Will corporations prevent the Singularity?
March 16, 2012 by Ben Goertzel
It occurred to me recently that the world possesses some very powerful intelligent organisms that are directly and clearly opposed to the Singularity — corporations.
Human beings are confused and confusing creatures. We don’t have very clear goal systems, and are quite willing and able to adapt our top-level goals to the circumstances. I have little doubt that most humans will go with the flow as Singularity approaches.
But corporations are a different matter. Corporations are entities/organisms unto themselves these days, with wills and cognitive structures quite distinct from the people that comprise them. Public corporations have much clearer goal systems than humans: to maximize shareholder value.
Singularity introduces uncertainty
And rather clearly, a Singularity is not a good way to maximize shareholder value. It introduces way too much uncertainty. Abolishing money and scarcity is not a good route to maximizing shareholder value — and nor is abolishing shareholders via uploading them into radical transhuman forms!
Yes, of course a corporation must ultimately do what its shareholders tell it to. But human will is a complex creature, and what a human thinks and wants is conditioned heavily on the dynamics of the organizations that human belongs to. The self-organizing dynamics of a corporation, which has properties distinct from those of any of the human minds involved, has an influence on the ideas, feelings and decisions of the individuals involved with the corporation.
A company like Apple or IBM may make (good or bad) decisions different from those that any individual involved would make on their own. Corporate decisions are effected via large numbers of human decisions, but each human involved in such a decision is doing so in the context of the corporation — so it becomes perfectly reasonable to look at these as corporate decisions made via the medium of humans, just as human decisions are made via the medium of neurons. But in a quite concrete and practical sense, it makes sense to think of corporations as having minds of their own.
It seems quite possible that corporations — as emergent, self-organizing, coherent minds of their own — will systematically act against the emergence of a true Singularity, and act in favor of some kind of future in which money and shareholding still has meaning.
Sure, corporations may adapt to the changes as Singularity approaches. But my point is that corporations may be inherently less pliant than individual humans, because their goals are more precisely defined and less nebulous. The relative inflexibility of large corporations is certainly well known.
Superintelligent corporations?
Charles Stross, in his wonderful novel Accelerando, presents an alternate view, in which corporations themselves become superintelligent self-modifying systems — and leave Earth to populate space-based computer systems where they communicate using sophisticated forms of auctioning. This is not wholly implausible.
Yet my own intuition is that notions of money and economic exchange will become less relevant as intelligence exceeds the human level. I suspect the importance of money and economic exchange is an artifact of the current domain of relative material scarcity in which we find ourselves, and that once advanced technology (nanotech, femtotech, etc.) radically diminishes material scarcity, the importance of economic thinking will drastically decrease.
So that far from becoming dominant as in Accelerando, corporations will become increasingly irrelevant post-Singularity. But if they are smart enough to foresee this, they will probably try to prevent it.
Ultimately, corporations are composed of people (until AGI advances a lot more at any rate), so maybe this issue will be resolved, as Singularity comes nearer, by people choosing to abandon corporations in favor of other structures guided by their ever-changing value systems. But one can be sure that corporations will fight to stop this from happening.
Global AI Nanny
One might expect large corporations to push hard for some variety of “global AI Nanny” type scenario, in which truly radical change would be forestalled and their own existence persisted, as part of the AI Nanny’s global bureaucratic infrastructure. M&A with the AI Nanny may be seen as preferable to the utter uncertainty of Singularity.
This line of thinking might seem implausible since, after all, corporations large and small are pushing ahead much of the amazing technological advancement now occurring. However, according to the argument I’m pursuing here, it makes sense that corporations would continue to embrace technological advancement — as long as it seems most probable this will lead them to make more money!
The question is, what happens when it starts to seem likely to large corporations that:
— Further dramatic technological advancement will make money obsolete, AND
— There’s an alternative that would keep a money economy in place, like a corporate-controlled global AI Nanny?
Doesn’t it seem reasonably likely that a network of large corporations, at that point, will try to form a global AI Nanny conglomerate —, to slow progress toward a confusing, potentially money-obsoleting Singularity, and ensure their profitability via mostly benevolent force?
The details are hard to foresee, but the interplay between individuals and corporations as Singularity approaches should be fascinating to watch.

Comments (131)
by Demetrius Marasigan
If you would like to take much from this paragraph then you have to apply these techniques to your won website.|
by Valkyrie Ice
Ben and I have actually discussed this when he was my editor at H+. I don’t really see Corporations as being much of a factor against the “Singularity” because I don’t see them as continuing to exist in the current forms for more than a few more years to decades. The very nature of the corporate beast makes it highly predictable, and I don’t see Ben’s scenario as plausible given that nature. It assumes that all corporations will uniformly act in a manner which benefits all corporations, when in truth, there are two very different economic models fighting against each other, with corporations on one side facing an evolutionary extinction, and corporations on the other side progressing towards an entirely new type of economic reality in which multinational behemoths can no longer exist.
I discuss this rather extensively in the following two part article:
http://www.acceler8or.com/2012/01/le-future-according-to-val-part-one-when-technologies-meet-interact-and-things-go-boom/
http://www.acceler8or.com/2012/01/the-future-according-to-val-part-2-consequences/
The brief overview is that corporations who’s business models are based in material resources and “scarcity” will battle to prevent their obsolescence as we transition to a economic model in which material goods grow ever less “valuable” due to a shift in manufacturing methods, and in materials used. As 3D printing matures, and we shift from raw “dumb” mass products to “intelligent” metamaterials primarily composed of silicon and carbon that are vastly superior, the “material” value will drop to near zero as the “non-material” (i.e. the IP, patents, novelty etc) becomes the primary determiner of value. This transition will inevitably destroy the current economic system and the vast majority of giant corporations dependent on it, while promoting the growth of much smaller, more agile, and more intelligent business entities. By the time the “Singularity” is even beginning to be feasible, the behemoths of our present day will no longer exist.
That is not to say that they will not resist becoming obsolete, nor that they will not cause enormous harm as they attempt to use totalitarian means to attempt to prevent their obsolescence, merely that those efforts will be short lived and be so costly that the efforts themselves will hasten their demise.
by Dan Foley
Corporations “maximize shareholder value” by producing things people want to buy. And people want to buy the technology that leads us toward the Singularity, which means corporations are helping drive this, as Ben points out. He also points out at the end of his thought-provoking piece that this might seem to make his argument implausible:
“This line of thinking might seem implausible since, after all, corporations large and small are pushing ahead much of the amazing technological advancement now occurring. However, according to the argument I’m pursuing here, it makes sense that corporations would continue to embrace technological advancement — as long as it seems most probable this will lead them to make more money!”
So what will stop the moths from continuing to fly into the light? Won’t there be money to be made right up until the end? (And I wonder if there will be a well defined end, a “Singularity” as a moment in time. The model is evolution; evolution on speed, admittedly. Still, it is a process that occurs over time. We’re developing toward it now. The moment is less important than the process. Now we have chickens instead of pterodactyls—I bet they taste alike—and the pterodactyls can’t do a doggone thing about it… It took place without a chicken ever hatching from a pterodactyl egg. Looking back on the process we might identify an event or events as crucial, but I don’t think we’ll see it as such in the midst of the process leading us there. Each step is incremental. This is so even as the increments come with increasing frequency.)
