for example the two mentioned above and watson. The point is there is a lot to still try and we are already making huge leaps without resorting to other methods, what makes him think we will not accelerate our understanding.</p>
<p>Either ignorance in part of the facts, or maybe just a rigid predefined algorithm.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bri</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-23947</link>
		<dc:creator>Bri</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:42:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-23947</guid>
		<description>Nice view you have from Mt Olympus, me I couln&#039;t afford the real-estate. As someone who is grammatically challenged, I would hope that I&#039;m judged by my ideas. We could have a grading system. Get an F for grammar , an A for content. Thank heaven we don&#039;t. I was under the assumsion that grammar evolves. Syntax and grammar change quite a bit from culture to culture. Not to mention even within a given culture. For me it wasn&#039;t too straining on my intellect to understand him. Although I disagree with his premise. I would encourage him to write again, rather than play him as a fool. Anyway, the subject at hand is brain emulation. I agree that there must be a subsystem, or unit of processing, refered to in the article as canonical. Too many small creatures utilize critical problem solving. Even octopuses, which live only one season, can posses amazing logic capabilities. Once that sub unit of organic computation is discovered, it won&#039;t take long for them to zoom past us.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice view you have from Mt Olympus, me I couln&#8217;t afford the real-estate. As someone who is grammatically challenged, I would hope that I&#8217;m judged by my ideas. We could have a grading system. Get an F for grammar , an A for content. Thank heaven we don&#8217;t. I was under the assumsion that grammar evolves. Syntax and grammar change quite a bit from culture to culture. Not to mention even within a given culture. For me it wasn&#8217;t too straining on my intellect to understand him. Although I disagree with his premise. I would encourage him to write again, rather than play him as a fool. Anyway, the subject at hand is brain emulation. I agree that there must be a subsystem, or unit of processing, refered to in the article as canonical. Too many small creatures utilize critical problem solving. Even octopuses, which live only one season, can posses amazing logic capabilities. Once that sub unit of organic computation is discovered, it won&#8217;t take long for them to zoom past us.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bri</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-23944</link>
		<dc:creator>Bri</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jul 2012 18:04:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-23944</guid>
		<description>They don&#039;t require pensions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They don&#8217;t require pensions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bri</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-23943</link>
		<dc:creator>Bri</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:52:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-23943</guid>
		<description>He&#039;s dumped 5oo million into brain research, and you can bet he talks to every department to see what&#039;s up!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>He&#8217;s dumped 5oo million into brain research, and you can bet he talks to every department to see what&#8217;s up!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Editor</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-23935</link>
		<dc:creator>Editor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jul 2012 14:40:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-23935</guid>
		<description>Stephen, Paul Allen began with Microsoft as a programmer and has made major creative contributions through his foundation. He is hardly a parasite, and his skepticism is healthy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stephen, Paul Allen began with Microsoft as a programmer and has made major creative contributions through his foundation. He is hardly a parasite, and his skepticism is healthy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Wadeson</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-23919</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Wadeson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jul 2012 08:01:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-23919</guid>
		<description>I think it is worth remembering that Ray Kurzweil is an Inventor whilst Paul Allen is an Investor - who would you believe? A creator or a parasite?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it is worth remembering that Ray Kurzweil is an Inventor whilst Paul Allen is an Investor &#8211; who would you believe? A creator or a parasite?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-13735</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 04:41:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-13735</guid>
		<description>You have no reason to think &quot;the answer will always be...&quot;No.&quot;&quot; It sounds like you feel threatened by the possibility that non-organic machines could  someday end up being more creative than Bach or Shakespeare</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You have no reason to think &#8220;the answer will always be&#8230;&#8221;No.&#8221;" It sounds like you feel threatened by the possibility that non-organic machines could  someday end up being more creative than Bach or Shakespeare</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JeremyWhite</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-11717</link>
		<dc:creator>JeremyWhite</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:03:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-11717</guid>
		<description>Snarky nonsense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Snarky nonsense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChristianGehman</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-10022</link>
		<dc:creator>ChristianGehman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 22:50:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-10022</guid>
		<description>The world is full of people who don&#039;t read books.  They don&#039;t look at paintings.  They don&#039;t listen to Bach -- or Teddy Wilson.  They don&#039;t read poems.  Or novels.  They&#039;re mostly all afflicted with Color Screen Addiction, which helps bolster their sense of self-importance despite the usually startling dearth of personal accomplishments that they might point out as a reason why others might want to listen to their opinions.  Is Paul Allen in that category?  What has he ever created that would help us classify him as a human being -- rather than just an intelligent machine?  ... is he a good family man, at least?  though ... hardly a scientist, an original thinker, or ... help me out.  I&#039;m really wondering ... Is a man like Paul Allen really human?  How could we tell?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The world is full of people who don&#8217;t read books.  They don&#8217;t look at paintings.  They don&#8217;t listen to Bach &#8212; or Teddy Wilson.  They don&#8217;t read poems.  Or novels.  They&#8217;re mostly all afflicted with Color Screen Addiction, which helps bolster their sense of self-importance despite the usually startling dearth of personal accomplishments that they might point out as a reason why others might want to listen to their opinions.  Is Paul Allen in that category?  What has he ever created that would help us classify him as a human being &#8212; rather than just an intelligent machine?  &#8230; is he a good family man, at least?  though &#8230; hardly a scientist, an original thinker, or &#8230; help me out.  I&#8217;m really wondering &#8230; Is a man like Paul Allen really human?  How could we tell?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChristianGehman</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-10021</link>
		<dc:creator>ChristianGehman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 22:36:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-10021</guid>
		<description>Yay!  someone who can consider Paul Allen&#039;s comments in a proper light: he&#039;s like a peeper in the spring whose song indicates that there&#039;s plenty of the : &quot;good green scum returning&quot; .....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yay!  someone who can consider Paul Allen&#8217;s comments in a proper light: he&#8217;s like a peeper in the spring whose song indicates that there&#8217;s plenty of the : &#8220;good green scum returning&#8221; &#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChristianGehman</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-10019</link>
		<dc:creator>ChristianGehman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 22:34:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-10019</guid>
		<description>The question should be -- can a machine create a great painting?  Can a machine write the Messe in H-moll?  To these questions, the answer will always be ... &quot;No.&quot;  Humanity is measured by great achievements in art, not by a few sentences typed out by ... an idiot?  or a machine?  Perhaps the really unpleasant truth is that many humans are less &quot;human&quot; than their dogs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The question should be &#8212; can a machine create a great painting?  Can a machine write the Messe in H-moll?  To these questions, the answer will always be &#8230; &#8220;No.&#8221;  Humanity is measured by great achievements in art, not by a few sentences typed out by &#8230; an idiot?  or a machine?  Perhaps the really unpleasant truth is that many humans are less &#8220;human&#8221; than their dogs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChristianGehman</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-10018</link>
		<dc:creator>ChristianGehman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 22:30:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-10018</guid>
		<description>Paul Allen is a dunderhead who owns a few sports teams, in my opinion.  A great bison ... he&#039;d be lost without a herd.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paul Allen is a dunderhead who owns a few sports teams, in my opinion.  A great bison &#8230; he&#8217;d be lost without a herd.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChristianGehman</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-10017</link>
		<dc:creator>ChristianGehman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 22:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-10017</guid>
		<description>Idiots who don&#039;t read books are responsible for quite a lot of technological progress, aren&#039;t they?  And many great contributions to human culture .... in your view?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Idiots who don&#8217;t read books are responsible for quite a lot of technological progress, aren&#8217;t they?  And many great contributions to human culture &#8230;. in your view?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChristianGehman</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-10016</link>
		<dc:creator>ChristianGehman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 22:25:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-10016</guid>
		<description>Why should individual rights be tossed aside?  You could just move, instead, to one of the lovely Islamic &quot;Republics&quot; -- like Syria!  -- where what Americans think of as necessary restrictions on the freedom of government to oppress the people -- The Bill of Rights -- is deemed to be incompatible with the religious aspirations of the citizenry&#039;s rulers.  And forget about &quot;rights&quot; for women.  Politicians know very little about &quot;what&#039;s coming.&quot;  Haven&#039;t you noticed?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why should individual rights be tossed aside?  You could just move, instead, to one of the lovely Islamic &#8220;Republics&#8221; &#8212; like Syria!  &#8212; where what Americans think of as necessary restrictions on the freedom of government to oppress the people &#8212; The Bill of Rights &#8212; is deemed to be incompatible with the religious aspirations of the citizenry&#8217;s rulers.  And forget about &#8220;rights&#8221; for women.  Politicians know very little about &#8220;what&#8217;s coming.&#8221;  Haven&#8217;t you noticed?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChristianGehman</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-10015</link>
		<dc:creator>ChristianGehman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 22:21:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-10015</guid>