Ben has an answer to his own question:
“Doesn’t it seem reasonably likely that a network of large corporations, at that point, will try to form a global AI Nanny conglomerate —, to slow progress toward a confusing, potentially money-obsoleting Singularity, and ensure their profitability via mostly benevolent force?”
So, at some point, the corporations will come together and agree to suspend the pursuit of profit in the realm of ANY technology that could potentially further the march toward the Singularity. Since we are already on the way, why wouldn’t they do this now? The process is well underway. Do they not believe we are on the way? Or is this like a game of chicken (apologies for another chicken metaphor), they all see it coming but they’re waiting for the other guy to veer off first?
However this is, they are waiting until we get even closer before they come together to work in concert in opposition to their ONE goal, profit, for the sake of all being able to pursue that one goal in the future. At that point they won’t squabble over the technologies that apply. They won’t accuse the other corporations of unfairly targeting their technology, while pursuing technologies that are actually far more likely to assist the drive toward the Singularity. What body will police these disputes? It reminds me of Kyoto: ‘your country is to please stop producing greenhouse gases, and we will join you in this effort very soon.’
A corporation has a clearly defined goal, as pointed out in the beginning: they “maximize shareholder value.” What will be the goal of a “network of large corporations?” Isn’t this necessarily a different goal? Each corporation in the network attempts to maximize its OWN value or profit. The network will attempt to put constraints on that goal for the sake of all. They will become dedicated to their common good? Is this reasonable?
This leads me to another question. The Singularity is so appealing because it promises things we all desire. The most massive is surely the extension of our lives. Is this not an individual desire, something we desire for ourselves and those we love most? Or is it necessarily a desire we have for all? We love all our neighbors as we love ourselves? Is it something we will only be able to enjoy if all do? It will be a wonderful thing if there is no conflict, no need to ever put this to the test. These questions probably lead us into Ben’s next promised topic: whether politics will prevent the coming Singularity. This seems much thornier to me.
by Dan Foley
http://wfnt.com/how-greedy-can-a-corporation-be/
by Julian
I think one thing that people forget is that as you approach the Singularity, it is someone “relativistic” in the sense that the sense of time, resources, and therefore “growth” and “value” will all scale. So I suspect that there will be a path for profit-driven entities to continue into the Singularity. For example, even if scarcity trends towards going away, there will always be some disparity (diminishingly small) between where some resource is and where it is needed, and as the sense of time passage changes (we’ll be thinking so fast that time will seem to be experienced slower) that small disparities may continue to be appear significant such that there is still a need for an economy based on supply and demand — i.e. capitalism. Capitalism also seems to be primarily fueled by expansion (more production, more consumption) and in some sense I think the Singularity is likely to trend in that direction. While the super-AI might get super efficient in resource use, it probably is also likely to continue to expand to use up all the matter/energy in the universe. As long as there is such an expansion, then the consumption and required productivity to feed that consumption will continue to grow — again a great setting for a capitalism-driven entity to thrive.
by Editor
Juilan: Interesting comments. Re scaling: so if time, resources, etc. all scale, and they also scale non-linearly (at different rates and accelerations), that implies that there is serious potential for runaway systems and chaos, and that means there would be need for regulators (negative feedback, etc.) in the system to selectively damp oscillations, and long-range analysis, forecasting, and planning. I wonder if anyone is looking at this and developing plans for this purpose? The Club of Rome’s “2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years” (http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=703) is looking at these kinds of issues, but their focus is on risks and limited solutions. I don’t think they are factoring in disruptive technologies like superintelligence. Another concern is to balance planning/regulation/control vs. exploration/innovation. Anyone working on these issues?
by Julian
@Editor: that implies that there is serious potential for runaway systems and chaos, and that means there would be need for regulators (negative feedback, etc.)
Well, as an engineer I’m well aware of how useful a properly implemented feedback system would be (for this and many other social problems). However, as we all know our governments and corporations simply don’t think about these things generally and when they do think about them don’t implement them properly. There are so many examples of broken government/economic/corporate feedback systems. Take for example the unemployment rate — the way it is currently measures is useless as an input to a control system. Even somewhat mechanical, computerized systems are designed improperly — apparently the NASDAQ delay on Facebook IPO trades was due to positive feedback (changes in pending trades caused delay which allowed more time for people to make changes in pending trades …)
Sadly, I’m actually negative on the end future. I do believe in the singularity, roughly on the expected timetable (or in any case near enough to make it worth thinking about and planning for), but I don’t have hope of the proper control systems in place.
For example, a human intelligence develops with a context of feedback (parental, societal, and environmental). The early learning of a human occurs when the human being has little physical power over others or the environment. The end result of human development (today at least) is still somewhat limited. Imagine though that some super-AI is learning at the same time its power is already great. Imagine the horrible mistakes it could make. Imagine how a super-AI would quickly not be answerable to anyone (no negative feedback from a parent or society). The only things limiting a super-AI would be its own emerging “conscience” or “ethics” which would have potential for rapid, unregulated change.
Anyway, back to the topic — corporations and capitalism will probably run “open loop” and yes will cause greater and greater instability in our society and economy. Negative feedback would only help if it didn’t have delay (needs phase margin) and was in sufficient proportion to critically damp things. What is the chance of either of those things? Our political system will be too slow to react once things speed up in the next decade or two. We will get to a point that by the time legislators go to session to address a recession the recession will already have ended and some other problem now in full effect!
by Carl Brooks
Its an interesting idea. This is a question i asked Ray last year. “The singularity promises to be an amazing time for all peoples of the world, and yet its through capitalism that we are moving with this accelerated returns nature. With all of the possibilities of the singularity, from life extension to decentralized energy to food built by nano tech (practically all wants and needs accessible to all peoples), what would that mean for capitalism? Also, is it possible that some form of high power capitalist group(s) or even leaders in positions of power. Who had good knowledge of the singularity, could attempt to hinder or shape the worlds progression to the singularity, to maintain their vested interests?”(haven’t had an answer yet but i imagine he’s a busy guy)
i suppose the answer will be sorted out through capitalism. If a company doesn’t bring out that next thing, then another company will bring out something similar and reap the rewards. The irony is palpable, capitalism is the tool for the creation of accelerating returns and yet capitalism will be destroyed by it.
by Brian Peterson
It’s not ironic at all. Not anymore than humans bringing about the end of humanity is.
“What is good in man is that he is a bridge and not an end.”
by mechtheist
Those who first aquire a new technology often have a significant advantage, the mind-augmentation capability will require significant outlays at first, Kurweil thinks the price will drop rapidly, but how rapidley? And what is the population at that time? As the few super-rich acquire super-minds, how will they use the increased power this affords them, considering their already formidable power due to money alone?
As a group, these folk are not exactly known for democratic, egalitarian ideals. It is they who control the corporations. How many of them will want the rest of us to acquire technology that makes all equal to them in mental capability [and reduce the resources available to them to ever add to their mental machineries]? What does history suggest we should expect? These are the same types who blithely make deals with third world dictators laying waste to entire countries impoverishing and killing millions without a thought.
by Factor-H
Those first ones to aquire a technology, are undeed the firsts to enjoy it’s opportunities, find it’s limits and suffer it’s drawbacks.
If my computer has no mind, I become a bit limited to it by dependency.
As a tool, it extends my arm and shortens my legs. Bof!
At least it is not a TV, but the desire to enhance the mind has already been done with the microscope and the telescope… By giving different views of the Universe around.
But I would not like to become a telescope.
And definetly not to be imersed in a programmable computer. (Like with Doom, One would be absorbed by the ‘extension’).
Usefull, yes. But it’s dificult to accept to be a Super-Mind, as it would be an extension only, to be useful. Not so and the victim would be an extension of the computer and it’s programming.
As giving new senses or fast calculations to a person, that would be interesting, naturally. But I would like to USE, not to be USED… and that may be the point. (Nobody becomed more ‘smart’ by using a calculator)
In the chapter of Opening the Mind instead of closing it in electronics, it would be more interesting to chat, explore ones existing mind. Notice that even there are problems: Being the mind a tool for the soul, as the soul is a body to the spiri. One can easelly confuse the rider for the horse, and get a very big back pain afte the matter.
Some people need to relearn to be human… or even die in long run entusiastic computer ‘relations’. As with everything, it all depends of the kind of drug, who’s taking it and why. Such is the nature of the problem:
An enhancement of senses, can be like using glasses, or ” Doom”.
An imersion in ‘fictiona reality’, can be like watchin too much TV.
Either ways, its like a new drug, one who most likelly reduces concience in favor of having a labor force of slaves, mastered by those who don’t.
The singularity perceived, is one of conscience. Not one of alienation (we already have that). And the difference should be understood, behind the hipe of ‘new techonogy’.
And the reason for what is observed, may lye elsewere…
… confused with tools helpind a process, but NOT the process.
This is what comes to mind.
Would not say so, is imersed in a virtual reality…
… as would be obsessed with it, and it’s slave.
(though with extra points, and a lot of dingdings for an illusion of ‘happiness’).
Be carefull with what comes from the bottle…
… it can be the wrong bottle for a new trip.
by Edward Maran
Economics and money are tools to divide scarce resources. While some resources may cease to be scarce (most things material) the intelligences of the world will need to have a system for deciding what resources are devoted to solving what problem. Do we focus our computing power on reversing aging or reducing the probability of crime, war or accidental death or do we focus on looking for (or preparing for) life forms away from Earth? As long as there are multiple viewpoints there will be multiple opinions on how resources ought to be deployed and economics and money may have a major role to play.
by Gabor
Resources are abundant, our solutions to utilize them are scarce (think from using nanotechnology to reuse garbage to utilization of Solar or even Galactic (Black Hole) energy, etc). Rapidly developing technology will solve this issue in the coming decades.
As for “multiple viewpoints”, yes they play a major role in deciding but remember we only have multiple view points because…we don’t know any better. Once we will be able to enhance our intelligence (faster than just a lifetime of reading and experience allows), our viewpoints will be frighteningly similar.
by Factor-H
Resources are not that abundant. Specially rare lands.
The best nanotecchnology is life, most adaptable and efficient.
And reproductive!
Synthetic nanotechnology may disturb it to an unsuspecting degree.
There are already signs of this disturbance in humans, wich we whatch more closelly.
The fact that cancer is growing exponencially should be a warnning to this Sorcerer’s Apprentice. Entusiasm, is not enough. It is just a justifications maker.
by Factor-H
Scarce. Yes.
As opinions do not change facts.
Are ‘economics’, as we have seen it used, in good hands?
What is Nature showing us? And are these ‘economics’ efficient?
By what perspective? Monetary profit or efficiency, small footprint?
And reducing crime… is it a matter of ‘repression’ and control’ ?!?
It seems a recipe to a totalitarian world, kind of Orwells “1984″.
Unless is the bliss every progress promissed, but was distorted by real greed, directed to profit and not real need..
History shows us that promisses always are distorted by opportunistic minds… and the promisses vanish. A diferent solution, and it is time to use it, would be to give attention to ideals, instead of ‘countour’ them to their destruction… and ours.
In a way, we are repeating the 1930′s mistakes.
In different clothes, yes. But the pattern is the very same.
And now that utopia could be built…
… The persons and the will are missing.
And are even people prosecuted… by what they say to think.
It’s not progress. And cosmetics do not help.
The future is in our hands, but if we wish ‘chances’ instead of justice, we will have neither, for not coosing the right one.
Same goes with efficiency… even survival.
Because we now CAN destroy the world, and that path was always taken without the capability. Now we have it.
CAN be gardiners, or CAN be jail guards.
Let’s change History’s usual path, of the opportunistic…
… and respect what build us, instead of the reverse.
One may wish it, even to those who do not deserve it.
As whatever the path, it will be to all.
(Specially the proverbial, and actual, shot in the foot)
by Factor-H
Parcial.
It is forgotten that corporations are virtual entities, we are real not them.
It is also forgotten that corporations legitimacy in OUR world and environment is limited by the usefulness and serving to Countries. And these only as expression of people. Thus, they are allowed to enjoy and exploit natural and human resources, both as labour and as consumers. And preteded property.
What corporations (is it really them?) are doing, is taking over reality. And inverting all legitimacy of existance and property. The servant becomes master, and he is not even real. Worse, this destroys the very sense of life cherching for harmony, by an authomaton where real people is reduced to pieces on the new structure.
This is already seen as the ‘market’ illusion: People and countries serve the market isntead of the market serving countries and people.
Therefore, yes. Virtual entities opposed to life are opposed to life.
This redundancy is needed when the obvious is disregarded.
by Gabor
Singularity is not an option that corporations can choose or ignore/prevent. It’s a “natural” progression of evolution. If anything, corporations are speeding up the process. Maximizing monetary value for shareholders is the current goal of corporations and in most cases perfecting technology (bringing us closer to the Singularity) gives them an advantage to materialize this goal.
Times are changing though with an ever increasing speed. Any corporation that does not change with time will wither away or get cannibalized by other (more modern) corporations. As we close in to the Singularity emphasis and power will gradually shift away from monetary advantage to an intellectual one. In other words, shareholders will not be as interested in more money because plainly speaking personal betterment will worth more than money. This process has already started, of course, and it’s more noticeable in developed countries than in less fortunate ones. Just think about what a rich person can do today that an average cannot. Compare it to say 50 and 200 years ago. Chances are you are driving a similar car, using the same internet/computer/tv/cell phone, have access to the same information/education and almost the same medical threatments. You have access to a lot of things that were exclusive to the 1% just a handful of decades ago. Yes, they still take more expensive and longer vacations and have bigger houses but I heard somewhere that “size doesn’t matter”.
OK, bad example. But the fact remains that rich people’s exclusivity are diminishing increasingly with the democratizing effect of technology. Corporations’ priorities will shift away from money!
by Spikosauropod
Finally, somoene says something intelligent.
by Lord Penguin
I think a bigger problem would be a sort of mini-singularity headed by an IT corporation or big government, which soon becomes able to do, well, anything. Including stopping or crippling the worldwide singularity, so they can get even farther ahead, and remain in power.