		<description>Paul Allen is a great businessman, but no one has ever claimed his contributions are &quot;original ideas&quot; or even &quot;brilliant.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paul Allen is a great businessman, but no one has ever claimed his contributions are &#8220;original ideas&#8221; or even &#8220;brilliant.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChristianGehman</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-10014</link>
		<dc:creator>ChristianGehman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 22:19:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-10014</guid>
		<description>Never forget that many people believe that Bill Gates, a great &quot;genius&quot; actually stole DR-DOS from its original inventor -- Gary Kildall.  There&#039;s a good reason why Microsoft makes buggy programs that facilitate snooping ....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Never forget that many people believe that Bill Gates, a great &#8220;genius&#8221; actually stole DR-DOS from its original inventor &#8212; Gary Kildall.  There&#8217;s a good reason why Microsoft makes buggy programs that facilitate snooping &#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChristianGehman</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-10012</link>
		<dc:creator>ChristianGehman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 22:04:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-10012</guid>
		<description>Go back to reading science fiction instead of looking at films.  Read a little more Philip K. Dick, why don&#039;t you?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Go back to reading science fiction instead of looking at films.  Read a little more Philip K. Dick, why don&#8217;t you?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChristianGehman</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-10011</link>
		<dc:creator>ChristianGehman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 22:03:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-10011</guid>
		<description>Go Ray! 
Paul Allen -- the great genius who brought you Microsoft and owns professional sports teams.  A wonderful businessman whose main original idea was? ... ?  Whose main contribution to human culture was? .... ?  Whose favorite poet is? ..... ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Go Ray!<br />
Paul Allen &#8212; the great genius who brought you Microsoft and owns professional sports teams.  A wonderful businessman whose main original idea was? &#8230; ?  Whose main contribution to human culture was? &#8230;. ?  Whose favorite poet is? &#8230;.. ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChristianGehman</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-10010</link>
		<dc:creator>ChristianGehman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 22:00:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-10010</guid>
		<description>And your point is? ....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And your point is? &#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChristianGehman</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-10009</link>
		<dc:creator>ChristianGehman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 21:59:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-10009</guid>
		<description>Go back to school, maybe?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Go back to school, maybe?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChristianGehman</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-10008</link>
		<dc:creator>ChristianGehman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 21:58:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-10008</guid>
		<description>Alas ... machines are more expensive than humans!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alas &#8230; machines are more expensive than humans!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChristianGehman</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-10007</link>
		<dc:creator>ChristianGehman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 21:57:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-10007</guid>
		<description>Those bugaboos are only the top killers because we managed to fight off the Black Death, TB, measles, polio, influenza, whooping cough and ... soon?  hepatitis ...  but guess what?  people will go right on dying anyway.  It&#039;s part of the package.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Those bugaboos are only the top killers because we managed to fight off the Black Death, TB, measles, polio, influenza, whooping cough and &#8230; soon?  hepatitis &#8230;  but guess what?  people will go right on dying anyway.  It&#8217;s part of the package.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChristianGehman</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-10006</link>
		<dc:creator>ChristianGehman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 21:54:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-10006</guid>
		<description>You&#039;ll have to tune up thy ability to write .. and think ... and sprightly use the English with a whimsical flicker.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;ll have to tune up thy ability to write .. and think &#8230; and sprightly use the English with a whimsical flicker.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChristianGehman</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-10005</link>
		<dc:creator>ChristianGehman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 21:52:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-10005</guid>
		<description>Junk from a machine? or from a partially dyslexic idiot? ... who can&#039;t actually communicate in writing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Junk from a machine? or from a partially dyslexic idiot? &#8230; who can&#8217;t actually communicate in writing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChristianGehman</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-10004</link>
		<dc:creator>ChristianGehman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 21:50:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-10004</guid>
		<description>You should write more on this topic; at least it&#039;s more interesting than the objections posed by some other commenters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You should write more on this topic; at least it&#8217;s more interesting than the objections posed by some other commenters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChristianGehman</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-10003</link>
		<dc:creator>ChristianGehman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 21:47:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-10003</guid>
		<description>Writers who can&#039;t remember the distinction between the possessive &quot;its&quot; and the contraction if &quot;it is&quot; (&quot;it&#039;s) are unlikely to make many useful advances in investigating artificial intelligence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Writers who can&#8217;t remember the distinction between the possessive &#8220;its&#8221; and the contraction if &#8220;it is&#8221; (&#8220;it&#8217;s) are unlikely to make many useful advances in investigating artificial intelligence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Nollmeyer</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-8347</link>
		<dc:creator>David Nollmeyer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:50:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-8347</guid>
		<description>My opinion on Watson is that since it is an IBM machine it will reflect differentiation in a brand sense. This form of selective attention reflects the point that Watson&#039;s preferences are not autonomous but that it&#039;s ecology is embedded in IBM and perhaps the DOD.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My opinion on Watson is that since it is an IBM machine it will reflect differentiation in a brand sense. This form of selective attention reflects the point that Watson&#8217;s preferences are not autonomous but that it&#8217;s ecology is embedded in IBM and perhaps the DOD.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: blue7053</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-8063</link>
		<dc:creator>blue7053</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:18:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-8063</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m a little concerned that the fact that the brain has a multitude of functions is not discussed, making me think it&#039;s not known.  The brain has many algorithms allowing access to capabilities we as yet haven&#039;t experienced.
In general, they take the form recognized as &#039;synesthesia&#039;  in which varies inputs/stimuli are redirected to abnormal areas of the brain and the data is computed there.  &#039;Sound&#039; of music is computed in the occipital lobe as &#039;colors&#039;.  &#039;Taste&#039; is computed in the tactile zone as &#039;texture&#039;.
These experiences are often described as the &#039;new human&#039; and &#039;future man&#039; when in fact they are mistakes in the wiring; they have no purpose.
When the entire algorithm is invoked, the ultimate system becomes apparent.  A useful function would be &#039;eyes in the back of your head&#039;.  Such a function exists and quite simply.
When you are in  extreme danger (a jungle fire fight) surrounded by unknowns, your hearing &#039;fades away&#039; and you begin to &#039;see behind you&#039;.  In fact, the audio data is being transferred to your occipital lobe in this algorithm, and the visual cortex is computing the data as &#039;vision&#039;.  The directionality, &#039;behind you&#039;, is furnished by the hearing apparatus.
There are a great, great number of changes that take place when the full algorithm of &#039;Warrior Syndrome&#039;, (my phrase) becomes activated.  For instance, the hypothalamus assumes a set rigid state of emotion (cold, calm, rage) during the Warrior state.
There are others I could discuss sufficient to say, I&#039;m concerned that these many alternate states are not being accounted for either in the function of the brain nor in the &#039;junk&#039; DNA in the creation of the organ.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m a little concerned that the fact that the brain has a multitude of functions is not discussed, making me think it&#8217;s not known.  The brain has many algorithms allowing access to capabilities we as yet haven&#8217;t experienced.<br />
In general, they take the form recognized as &#8216;synesthesia&#8217;  in which varies inputs/stimuli are redirected to abnormal areas of the brain and the data is computed there.  &#8216;Sound&#8217; of music is computed in the occipital lobe as &#8216;colors&#8217;.  &#8216;Taste&#8217; is computed in the tactile zone as &#8216;texture&#8217;.<br />
These experiences are often described as the &#8216;new human&#8217; and &#8216;future man&#8217; when in fact they are mistakes in the wiring; they have no purpose.<br />
When the entire algorithm is invoked, the ultimate system becomes apparent.  A useful function would be &#8216;eyes in the back of your head&#8217;.  Such a function exists and quite simply.<br />
When you are in  extreme danger (a jungle fire fight) surrounded by unknowns, your hearing &#8216;fades away&#8217; and you begin to &#8216;see behind you&#8217;.  In fact, the audio data is being transferred to your occipital lobe in this algorithm, and the visual cortex is computing the data as &#8216;vision&#8217;.  The directionality, &#8216;behind you&#8217;, is furnished by the hearing apparatus.<br />
There are a great, great number of changes that take place when the full algorithm of &#8216;Warrior Syndrome&#8217;, (my phrase) becomes activated.  For instance, the hypothalamus assumes a set rigid state of emotion (cold, calm, rage) during the Warrior state.<br />
There are others I could discuss sufficient to say, I&#8217;m concerned that these many alternate states are not being accounted for either in the function of the brain nor in the &#8216;junk&#8217; DNA in the creation of the organ.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fpatrick08</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-7185</link>
		<dc:creator>fpatrick08</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:22:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-7185</guid>
		<description>Paul Allen seems qualified mostly to slow down innovation by all the nonsense Intellectual Property litigation he&#039;s &quot;responsible for&quot;.  I&#039;ll admit, I didn&#039;t even read this section.  I didn&#039;t think I could bear it.  And I am very serious about one thing:  IP litigation and litigation v. high tech is still a huge problem, and Paul Allen SHOULD be more responsible and pay attention to what his efforts have sponsored.  There&#039;s no need for that, especially since, as you mentioned, he&#039;s not contributed much of anything.  I have to stop, the whole topic of litigation makes me ill, and I don&#039;t want to despair.
   
Here&#039;s a favorite line I often quote:

&quot;Doctors&#039; pills give you brand new ills
And the bills bury you like an avalanche
And lawyers haven&#039;t been this popular
Since Robespierre slaughtered half of France!&quot;
-Joni Mitchell
© 1994; Crazy Crow Music 
Please respect the copyright owner by not profiting from this quote.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paul Allen seems qualified mostly to slow down innovation by all the nonsense Intellectual Property litigation he&#8217;s &#8220;responsible for&#8221;.  I&#8217;ll admit, I didn&#8217;t even read this section.  I didn&#8217;t think I could bear it.  And I am very serious about one thing:  IP litigation and litigation v. high tech is still a huge problem, and Paul Allen SHOULD be more responsible and pay attention to what his efforts have sponsored.  There&#8217;s no need for that, especially since, as you mentioned, he&#8217;s not contributed much of anything.  I have to stop, the whole topic of litigation makes me ill, and I don&#8217;t want to despair.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s a favorite line I often quote:</p>
<p>&#8220;Doctors&#8217; pills give you brand new ills<br />
And the bills bury you like an avalanche<br />
And lawyers haven&#8217;t been this popular<br />
Since Robespierre slaughtered half of France!&#8221;<br />
-Joni Mitchell<br />
© 1994; Crazy Crow Music<br />
Please respect the copyright owner by not profiting from this quote.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anand</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-6306</link>
		<dc:creator>anand</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Dec 2011 16:13:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-6306</guid>
		<description>I believe each of the lower level of intelligence is creating a higher level by the property of emergence. Say atoms_&gt; molecules -&gt; Eukaryote-&gt;Prokaryote-&gt;Societies-&gt;Cities-&gt;??? It is highly probable that we(the collective intelligence, collective consciousness, not just humans, but the entire biosphere) are developing the higher order intelligence ourselves. Every life-form has evolutionary memory. Each organism has knowledge learned over millions of years of booms and busts put it in to an accelerated chain reaction of growth and replicate. And complexity is a natural consequence and we are witnessing (the collective intelligence, collective consciousness) putting the process in to the next level putting the evolutionary knowledge in to many other realms, the machines, the AI, or the Silicon Based life forms?
Singularity(is a term and may not be expressing the future as close) of-course may be one of a possible future and it is not impossible.