People would eventually find a way to start their own singularity with the technology and brainpower they have. But, by then, it might be too late, because the corporation/government is too far ahead. Even if they only slowed it, say, 6 years after they were already 4 years ahead, it would be hard to compete with technology a hundred or a thousand times stronger.
by birt
totally agree
by Spikosauropod
I agree, and it might not be a bad idea. The best chance we have of beating negative consequences of the Singularity is if someone can get on top of it.
However, you are missing the real motivation behind such an effort. The government or corporation would be trying to create a better information processor, not a dominance machine. The former is just good business. The latter is irrational.
by Lord Penguin
It’s not necessarily irrational to create a sort of dominance machine. Greed knows no bounds, and such a machine would maximize the amount of money the controller can get.
Many big business owners have demonstrated that they don’t really care about other people by bribing politicians against the favor of the average person (to get more money), and governments themselves have attempted to establish dominance/control, both over foreign countries and their own people.
It’s unlikely, I think, that such a government or business would get so far ahead of everything else, when there are so many big IT companies and governments. But it’s still a concern, especially if any of the companies/governments merge or become much more powerful than the rest.
by Spikosauropod
You are missing my meaning for “dominance machine”. By dominance machine, I mean a machine that would, of its own volition, dominate or attempt to dominate its environment.
Of course a corporation would try to make a machine that would help it to dominate its environment. A corporation is itself such a machine. But it would be irrational for it to create a machine that might try to dominate the corporation.
Big business owners bribe public officials because it works. That is why government is a poor steward of the economy.
by Edward Maran
I absolutely agree with the comment by Lord Penguin on 4/2/12. Those of us who have some awareness of what is happening should seek to ensure that a mini-singularity does not result in excessive concentration of power and or the masses losing freedom. And if it is inevitable that somebody “gets there first” then let’s hope and strive for an outcome where the entity that gets there first is benevolent or at least benign.
by Marc
Ben, you state:
“And rather clearly, a Singularity is not a good way to maximize shareholder value.”
Why not?
You then go on to say:
“Abolishing money and scarcity is not a good route to maximizing shareholder value — and nor is abolishing shareholders via uploading them into radical transhuman forms!”
Why do you think money will be abolished? How do you know scarcity will be abolished? Why is an uploaded transhuman unable to use money?
You seem to be taking for granted the very foundation of your argument. My intuition tells me that there will never be an absence of scarcity (the Universe is finite while human desire is infinite). Money is simply a store of value. Exactly how and why would people not need a store of value?
Won’t they need to pay for space to upload themselves to a computer? If not why not?
by frazere
The race is on whether the singularity will be reached or thwarted by habitat destruction. My bet is on the loss of a habitable planet before any type of singularity is achieved.
by Spikosauropod
There are two issues raised in this string that I would like to address:
1) Corporations care about the Singularity.
I believe that the Singularity is a real phenomenon, but I also understand men in suits. They do not think about the Technological Singularity, much less take it seriously. If they did take it seriously they would never bring it up at a board meeting. I can guarantee they could not get anyone to sign on to a very expensive effort to prevent one.
On the other hand, computational power is real, tangible and valuable. Corporations are interested in it and could not easily be deterred from developing it or funding anyone who is willing to develop it on their behalf. Of course, as everyone here hopefully realizes, computational power, all the way up to genuine AI, is the road to the Singularity.
2) A “godlike intelligence” would see people as bacteria.
The truth is that intelligence is a curse. The longer I am alive, and the more I understand, the guiltier I feel about almost everything I do. I feel guilty about squashing an ant that walks across the floor. I feel guilty about sterilizing a counter top. I find that as I learn more and spend more time reflecting deeply on my existence that I do not think of bacteria as bacteria. This guilt is not crippling—it does not keep me from eating or functioning—but I survive only by managing my true feelings.
If I were going to design heaven, it would have to accommodate every living creature that has ever lived since the dawn of time. I would have to find a way to accommodate anything that might ever have been conscious; and until I could find a way to make the determination, I would have to assume that includes everything that is or ever was capable of reproduction.
I think that if most of you search your feelings, you will find the same thing. The smarter you become the more you realize that knowledge and power, especially power, are a responsibility.
If that does not make it obvious, then look at the trend in the world at large. Look at all the programs intended to protect animal rights. Does anyone think that primitive people would see it the same way? Maybe films like Avatar have blinded you to the obvious. Neanderthals were not concerned about animal rights. Animals certainly are not concerned about animal rights. If you go far enough down the evolutionary scale, you will find animals that mercilessly eat their own children.
The idea that a super intelligence, with sophisticated motivation, would be insensitive to the needs of lower life forms is merely chauvinistic. Such chauvinism is ironic when directed toward a higher intelligence than one’s own.
by Gabor
Well said! Thank you, now I feel a bit less weird about putting insects outside of my door instead of killing them…
by j
The question really should be…How much have corporations already prevented or slowed down the singularity?…If black box goverment tech is always in far advance of the technology that is available to most of us now. We never find out about advanced research till decades later after it is declassified and the tech is common place.
How many discoveries have been made and simply shelved because it wasn’t in line with the profit margins. Solutions are not profitable…problems that never go away and must have money constantly spent on them… make the most money for the corporations
by Giulio Prisco
@Nabu re “At the time when Uploading is possible, we may live in a society that is totalitarian in everything except by name.”
Agree. What we must do is to reverse this trend (“the tide has turned and freedom is on retreat in most places that matter”) in time for a positive Singularity.
by Nabu
@Giulio Prisco:
Yes, we must reverse this trend. Reversing it is so easy and so difficult at the same time, however. Just take one example, both you and me are very interested in, I believe:
We’re moving to a Cashless Society (TM), for a number of reasons, one of them being that governments hate banknotes. The way govts like to implement this is to have a few companies doing that and them *authorize each and every transaction*. Richard Stallman rightly points to the fact that requiring the help of a corporation to give anyone your money is very scary. But he missed the much more important point that you’ll also require the help of the local government. If government stops helping you to spend *your* money you will die in such a cashless society! To me this looks like a the wet dream of every control freak in government and a totalitarian nightmare. The solution is trivial, but we prefer to go Paypal, M-Pesa, …
To come full circle and back on topic: There is little reason to doubt that a Singularity will happen – there is just too much economical incentive. It may just be very unpleasant for the rest of us.
by Matt Straw
A/ Some corporations are driving the exponential advances in computer design, keeping us hurtling along this track toward your singularity.
B/ Embracing the end of humanity as we know it is counterintuitive. We are not designed as algorithms. We’re connected to this planet and its organic processes in ways not being considered, here. Psychologically, no one can foresee the potential harm until it’s done. Certainly, madness could ensue.
C/ Inherent in the coming of the singularity is the advent of an entirely non-human entity that can outperform, outthink, and outcalculate 10 billion humans, anticipating their every thought and potential response to every action.