Summary of my thoughts based on Internet memes and patterns can be found here: http://anandcv.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/the-future-of-biological-evolution/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe each of the lower level of intelligence is creating a higher level by the property of emergence. Say atoms_&gt; molecules -&gt; Eukaryote-&gt;Prokaryote-&gt;Societies-&gt;Cities-&gt;??? It is highly probable that we(the collective intelligence, collective consciousness, not just humans, but the entire biosphere) are developing the higher order intelligence ourselves. Every life-form has evolutionary memory. Each organism has knowledge learned over millions of years of booms and busts put it in to an accelerated chain reaction of growth and replicate. And complexity is a natural consequence and we are witnessing (the collective intelligence, collective consciousness) putting the process in to the next level putting the evolutionary knowledge in to many other realms, the machines, the AI, or the Silicon Based life forms?<br />
Singularity(is a term and may not be expressing the future as close) of-course may be one of a possible future and it is not impossible.</p>
<p>Summary of my thoughts based on Internet memes and patterns can be found here: <a href="http://anandcv.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/the-future-of-biological-evolution/" rel="nofollow">http://anandcv.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/the-future-of-biological-evolution/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: felixfan100</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-6110</link>
		<dc:creator>felixfan100</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:22:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-6110</guid>
		<description>i bet that deep inside you Ray Kurzweil, is the philosophy of &quot; If I success, everyone else must fail.&quot; just like Larry Ellison holds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIO9cT2BBN8

The ultimate desire to be a god of Machine, which eliminate all human/robot to remain you and your only creature in this universe.

However not until you achieve the full intuition of your mind, will enable you to be what you wish.

The day of singularity you proposed, is merely Accelerating Change, not Singularity. The word is right for the last invention of this universe, but what it describe is totally wrong. I wish somehow a day, I will be able to stand on a likely authority of yours, to say that your perception is wrong.

And i will keep challenging you until you aware of me, while i promise to deliver a quality-comment to you, whenever i like to tell.

Sorry to be too direct, but this, i believe, should be the ultimate use of language, that to communicate with the most effective way, because communication is merely to foster collaboration.

What I really hope, is that your platform, is really a place, for accelerating intelligence, a place to communicate like the day of 2045, but not a place of 2011.

Hope you don&#039;t mind.

:)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i bet that deep inside you Ray Kurzweil, is the philosophy of &#8221; If I success, everyone else must fail.&#8221; just like Larry Ellison holds:<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIO9cT2BBN8" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIO9cT2BBN8</a></p>
<p>The ultimate desire to be a god of Machine, which eliminate all human/robot to remain you and your only creature in this universe.</p>
<p>However not until you achieve the full intuition of your mind, will enable you to be what you wish.</p>
<p>The day of singularity you proposed, is merely Accelerating Change, not Singularity. The word is right for the last invention of this universe, but what it describe is totally wrong. I wish somehow a day, I will be able to stand on a likely authority of yours, to say that your perception is wrong.</p>
<p>And i will keep challenging you until you aware of me, while i promise to deliver a quality-comment to you, whenever i like to tell.</p>
<p>Sorry to be too direct, but this, i believe, should be the ultimate use of language, that to communicate with the most effective way, because communication is merely to foster collaboration.</p>
<p>What I really hope, is that your platform, is really a place, for accelerating intelligence, a place to communicate like the day of 2045, but not a place of 2011.</p>
<p>Hope you don&#8217;t mind.</p>
<p>:)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: felixfan100</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-6076</link>
		<dc:creator>felixfan100</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Dec 2011 17:25:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-6076</guid>
		<description>Dear Ray,

I am a Uni-student from HK, who use chinese as most, sorry for my english-language usage is bad, grammar is bad, but i don&#039;t think that would be a matter when the day of Singularity arrives.

I firstly know your name when the day you appear on the front page of Time in 2011 ( should be a historical moment at the day of singularity), and being struggled by your prediction of the future, that spiritual machine will replace human ( or robot in Singularity), blocked by fear, i afraid to be innovative as i don&#039;t know why should i &quot;innovate for the world that will being taken charge by the others&quot; / &quot;the destination of innovation by human is a zero.&quot; - I think this is most of the present human&#039;s fear.

By overcoming this fear, I tried many ways to challenge the existing assumption with courage and finally found that, the destination may somehow wrongly defined.

To be frank, I would like ( would like would not be exist in singularity while want will remains) to challenge your belief in the phrase that &#039;singularity is the last invention of human&#039;. I don&#039;t think it&#039;s right. I know why you hold this true since you can&#039;t believe that we as a human/ robot (3Ds) can&#039;t enter 4D, which the fact is it is achievable through the wormhole in future. To overcome this fear of adapting a new knowledge, i would suggest you a quote of mind by Buzz Lightyear: &quot;Infinity, and beyond.&quot;

Sorry that I just being inspired by Steve Jobs&#039;s &amp; Albert Einstein&#039;s Biography to understand a mind of genius, I can only give an intuitive hypothesis of the prediction of the future, while i hope you don&#039;t mind my sound to be so eager and aggressive, i just wanna tell you my deepest thought that to foster the most effective communication between you. ( more inspiration will comes as i really found my ultimate enthusiasm in bringing that happen, hope that you will not feel so awkward.)

2012
1. Nanotech- cloth will rock&amp;roll the major cloth-industry.
2. the first mass-education on present human to the fundamental concept of replacing blood cell by machine-cell using a simple and acceptable way of presentation. &quot;An engineered-fishtank which keeps the fish alive automatically by simply 3 steps. Fill the water, Plug the electricity, and live the fish&quot; - Life is the evolution from Bio to Tech.
3. fundamental concept of &#039;Sharing of memory&#039; through Cloud computing. While Life magazine and Facebook is doing something like this, but i think that&#039;s not quite realized by present human, however that&#039;s a good approach.

Also to be honest, when the day of the last invention arrive, everyone of us will be very sincere to each other who doesn&#039;t keeps any secret. Therefore, I don&#039;t wanna keep any secret to you since our sense to predict the future is very close. ( Some of your prediction of future have been appeared after my prediction of future in my continuing-time of life in 3D), However my capability to see the future is merely through intuition and a little bit of supporting by scientific reason, you are really a genius to connect the dots by your inspirational mind(straight line). ( hope we will together feel so wonderful when the day we &#039;sharing of memories&#039; technology, i believe that would be just a helix straight line that goes with a same direction).

Reading the following article, which sparkled my enthusiasm to send you this e-mail, 

In The Singularity is Near he expresses his belief in a need for a new religion based on the principle of mutual respect between sentient life forms, and on the principle of respecting knowledge. This religion would not have a leader, instead being purely personal to adherents.
- from the article describing you in wiki.

I hope one day we will solve this engineering problem and promote a god to own this religion&#039;s patent.

Hope that one day we will be a friend to discuss or even innovate the progress to the day of singularity in standford uni, by the answer of everything goes simplicity.

Right at this moment, i hope to fill you with encouragement and courage to keep innovating the prediction of singularity, don&#039;t be screwed by the present human, what they need is merely an education of Universe.

Cheers,
Felix Fan
a Likely Mind of yours.

p.s. Nanotechnology is to collaborate atom. (This will be the ultimate definition on the day of singularity. :) )
And/ Also will last forever, Or/ But will complete their historical mission to bring the world to a brighter future.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Ray,</p>
<p>I am a Uni-student from HK, who use chinese as most, sorry for my english-language usage is bad, grammar is bad, but i don&#8217;t think that would be a matter when the day of Singularity arrives.</p>
<p>I firstly know your name when the day you appear on the front page of Time in 2011 ( should be a historical moment at the day of singularity), and being struggled by your prediction of the future, that spiritual machine will replace human ( or robot in Singularity), blocked by fear, i afraid to be innovative as i don&#8217;t know why should i &#8220;innovate for the world that will being taken charge by the others&#8221; / &#8220;the destination of innovation by human is a zero.&#8221; &#8211; I think this is most of the present human&#8217;s fear.</p>
<p>By overcoming this fear, I tried many ways to challenge the existing assumption with courage and finally found that, the destination may somehow wrongly defined.</p>
<p>To be frank, I would like ( would like would not be exist in singularity while want will remains) to challenge your belief in the phrase that &#8216;singularity is the last invention of human&#8217;. I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s right. I know why you hold this true since you can&#8217;t believe that we as a human/ robot (3Ds) can&#8217;t enter 4D, which the fact is it is achievable through the wormhole in future. To overcome this fear of adapting a new knowledge, i would suggest you a quote of mind by Buzz Lightyear: &#8220;Infinity, and beyond.&#8221;</p>
<p>Sorry that I just being inspired by Steve Jobs&#8217;s &amp; Albert Einstein&#8217;s Biography to understand a mind of genius, I can only give an intuitive hypothesis of the prediction of the future, while i hope you don&#8217;t mind my sound to be so eager and aggressive, i just wanna tell you my deepest thought that to foster the most effective communication between you. ( more inspiration will comes as i really found my ultimate enthusiasm in bringing that happen, hope that you will not feel so awkward.)</p>
<p>2012<br />
1. Nanotech- cloth will rock&amp;roll the major cloth-industry.<br />
2. the first mass-education on present human to the fundamental concept of replacing blood cell by machine-cell using a simple and acceptable way of presentation. &#8220;An engineered-fishtank which keeps the fish alive automatically by simply 3 steps. Fill the water, Plug the electricity, and live the fish&#8221; &#8211; Life is the evolution from Bio to Tech.<br />
3. fundamental concept of &#8216;Sharing of memory&#8217; through Cloud computing. While Life magazine and Facebook is doing something like this, but i think that&#8217;s not quite realized by present human, however that&#8217;s a good approach.</p>
<p>Also to be honest, when the day of the last invention arrive, everyone of us will be very sincere to each other who doesn&#8217;t keeps any secret. Therefore, I don&#8217;t wanna keep any secret to you since our sense to predict the future is very close. ( Some of your prediction of future have been appeared after my prediction of future in my continuing-time of life in 3D), However my capability to see the future is merely through intuition and a little bit of supporting by scientific reason, you are really a genius to connect the dots by your inspirational mind(straight line). ( hope we will together feel so wonderful when the day we &#8216;sharing of memories&#8217; technology, i believe that would be just a helix straight line that goes with a same direction).</p>
<p>Reading the following article, which sparkled my enthusiasm to send you this e-mail, </p>
<p>In The Singularity is Near he expresses his belief in a need for a new religion based on the principle of mutual respect between sentient life forms, and on the principle of respecting knowledge. This religion would not have a leader, instead being purely personal to adherents.<br />
- from the article describing you in wiki.</p>
<p>I hope one day we will solve this engineering problem and promote a god to own this religion&#8217;s patent.</p>
<p>Hope that one day we will be a friend to discuss or even innovate the progress to the day of singularity in standford uni, by the answer of everything goes simplicity.</p>
<p>Right at this moment, i hope to fill you with encouragement and courage to keep innovating the prediction of singularity, don&#8217;t be screwed by the present human, what they need is merely an education of Universe.</p>
<p>Cheers,<br />
Felix Fan<br />
a Likely Mind of yours.</p>
<p>p.s. Nanotechnology is to collaborate atom. (This will be the ultimate definition on the day of singularity. :) )<br />
And/ Also will last forever, Or/ But will complete their historical mission to bring the world to a brighter future.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: harleyborgais</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-5955</link>
		<dc:creator>harleyborgais</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Nov 2011 09:08:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-5955</guid>
		<description>Ooh ooh ooh, this is the most important thing of all because it works towards ending disease:
&quot;...to create a medical diagnostician.&quot;

Here is what we need: 
Column one: -List all the essential elements (atoms) and molecules (vitamins, amino acids, fats, proteins, etc.) that the Human body needs...
Column two: -List the visible/testable symptoms of too much or too little of each thing...
Column Three: -List the natural food sources of those things.