What makes anyone think it will appreciate organics at all, let alone illogical primates that build world-destroying weapons, acidify oceans, and poison atmospheres? It certainly won’t require them. As for programming: A being 10 billion times more intelligent than its creator might take it into consideration, somewhere within the infinity of the first nano second of consciousness.
by Spikosauropod
You are conflating businesses attempting, however naively, to protect their intellectual property with an attempt to stop the emergence of AI?
Does anyone here think dogs and cats are secretly plotting the extinction of humans? If you do, you may as well add it to this string.
by Iain
by supporting SOPA and all the other legislation around the globe that would reduce and penalise sharing of information, I suspect governments and corporations are already waging that war…..
by Spikosauropod
This blog post is ironic considering that Paul Allan, a captain of industry, just donated $300 million to study the brain.
If corporations are resisting the Singularity, they just dealt themselves a major setback.
by Giulio Prisco
@Ben re “I’m sure you’ll love my followup post “Will Governments Block the Singularity?” even more … when I find time to write it !!”
Now, this is a post that I am really looking forward to read.
Down with Big Governments AND Big Corporations, power to the people of planet Earth!
by DCWhatthe
Ben: …I’m sure you’ll love my followup post “Will Governments Block the Singularity?” even more … when I find time to write it !!…
Well, then, stop everything you’re doing and write it up, my good man. Whattaya waitin’ for, the Singularity?
Looking forward to it.
by DCWhatthe
Doesn’t matter, if they try to prevent it. Some of us as individuals might be prevented from living long enough to experience what we call the technological Singularity. But the event itself won’t be stopped.
by Karl Kelman
I agree with xd; some corporations benefit from progress others don’t. “Corporations” is an mythical mental construct; like snowflakes, they are all different. Much is lost at the one word level of aggregation.
Corporations dependent on old technologies have tried to outlaw, restrict or tax new technologies for hundreds of years. Corporations dependent on new technologies have pushed for development subsidies for hundreds of years.
by Arowx
If you take the singularity as the creation of nanotechnology and super high level AI these technologies would give the owning corporations or governments huge economic power and military power. The only hurdles said entity would have would be energy and material supply. Also these core technologies are the singularity equivalent of the atomic bomb / power. Imagine a new industrial revolution in the form of nanotechnology. Now imagine a nano 3d printer in your home want the latest gadget select the blueprint and press the green button. The digital media age meets the real world. The companies will want to provide the best printers cartridges and blueprints but limit the printers themselves. New gadgets but no singularity.
by Ben Goertzel
Wow, what a hilarious bunch of comments my blog post has elicited ;-)
I’m sure you’ll love my followup post “Will Governments Block the Singularity?” even more … when I find time to write it !!
Unfortunately, many folks seemed to react to the post as if it were a comment on current or recent history, rather than a suggestion regarding how the future may be….
Just to clear a couple things up…
1)
I’m neither a socialist nor a political libertarian, and I don’t think “corporations are bad”…. I’m an entrepreneur myself…. I now live mainly in Hong Kong, partly due to the favorable business climate…. It’s frustrating to me that any discussion verging on politics tends to get channeled into crude Right vs. Left stereotypes, whereas my thinking is not easily stereotyped in this way…
2)
Commenters who find the idea of governments and corporations colluding in future to enforce an AI Nanny — wow, you made me laugh! Government/corporation collusion is already rather commonplace and powerful, in a wide variety of industries, on many different levels.
3)
I’m not denying that corporations have brought a lot of good to the world, along with a lot of evil. They’ve been bound up with many other things and there’s no good way to isolate their impact. But I’m suggesting that as Singularity approaches, their role may be systematically different than it is presently. That is, I’m not arguing that corporations *now* are opposing Singularity — though some are certainly holding it back, others are pushing toward it. I’m suggesting that when Singularity looks much nearer, corporations may more broadly see fit to oppose it, as it will threaten their existence…
4)
Of course I realize corporations are just groups of people, and that as Singularity approaches, folks may just decide to abandon their corporate shares and skip the shareholder meeting and upload themselves or whatever ;-) ….. However, I also have a lot of respect for the power of groupthink among humans, and corporations are one powerful mechanism for enforcing and channeling groupthink…
– Ben Goertzel
by Spikosauropod
What I have trouble understanding about your argument is how you think corporations will have time, money and resources to stay afloat in such a rapidly changing market while simultaneously trying to block the millions tendrils of increasing intelligence from coming thorough. We don’t even know which quarter the singularity will come from, much less what could be done to stop it. It seems like corporations would do better shoring up their own wall than trying to put a million fingers into a disintegrating dyke.
by Nabu
Ben, if Uploading is possible and accessible to shareholders, the Singularity is necessarily in progress and unstoppable. It is also a type of Singularity I’d favor, but I am afraid it won’t happen. Today, the tide has turned and freedom is on retreat in most places that matter. At the time when Uploading is possible, we may live in a society that is totalitarian in everything except by name.
by xd
Individuals, corporations, special interest groups and governments will each oppose technologies and paradigms that go against their interests. Luckily, there will also be those whose interests are best served by continuing progress. That is why we still see progress towards electric cars (for example) in spite of the massive interests arrayed against them.
The same will be true as we further approach the singularity.
Also: as another poster indicated; I agree that we are in the early stages of a kind of “singularity-lite” enabled by the global internet.
by trakk
Its incredibley NAIVE to think that corporations or government is the one which has absolute power.
The world is ruled by a few groups of people,families to be precise and some of whom are also interelated to some extent.
by Jonathan
Corporations have been around for how long now? Compare that to the length of human history? Compare that to the rate of change? Anyone think MAYBE the economic model might possibly change again in the future?
Honestly… Tired of hearing arguments where we account for ONE thing changing MASSIVELY and then ASSUME that everything else must remain the same.
by Glen Lincoln
The singularity is beginning, and can no more be slowed, never mind stopped, than I can stop the sun from rising. Why, because it is not an “other”; it is us, it is OUR destiny.
We cannot know what will take place specifically, but it is plainly obvious that there is an expansion of and more expectation of human justice and
equality and betterment of each other’s lives. We are going to find ourselves being even more civil and more enjoyable and happy, and coincidentally, all of this rapid, new-found artificial intelligence will eliminate the root causes of so much that distresses us and contributes to so much strife in the first place.
I’m saying not only will we be alright, we’re going to be more amazed, more happy, more fulfilled, why, because the universe has only one direction, toward more love, toward more answers, toward more wonder.
by Jon Quist
I’m am somewhat distressed at the general lack of understanding of the true value of pricing items, and individuals choosing to pay for things. It is easy to presume that this is some means of gratifying individual’s and entity’s “greed gene”. Unfortunately, that perspective is the luddite element. Price is a very effective means of communication, which people and entities use to coordinate their efforts with great (though far from perfect efficiency). Replacing it with something closer to perfection is extraordinarily tricky. To do it in a cost effective way, introducing efficiencies while preserving the ability of individuals to express their preferences is a challange. This paragraph can’t possibly do the subject justice. But I hope it gives some pause. As for those nasty corporations — Many resisted computers at their onset, but the efficiencies are undeniable, and those that denied it in the face of the wave have been eliminated. Those who failed to engage the efficiencies in practical and timely ways may never catch up. But those that engaged have, indeed, those that have empowered the masses have have been rewarded beyond what any of their predicessors could have imagined. Corporations that stand in the way will be crushed.
by Spikosauropod
Not to mention chemical companies are fighting lucidity by putting high levels of lead in our drinking water.
by Robert J. Berger
Corporations are already fighting the abundance. They are the prime forces behind almost every form of Artificial Scarcity imagined.
Oil Companies are fighting renewable energy
Telcos are fighting fiber and unlimited bandwidth
RIAA/MPAA are fighting information replication and sharing
Banks / Hedge Funds / Finance Companies turn productivity surpluses into largess for their parasitic managers.
They all have used regulatory, Judicial, Legislative capture to turn Governments into enforcers of Artificial Scarcity.
Its time to reprogram or disable
The list goes on and on.
by Editor
Robert: Thanks, a great list, which raises some questions: which corporations (in the future, or maybe even now) or types of corporations will be most likely to either fight or attempt to monopolize superintelligence, with what strategies? It seems that the strategy would need to vary based on the business model.
For example, information/knowledge-based corporations (Google, Microsoft, etc.) would have the choice of either dumbing-down superintelligence or monopolizing it and increasing it (“embrace and extend” in Microsoft lingo) — I’m guessing the latter would be more likely.
However, oil companies might be more likely to simply monopolize (and increase) the superintelligence’s knowledge of energy and geoscience domains, while dumbing-down knowledge and restricting development of other domains (for example, keep teleconferencing, holographic displays, and virtual reality primitive so people need to travel more).
These are of course just extensions of strategies that all companies use, taken to extremes. So I think it would be interesting to create a matrix of business models vs. likely strategies for various scenarios. Thoughts?
by Spikosauropod
This is a silly blog post, but I am glad it found its way here. It might never have occurred to any thinking person that corporations could be suspect as Luddites.
See the history of Luddism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
Still, this has presented an opportunity to establish once and for all that attempting to pin Luddism on corporations is pure lunacy.
Now we can confidently let go of this notion and allow it to slip quietly into the waste basket of psychotic outbursts.
by Bryce
Rather than present an argument, you’ve simply claimed that the argument is self-evidently bollocks, and tried to shame anyone who disagreed with you. How pathetic.
The Luddites weren’t trying to stand in the way of all technological advancements. They were trying to hold back the automation of a specific industry that posed a direct threat to their incomes.
There are similarities between Luddites and corporations who use every trick in the book (buying legislation and legislators, buying out competitors, buying patents in order to sit on them rather than use them) to protect an existing business model. Big oil and big coal fear the rise of alternative energy, media conglomerates fear the Internet and every tool that might be used to commit piracy. Cable companies fear Netflix. Auto companies fear mass transit.
And every last one of them is terrified of the strong welfare state and loosening of property rights that will be necessary in a post-scarcity economy.
by Spikosauropod
It’s called “operant conditioning”. You have to shame the subject immediately following the undesirable behavior.
And, yes, the argument is self-evidently bollocks.
by Doug Moen
Ben: the science fiction story you are thinking of may be “The Last Question” by Isaac Asimov.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question
by Kevin George Haskell
If there were ever an AI system powerful enough to run and control the entire planet as the article depicted, it would actually need to be AGI. It wouldn’t be a system any group of humans could control…which would be a good thing because at that size, the Singularity would be already be unstoppable.
by Bill Hibbard
Interesting article, Ben. I do not think that money and economics will disappear post-Singularity as I explain here:
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/g/singularity_money.html
by Pauldenice
Preventing the “singularity”?
The “singularity is already here”, not in the sense of AI machines but in the sense of a “planetary cyborg” constituted by billions of human beings using billions of more and more powerful home or work computers, linked through ever faster networks. This started when home computer overpassed large mainframes computers in processors cycles, internal memory and DASD space… That in machine of a thousand time smaller size and million times lower costs, plus the availability of MBps network links.
This global entity has reached the early steps of the singularity it repairs its own elements, produces new elements and invent new elements. It is less and less controlled by human authorities, since it is not really perceived by the scientific and philosophical community and even less by politicians, most of which have never heard of the “Singularity” concept.
Innovation in this “global cyborg singularity” can come from any place in the world, at any time from very small size entities coming up with very powerful contributions to the “global cyborg singularity” performances, making it even more in-understandable by human intelligence even through computer assistance.
In such a situation the strong AI singularity could come from an isolated “sparkle” any place in the network and even an AI Nanny wouldn’t be able to control it.
It may already be too late to ask the fundamental philosophical question whether the full AI singularity will be beneficial to humanity,
This reminds me of a science fiction novel where two scientists have managed to connect all the Galaxy computers via “hyperlinks” They turn on the program on the computer console and the connexions are established. One of the scientist says: “we are going to finally know the answer to the question that has puzzled humanity since millenniums: “Does God exist”
The answer on the screen comes rather fast : “God exists NOW”
One scientist realizing that they may have gone too far, rushes to the plug and tries to pull it out of the wall outlet. As he does, a lightning rod hits him before he can reach the plug…
Are we yet at this point with the “global cyborg singularity”?
If some one remembers the title of the book and the name of the author, I’d be very glad to get it, as my poor human memory is unable to remember…
Will “full AI singularity” consider human beings and all animal life necessary for its Darwinian survival? After all Human beings won’t be needed nor will animal or living matter, unless “full AI singularity” finds a way to make us and other living organisms useful t its survival…
Paul
by J.P.
Paul,
Nice to see somebody else who sees its current existence.
We are “useful to it” as we are making it and it is making us.
by Jonathan Cole
If corporations mount an effective barrier to the progress of the Singularity, there will be blood in the streets. Ending with the blood being their own corporate blood and a likely Burning Man-esque celebration of torched corporate headquarters. The driving force pushing the Singularity into existence is essentially a Mental Event and the main glow of the mental energy will come from the (currently) 15 – 30 year olds, with many bright candles from those of us who are older. In the minds of these people, the Singularity looks like Opportunity, in its most alluring form ever taken. Opportunity for connection, health, love, belonging, freedom, happiness, etc and etc. I believe the 15-30 group is already head over heels addicted/commited to their interconnected social world, which they view as the portal to this great vista of Opportunity. Corporations that create more access into this Opportunity will be adored and enriched, those whose products are faulty will be ignored or ridiculed, and any corporation, government or individual that acts to strongly interfere with this Opportunity will be enthusiastically, heroically annihilated. The Singularity has begun in the sense that we have entered the final ‘orbit’ of a Mental Event, a generational experience where Opportunity is engaged in a wholy new manner and will not ‘cycle back’ to earlier forms, like the circling comet finally crashing into the sun. In past generations, those alive have had to look for Opportunity in war which cycled back to peace for a generation following, or boom cycling to bust, feast to famine, migration to settling, etc to etc. Events that were/are relevant to past generations will lose all importance to this new one. Elect a female president, who cares? The president will be an app. Make more money than you need to buy what you want, who cares; money is an app. Attack another country, what for; the military is an app. Rally for state’s rights, why; the state is an app, just Like/Unlike parts of it into/out of existense. But turn off their connection and you’ll get their attention. Like I said, blood in the streets.