This is the information that every Human should know in order to control their own health.  This alone would Certainly end the Epidemic levels of Disease in the world, The top killers are caused by bad diet after all: Heart disease and Cancer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ooh ooh ooh, this is the most important thing of all because it works towards ending disease:<br />
&#8220;&#8230;to create a medical diagnostician.&#8221;</p>
<p>Here is what we need:<br />
Column one: -List all the essential elements (atoms) and molecules (vitamins, amino acids, fats, proteins, etc.) that the Human body needs&#8230;<br />
Column two: -List the visible/testable symptoms of too much or too little of each thing&#8230;<br />
Column Three: -List the natural food sources of those things.</p>
<p>This is the information that every Human should know in order to control their own health.  This alone would Certainly end the Epidemic levels of Disease in the world, The top killers are caused by bad diet after all: Heart disease and Cancer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anand</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-5893</link>
		<dc:creator>anand</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:04:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-5893</guid>
		<description>http://anandcv.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/the-future-of-biological-evolution/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://anandcv.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/the-future-of-biological-evolution/" rel="nofollow">http://anandcv.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/the-future-of-biological-evolution/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Snazster</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-5418</link>
		<dc:creator>Snazster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2011 04:24:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-5418</guid>
		<description>Memristors might increase break Moore&#039;s Law by taking us two orders of magnitude further forward in the coming decade (on top of anything else) and there are a lot of other things coming.  Further, it would appear that the human brain is essentially MADE of memristors and we won&#039;t even have them available commercially until around 2013 -- can Paul Allen be that out of it?  Working as a software systems engineer in automation, I&#039;ll predict the first singularity will be due not to AI but to automation and will probably hit full stride in the 2020s.  We really don&#039;t need even a single machine approaching human level cognition for that one.  But can you predict what will happen when over half of all human occupations are eliminated, permanently?  I don&#039;t think anyone can and that qualifies it as a singularity -- a technologically enabled change that will have such a drastic effect on human affairs that we cannot see much beyond it.  If we survive that it would seem reasonable to look for the next singularity within 10 to 15 years and that will be your AI singularity -- maybe.  It might be a biological singularity (one where we reach a point that we can counter the effects of aging faster than we age).  In which case, look for the next singularity, probably AIs this time, about 5 to 7 years later.  I may have these last two in reverse order; time will tell.  At that point, it&#039;s not at all unreasonable to expect a fourth singularity in 3-4 years but it is going to take some serious imagination to even begin to envision what form that may take now?  The elimination of money?  Reprograming reality?  Skynet? The Matrix? Run wild.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Memristors might increase break Moore&#8217;s Law by taking us two orders of magnitude further forward in the coming decade (on top of anything else) and there are a lot of other things coming.  Further, it would appear that the human brain is essentially MADE of memristors and we won&#8217;t even have them available commercially until around 2013 &#8212; can Paul Allen be that out of it?  Working as a software systems engineer in automation, I&#8217;ll predict the first singularity will be due not to AI but to automation and will probably hit full stride in the 2020s.  We really don&#8217;t need even a single machine approaching human level cognition for that one.  But can you predict what will happen when over half of all human occupations are eliminated, permanently?  I don&#8217;t think anyone can and that qualifies it as a singularity &#8212; a technologically enabled change that will have such a drastic effect on human affairs that we cannot see much beyond it.  If we survive that it would seem reasonable to look for the next singularity within 10 to 15 years and that will be your AI singularity &#8212; maybe.  It might be a biological singularity (one where we reach a point that we can counter the effects of aging faster than we age).  In which case, look for the next singularity, probably AIs this time, about 5 to 7 years later.  I may have these last two in reverse order; time will tell.  At that point, it&#8217;s not at all unreasonable to expect a fourth singularity in 3-4 years but it is going to take some serious imagination to even begin to envision what form that may take now?  The elimination of money?  Reprograming reality?  Skynet? The Matrix? Run wild.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: silentrage</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-5415</link>
		<dc:creator>silentrage</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:40:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-5415</guid>
		<description>After that we&#039;ll probably start layering chips into 3d architecture. So it will now double at the same rate in a given volume instead of in a given area.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After that we&#8217;ll probably start layering chips into 3d architecture. So it will now double at the same rate in a given volume instead of in a given area.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: just_i</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-5403</link>
		<dc:creator>just_i</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2011 21:37:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-5403</guid>
		<description>I have just one question right now. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore&#039;s_law
However, the 2010 update to the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors has growth slowing at the end of 2013,[5] after which time transistor counts and densities are to double only every 3 years.

is writen in wikipedija, are in in paradigm shift ? or what is happening ? 

Can somebody plis explain this ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have just one question right now. </p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore&#039;s_law" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore&#039;s_law</a><br />
However, the 2010 update to the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors has growth slowing at the end of 2013,[5] after which time transistor counts and densities are to double only every 3 years.</p>
<p>is writen in wikipedija, are in in paradigm shift ? or what is happening ? </p>
<p>Can somebody plis explain this ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: steampoweredgod</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-5370</link>
		<dc:creator>steampoweredgod</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:54:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-5370</guid>
		<description>The only real challenge to computational power&#039;s growth is the energy required to perform it, and that limit is a long way off.

As for 3d circuitry it should provide decades of advancement, but without nanomachines it will eventually encounter problems as with lack of further miniaturization it implies ever increasing volumes of precisely engineered materials.   By the time such happens it is likely nanomachine technology will become available which should provides the means to easily manufacture such and allow progress to continue unimpeded.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The only real challenge to computational power&#8217;s growth is the energy required to perform it, and that limit is a long way off.</p>
<p>As for 3d circuitry it should provide decades of advancement, but without nanomachines it will eventually encounter problems as with lack of further miniaturization it implies ever increasing volumes of precisely engineered materials.   By the time such happens it is likely nanomachine technology will become available which should provides the means to easily manufacture such and allow progress to continue unimpeded.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Intellectual vs. The Engineer: Ray Kurzweil Puts Paul Allen&#8217;s Cake Out in the Rain &#124; anthrobotic</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-5324</link>
		<dc:creator>The Intellectual vs. The Engineer: Ray Kurzweil Puts Paul Allen&#8217;s Cake Out in the Rain &#124; anthrobotic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Oct 2011 02:01:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-5324</guid>
		<description>[...] comments   Oct 232011    Ahhh, That&#8217;s Nice And upon reading Kurzweil&#8217;s remarks, one gets the sense that Allen should feel lucky to even be mentioned in the same article. It&#8217;s a pretty diplomatic rebuttal from Kurzweil [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] comments   Oct 232011    Ahhh, That&#8217;s Nice And upon reading Kurzweil&#8217;s remarks, one gets the sense that Allen should feel lucky to even be mentioned in the same article. It&#8217;s a pretty diplomatic rebuttal from Kurzweil [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: richman0829</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-5319</link>
		<dc:creator>richman0829</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:28:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-5319</guid>
		<description>&quot;. . .when people predicted that someday we would actually have circuitry with feature sizes under one micron (1,000 nanometers), most of the scientists struggling to get to five microns thought that was too wild to contemplate.&quot;

&quot;Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vaccuum tubes and perhaps weigh 1.5 tons.&quot; 
       -- unknown</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;. . .when people predicted that someday we would actually have circuitry with feature sizes under one micron (1,000 nanometers), most of the scientists struggling to get to five microns thought that was too wild to contemplate.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vaccuum tubes and perhaps weigh 1.5 tons.&#8221;<br />
       &#8211; unknown</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: joeThorpe</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-5313</link>
		<dc:creator>joeThorpe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2011 08:44:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-5313</guid>
		<description>Society is already on board with the singularity. Talk with any young adult, that is educated, they see it with there own eye. They will be 51 if the singularity happens on Ray&#039;s timeline, leaders of the world.

Look at the movies, iRobot, WallE, Real Steel.

People believe it is coming, but since it is hard to see past the &quot;singularity&quot; very few try to write about it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Society is already on board with the singularity. Talk with any young adult, that is educated, they see it with there own eye. They will be 51 if the singularity happens on Ray&#8217;s timeline, leaders of the world.</p>
<p>Look at the movies, iRobot, WallE, Real Steel.</p>
<p>People believe it is coming, but since it is hard to see past the &#8220;singularity&#8221; very few try to write about it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: StupidPeasant</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-5306</link>
		<dc:creator>StupidPeasant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2011 03:17:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-5306</guid>
		<description>The book must be read. You don&#039;t realise how much it covers.  It is truly incredible, scary and wonderful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The book must be read. You don&#8217;t realise how much it covers.  It is truly incredible, scary and wonderful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: VovixLDR</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-5297</link>
		<dc:creator>VovixLDR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:12:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-5297</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s sad to see such a surface criticism from such a person. Seems that MS&#039;s golden years are forever gone. When they introduced the idea of business on software for everyone, that was novel (from 60s, it would seem a part of the singularity). What novel ideas have they introduced since then? They missed, and for long denied, the internet revolution in early 90s, then they missed the mobile, the digital music revolution, and everything else. Compare this with Apple who every time invented a whole new world. Steve Jobs might have preferred a bit different worldview but he hever lacked imagination, contrary to the Microsoft people. And where is Microsoft today? what have they done since 2001 when they made Windows XP and 2003 when they made the best Office ever? It is Microsoft, not AI, who is stuck in software complication today. They really can&#039;t see the forest behind the trees.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s sad to see such a surface criticism from such a person. Seems that MS&#8217;s golden years are forever gone. When they introduced the idea of business on software for everyone, that was novel (from 60s, it would seem a part of the singularity). What novel ideas have they introduced since then? They missed, and for long denied, the internet revolution in early 90s, then they missed the mobile, the digital music revolution, and everything else. Compare this with Apple who every time invented a whole new world. Steve Jobs might have preferred a bit different worldview but he hever lacked imagination, contrary to the Microsoft people. And where is Microsoft today? what have they done since 2001 when they made Windows XP and 2003 when they made the best Office ever? It is Microsoft, not AI, who is stuck in software complication today. They really can&#8217;t see the forest behind the trees.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RalfLippold</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-5290</link>
		<dc:creator>RalfLippold</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:56:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-5290</guid>
		<description>Prime Minister of Saxony Stanislaw Tillich at today&#039;s press conference on the cooperation of the IT associations BITKOM e.V. and Silicon Saxony e.V. clearly has stated that we are &quot;living in times that information technology is transcending our complete life.&quot;

Even though the 2045 vision by Ray won&#039;t come tomorrow so there will be a path when we slowly use devices that help us ubiquitously on coping with the information that is now more and more being captured and elegantly used.

Silicon Saxony as the region around Dresden is called often clearly is enabling the steps for future enhancement, and creating the hot spot for innovation into various fields. Some earlier thoughts on to be read on http://bizdesigndd.blogspot.com/search/label/Silicon%20Saxony

There will certainly be different kinds of &#039;singularity&#039; (mainly driven by accelerating information technology properties that effect us already today in our daily work, and life. It will be a step by step development - as with all disruptive innovations, where one step only led to another more improved, or accelerated one!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Prime Minister of Saxony Stanislaw Tillich at today&#8217;s press conference on the cooperation of the IT associations BITKOM e.V. and Silicon Saxony e.V. clearly has stated that we are &#8220;living in times that information technology is transcending our complete life.&#8221;</p>
<p>Even though the 2045 vision by Ray won&#8217;t come tomorrow so there will be a path when we slowly use devices that help us ubiquitously on coping with the information that is now more and more being captured and elegantly used.</p>
<p>Silicon Saxony as the region around Dresden is called often clearly is enabling the steps for future enhancement, and creating the hot spot for innovation into various fields. Some earlier thoughts on to be read on <a href="http://bizdesigndd.blogspot.com/search/label/Silicon%20Saxony" rel="nofollow">http://bizdesigndd.blogspot.com/search/label/Silicon%20Saxony</a></p>
<p>There will certainly be different kinds of &#8216;singularity&#8217; (mainly driven by accelerating information technology properties that effect us already today in our daily work, and life. It will be a step by step development &#8211; as with all disruptive innovations, where one step only led to another more improved, or accelerated one!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tschaefer</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-5289</link>
		<dc:creator>tschaefer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:53:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-5289</guid>
		<description>I was going to comment with numerous amplifications of Ray Kurzweil&#039;s response, like genetic algorithms giving near optimal solutions, leaving less than a few percent on the table after a few minutes, to problems that are practically unapproachable with linear programming.  Or notice that Ray Kurzweil didn&#039;t even feel a need to mention Quantum Computing (why? conspiracy theorists need to know! NDAs/PIAs? security restrictions?).

But after thinking about it, I think we have to question Mr. Allen&#039;s motivations.  I&#039;ve noticed that people who are too old to likely make it to the Singularity/Methuselarity are far more likely to dismiss it and it&#039;s implications than those that are likely to benefit from it.  This appears to be a means of psychological protection from the painful realization of &quot;Damn, I just missed it!&quot;, simultaneously bitter and sour grapes.