Jonathan Cole
by John
Even if we assume that corporations would act against singularity, what could they do? Stop R&D, stop some products? This way they would only speed up own death.
And at least today’s corporations are too small to dramatically affect technological or economical trends. And they are so slow.
So, no way.
by Pauldenice
If I were a libertarian, I would fear “Full AI singularity” million times more than governments…
The risks for human freedom once controlled by hyper machines would be far more pervasive than those created by stupid government institutions… And Machines as far as I know won’t have any consciousness, not that governments have a lot of consciousness but they are still composed with human beings who have some consciousness”. That doesn’t prevent them from being cowards in front of dire risks for the planet both from an economic and an ecological point of view.
Paul
by Giulio Prisco
As usual, I see many comments from naive libertarians who love Good Big Corporations and hate Evil Big Governments, and naive liberals/socialists who love Good Big Governments and hate Evil Big Corporations.
But I see also that more and more people are beginning to see through 19th century political myths and realize that _both_ Big Corporations and Big Governments and evil, greedy predators that feed on the rest of us. I think empowering people is good, and oppressing people is bad, and therefore I am against all big and entrenched powers, and against big governments and big corporations.
by Editor
Big Corporations and Big Governments as predators: especially when they are closely entangled (Goldman Sachs, GE)
by Giulio Prisco
Exactly, and this is not limited to Goldman Sachs, GE, but endemic. Big corporations and big governments work together behind the scenes to protect the current balance of power, which is good for both.
by gaoptimize
Dear Editor, You are a heroine for stepping up and saying that. Indeed, it is crony capitalism that has demonstrated the ability to starve and enslave free people, preventing the advance of civilization.
by Spikosauropod
“naive libertarian” is an oxymoron. Anyone who has studied economics and not just read page after page of the mainstream press knows this.
by Giulio Prisco
Naive libertarians don’t understand that their beloved Big Corporations can only survive by bribing the government to pass regulations to protect their interest by killing smaller innovative competitors. Big corporation are against innovation and free market just like big governments.
by Spikosauropod
If governments were kept small and powerless as prescribed by the tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, none of that could happen.
by Spikosauropod
You are taking a long time to approve this reply. I must be winning this debate!
by Giulio Prisco
Sure it could, organized crime would replace the government and do exactly the same things that the government does now (protect big corporations in exchange of big bribes).
by Spikosauropod
That is covered in Article I. Section 8. Also, the States can pass laws to control organized crime.
Of course, if you really understood libertarianism, you would realize that we would legalize all of the things that lead to organized crime: recreational drugs, prostitution, and gambling.
Everything you have said indicates that you have no idea what a libertarian is and are actually talking about some fictitious hyper-conservative that may or may not exist on John Carter’s Mars.
by Bryce
Do you really think that legalizing a few vices can prevent organized crime? At best, it cuts them off from a couple of revenue sources. So long as money exists, people will band together in ways legal and illegal to increase their share of it. And as my libertarian sources tell it, the government wouldn’t have any power to break up monopolies or cartels. So many of the currently illegal forms of organization would suddenly become legal, much to the detriment of people who legitimately want control over their own lives.
Libertarians seem to have a blinkered view of the world, where the government is the source of all evil, that corporations cannot create or enforce monopolies without government aid.
Please, explain how libertarianism prevents protection rackets. “You have a very nice marijuana shop here. It would be a shame if something happened to it.”
by Spikosauropod
Libertarians want to legalize victimless crimes. We do not want to impose lawlessness. Protection rackets are just crimes covered under Article I, Section 8.
If we legalize drugs we will no longer be spending money on “drug wars” and prison time for drug users and dealers. If we tax the sale of drugs, we will have an enormous amount of extra revenue. This has been studied:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/10/1/drugs-miron-tax-drug/
This would make a difference in our national budget of $88 billion. That much money would go a long way toward fighting crime and settling our national debt.
by Spikosauropod
“Libertarians seem to have a blinkered view of the world, where the government is the source of all evil, that corporations cannot create or enforce monopolies without government aid.”
Yes, that is our view:
http://www.duke.edu/~kem32/cps1/digitalethics/monopoly.html
by Bryce
In exchange for *big* bribes? It seems like campaign contributions and lobbyists pay for themselves a thousand-fold.
by Lord Penguin
Governments are corrupt because of corporations. Corporations lobby and bribe politicians to get them to pass laws favorable to themselves (such as tax cuts to wealthy people and less regulations on what corporations can do).
That isn’t to say that governments themselves aren’t bad. The politicians do allow themselves to be bribed.
by Bryce
Governments can enslave or empower people. Corporations can enslave or empower people.
by Spikosauropod
In the United States, corporations cannot enslave anyone. Slavery is prohibited under Amendment 13 of the U.S. Constitution. Corporations may do all sorts of unscrupulous things but they are not likely to do something so blatantly and transparently illegal. They are not likely to do something that will certainly land their management in prison.
You may be talking about something more abstract like “wage slavery”. Wage slavery is pure nonsense, but we can discuss that as well…I suppose.
by Spikosauropod
“luddite corporation” is an oxymoron. The only way a luddite corporation can survive is if they have luddite customers. In that case, they are not luddite corporations; they are just serving their clientele.
by ChristianGehman
Let’s hear it for the Luddite corporations only interested in fattening us up just enough to make the slaughter profitable!
by Conrad Green
singularity is coming no matter if governments or corporations or even aliens can do about it. its no the past or the future that they can predict. its the in between that they can’t which is why they are trying their best to delay it. But 7 bvillion ppl each sucking on a technological nipple can’t live without some sort of instant knowledge. We all can’t be monitered even though some are. Are actions are unpredictable and this DIY trend is one of the things bringing the singularity closer. Governments don’t realize the higher they tax and limit are actions the more we want to rebel and create our own technology free of charge through outsourcing for which patents have no control of and its frightening to them
by Spikosauropod
One of the ways corporations are fighting to prevent a Singularity is by fighting tooth and nail to be the first ones to create a completely interactive digital assistant like Siri that could replace 2.3 million customer service representatives on telephones…oh wait a minute, that would have the opposite effect!
by Sean D
This is a really great post with some interesting ideas brought to the table to promote discussion. I can already see corporations fighting to prevent a Singularity all around us. Antiquated content rights industries, for example, desperately fight against the free flow of information, culture, and data on the internet, and with eager politicians who have bigger goals in mind they work to pass new legislature. This could potentially create a stifling or throttling effect on accelerating returns of technology and innovation. The rights holders protect their profits, and governments can squash wikileaks.
by Spikosauropod
I note that people are able to cite specific examples of ways that corporations seem to limit technological growth. Those are simply dwarfed by the ways that corporations have delivered technological growth:
Cell phones
Cable internet
PC computers
Electric cars
Smart phones
Jet airplanes
Trains
Ships
Scissors
Pencils
Erasers
Tape
Staples
Paper
Shoes
Socks
The roof over your head
The food you eat
Do I really need to finish this list or is my point sufficiently obvious?
by Bryce
You’re basically arguing here that all products of human ingenuity are the products of corporate ingenuity. And you’re so eager to argue the point that you’re willing to add to the list things that were invented long before the corporation was invented, much less before they were the primary form of economic organization.