Wouldn&#039;t it be nice if someone, with the vast wealth of Paul Allen, would rather create a &quot;Foundation&quot;, to preserve and continue research towards the Singularity during the almost inevitable economic collapse facing advanced Western economies?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was going to comment with numerous amplifications of Ray Kurzweil&#8217;s response, like genetic algorithms giving near optimal solutions, leaving less than a few percent on the table after a few minutes, to problems that are practically unapproachable with linear programming.  Or notice that Ray Kurzweil didn&#8217;t even feel a need to mention Quantum Computing (why? conspiracy theorists need to know! NDAs/PIAs? security restrictions?).</p>
<p>But after thinking about it, I think we have to question Mr. Allen&#8217;s motivations.  I&#8217;ve noticed that people who are too old to likely make it to the Singularity/Methuselarity are far more likely to dismiss it and it&#8217;s implications than those that are likely to benefit from it.  This appears to be a means of psychological protection from the painful realization of &#8220;Damn, I just missed it!&#8221;, simultaneously bitter and sour grapes.</p>
<p>Wouldn&#8217;t it be nice if someone, with the vast wealth of Paul Allen, would rather create a &#8220;Foundation&#8221;, to preserve and continue research towards the Singularity during the almost inevitable economic collapse facing advanced Western economies?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: StupidPeasant</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-5286</link>
		<dc:creator>StupidPeasant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:35:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-5286</guid>
		<description>Ray is right, it is coming.  However, there may be something else that slows it from coming or stops it for a lot of people. Ray knows of the dangers from an enemy military point of view as he explains in the book. There will also be new and different economic pressures as we even get close. New political power structures will evolve. The Earth filled with humans is a little nuts. It&#039;s going to get a lot more complex.  Individual rights may get tossed aside. Do any politicians know whats coming? If they do, I bet they don&#039;t admit it. They are making their own plans.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ray is right, it is coming.  However, there may be something else that slows it from coming or stops it for a lot of people. Ray knows of the dangers from an enemy military point of view as he explains in the book. There will also be new and different economic pressures as we even get close. New political power structures will evolve. The Earth filled with humans is a little nuts. It&#8217;s going to get a lot more complex.  Individual rights may get tossed aside. Do any politicians know whats coming? If they do, I bet they don&#8217;t admit it. They are making their own plans.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: josdorpjossie</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-5285</link>
		<dc:creator>josdorpjossie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:19:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-5285</guid>
		<description>Although my doubts about the law of accelerating returns are completely different than Paul Allen&#039;s. I still am grateful you wrote this reply, Ray,  because I read new information to think about. I am too lazy to read your books (and therefore missing a lot of facts). But I firmly believe logarithmic models advance are ate least closer to the truth than linear models of advance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Although my doubts about the law of accelerating returns are completely different than Paul Allen&#8217;s. I still am grateful you wrote this reply, Ray,  because I read new information to think about. I am too lazy to read your books (and therefore missing a lot of facts). But I firmly believe logarithmic models advance are ate least closer to the truth than linear models of advance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anthrobotic</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-5280</link>
		<dc:creator>anthrobotic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:06:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-5280</guid>
		<description>For your consideration:
My Logic is Better than Paul Allen’s: ¡Singularity Improbable! – Part 2!
www.anthrobotic.com
http://goo.gl/yIEpe</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For your consideration:<br />
My Logic is Better than Paul Allen’s: ¡Singularity Improbable! – Part 2!<br />
<a href="http://www.anthrobotic.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.anthrobotic.com</a><br />
<a href="http://goo.gl/yIEpe" rel="nofollow">http://goo.gl/yIEpe</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: equsnarnd</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-5271</link>
		<dc:creator>equsnarnd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:51:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-5271</guid>
		<description>In 1998, then editor of Reason Magazine wrote a book called The Future and Its Enemies: The Growing Conflict Over Creativity, Enterprise, and Progress.
The main thesis of the Libertarian Manifesto was that people, view the future in two fundamental ways.  One group, she terms the Stasists who urge control and favor the status quo.  They want to manage and be in charge of and control the future.  To their way of thinking this is the only reasonable approach to the unknown.  Conservative reactionaries and Liberal planners fall into this group.  The other group she terms the Dynamists.  These are folks who meet change and the unknown with creativity and a zest for advancement.  Obviously, if the rules change every day we&#039;d have chaos and if the control freaks control too much we have a society that can&#039;t function.
But the Allen vs Kurzweil issue may be seen as this tendency to fear the unknown and the desire then to control it against the desire to meet the unknown with a creative and welcoming posture.  This tendency within people can lead them to oppose each other.  As the events Kurzweil outlines begin to manifest, we will face a crises more profound than any humanity has faced to date.  Who are we?  What makes us what we are?  These are exciting times.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In 1998, then editor of Reason Magazine wrote a book called The Future and Its Enemies: The Growing Conflict Over Creativity, Enterprise, and Progress.<br />
The main thesis of the Libertarian Manifesto was that people, view the future in two fundamental ways.  One group, she terms the Stasists who urge control and favor the status quo.  They want to manage and be in charge of and control the future.  To their way of thinking this is the only reasonable approach to the unknown.  Conservative reactionaries and Liberal planners fall into this group.  The other group she terms the Dynamists.  These are folks who meet change and the unknown with creativity and a zest for advancement.  Obviously, if the rules change every day we&#8217;d have chaos and if the control freaks control too much we have a society that can&#8217;t function.<br />
But the Allen vs Kurzweil issue may be seen as this tendency to fear the unknown and the desire then to control it against the desire to meet the unknown with a creative and welcoming posture.  This tendency within people can lead them to oppose each other.  As the events Kurzweil outlines begin to manifest, we will face a crises more profound than any humanity has faced to date.  Who are we?  What makes us what we are?  These are exciting times.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Oni</title>
		<link>http://www.kurzweilai.net/kurzweil-responds-dont-underestimate-the-singularity/comment-page-1#comment-5264</link>
		<dc:creator>Oni</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2011 20:47:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=131558#comment-5264</guid>
		<description>I had come to very much the same conclusion, Paul Allen didn&#039;t read the book, or even pay attention to the current trends in technology.   The article almost seemed as though it was written before the book even came out.  I was astounded that he was able to make such blanketing dismissals of technology trends while basing most of his arguments on the limitations of man, not even considering the advancements of AI as a developing tool.    Clearly didn&#039;t read the book, or know anything about Ray&#039;s Law of Accelerating Returns.    I&#039;m an average person, not a scientist or genius, but I&#039;m quite disappointed in these two gentlemen for having such a narrow field of vision, and at the very least not doing their homework.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I had come to very much the same conclusion, Paul Allen didn&#8217;t read the book, or even pay attention to the current trends in technology.   The article almost seemed as though it was written before the book even came out.  I was astounded that he was able to make such blanketing dismissals of technology trends while basing most of his arguments on the limitations of man, not even considering the advancements of AI as a developing tool.    Clearly didn&#8217;t read the book, or know anything about Ray&#8217;s Law of Accelerating Returns.    I&#8217;m an average person, not a scientist or genius, but I&#8217;m quite disappointed in these two gentlemen for having such a narrow field of vision, and at the very least not doing their homework.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