The power of your arguments doesn’t seem to adequately account for your intellectual hubris.
by Spikosauropod
You have completely missed my point. Corporations do not create anything. Corporations only deliver goods. To quote myself:
“Those are simply dwarfed by the ways that corporations have DELIVERED technological growth:”
Corporations have been delivering goods as long as they have been in existence. Corporations make money by delivering goods—whether the goods are technological or otherwise. Corporations can possibly make a little money by manipulating markets, but they make a lot more money and their time is better spent by satisfying markets.
This is not an intellectual argument. It is sort of like explaining why getting a job makes more sense than stealing.
by Andy
Government provides some essential services. But it is not essential that government provides them. Corporations provide some essential and non-essential services. It is not essential that corporations provide them. How did man advance technology and bring it to market without the corporation? Corporations are not essential. This should be sufficiently obvious.
by Ron
Author gives far too much credit to the power of “corporations” while ignoring much more powerful forces of stagnation: Governments and politics. All one has to do is look at network theory, and realize that big government equals big fail while limited government and free-markets breed success by containing failures before they take down the whole system. By definition, bail-outs and “stimulus” are not free-market with limited government, but big government intertwined with an influential few.
by ToddLC
It’s pretty obvious that it won’t be corporations that stop the singularity. The real threat is over-regulation and high taxation imposed by government.
You mentioned IBM. They are perhaps doing the most to shorten the time to the singularity. Just look at some of their R&D efforts such as quantum computers and Watson.
Government regulation on the other hand is slowing advancement. Consider restrictions in areas such as genetically modified food and new drug development. And massive redistribution such as that promulgated by the Obama administration will redirect resources from corporate R&D to non-productive social welfare programs.
by Evan
The singularity will create whole new business oportunities we can’t even anticipate. These corporations will adjust to meet the consumer needs of say, flying helmets and goggles for when we can physically grow wings. Like the multitude of accesories now for ipads, cellphone apps, laptops etc. I predict they will evolve right along with us -good or bad.
by RobinSongs
Corporations/Governments won’t survive. I’ve hated them years before I knew what the Singularity was.
by Lord Penguin
Money won’t lose its value suddenly, abundance will drive prices down until enough people help others out with the products they make or buy (which would become easier to do with very low prices, so more people would do it and each person could do more).
It isn’t until we have a super-corporation that we’ll have a problem. If two large food companies are competing, they will lower prices and, eventually, devalue money. If all major food corporations are under an agreement not to compete (trust) or there’s only one, there isn’t any competition between them, but with lowered prices of everything else, a group of people can start their own business with technology and sell it for cheaper. If everything is merged together (something that I don’t think will happen), everything can be controlled.
by Satan
Coporations don’t even come close to having the power that we allow government to have over our lives. They won’t be able to stop the singularity any more than government can.
by Mac
Far from having the power to stop it, the drive toward the singularity is currently driven by increasing share holder profits. As mentioned in the article, the root of all human conflict has been in material scarcity, at the root the fight over resources. As that is ended by technological advancement, humanity will of necessity find a new framework for interaction. Until then, however, the market for advancing technology will result in corporations leading the charge, if inadvertantly, toward the singularity.
by Swee
Gad, sad to see the mindless corporation bashing on Kurzweil. Such simplistic thinking….
by microsrfr
There is already evidence of corporations blocking us from “Abundance”. Take cable for example. The next generation of web servers is being designed to meet the cable companies’ desire to know rapidly with hardware where each packet is coming from and going to as well as the type of data, text, audio, video etc., contained so that they can charge you for example for watching Netflix. Also the head of government relations can be found on the board of Heartland which is a pay-for-disinformation agency.
There is currently no reason why intelligent phones could not connect over the Internet to save minutes when they are in range of a wi-fi connection. This would also eliminate the need for a separate land line phone system. But, of course, this is being blocked by the phone companies.
Presently the price performance of the private US cable systems is an order of magnitude worse than the publically owned systems in Hong Kong and South Korea. The difference will grow.
There are only a couple of ways out of this — go to national cable as Eisenhower did with the Highway system or a citizens’ revolt as with the BOA $5/ month debit card charge.
by Spikosauropod
It is strange that someone would even suggest this idea. It goes against the empirical evidence and reason.
Corporations are what brought us the PC, the cell phone, the laptop computer, and the tablet computer. On a larger scale, they brought us the super computer. It was IBM that paid for and flaunted Watson. In short, corporations have brought us all the myriad devices that are carrying us to the Singularity. They do it for one simple reason. They want to make money and technological innovations sell. Corporations are in love with the very idea of intelligent machines. Intelligence is the key to winning in the business world and they want all of it they can get their greedy hands on.
Religious organizations seem indifferent to technologies and usually embrace them when they are not a direct violation of their fairly confined moral codes. They embrace them for two obvious reasons. It is easier to get their message out if they have better communication and prolonging and improving human life is just “good”. Most of them are opposed to abortion and research involving embryonic stem cells (but not research involving non embryonic stem cells), and some of them are opposed to contraception. Many of them are opposed to teaching evolution, but they are never opposed to studying biology because they believe such study will vindicate them. They may be wrong, but they expect to be right.
The people and organizations that have demonstrated a clear and overt tendency to oppose technologies that lead to the Singularity are all green liberals.
In Frey’s discussion of extending lifespan one green liberal said:
“Immortality is not possible. Death brings meaning to life; without death we will not value life. Let us find value & meaning in the life we have, learn to clean up after ourselves and explore the stars instead of searching to live eternally on this planet, sucking the life from it. Immortality is the ultimate selfishness.”
Green liberals are opposed to exponentially increasing technology because they conflate it with exponentially increasing energy consumption.
In a recent article on this site, “111 organizations call for synthetic biology moratorium”,
it is primarily green liberal organizations that are calling for this moratorium.
Green liberals are opposed to the very idea of technological advancement because it threatens the foundations of collectivization and regulation. They want humanity to stand still so that they can organize it into collectives and make it behave in a way that respects their own god, the planet.
Every new innovation complicates and frustrates their efforts. Every new innovation throws a new and unwanted variable into the equation of their ultimate objective. If you seriously investigate their behavior, this all becomes obvious.
by Kevin George Haskell
If by some miracle global corporations were able to first , drop their natural drives to compete and, and secondly, unite under one global conglomerate with the complete and voluntaryI surrender of power by all of the world’s governments, if they did create a global-sized AI, wouldn’t a computer of such size and complexity actually be AGI, and therefor, not under the real control of any human beings? Isn’t it a contradictory notion to say that in this conglomerate’s decision to create a global-sized AI, that anything ‘other’ than AGI could perform the task?
by Bryce
As a “green liberal”, I’m neither against life extension, nor against technological progress, and by no means do I “worship” the planet. It doesn’t take a high level of cognitive prowess to realize that you’ll find wildly varying opinions within any group.
But please, do go on about how all liberals are stupid and evil.
We do need to manage the problems that come with both, and I’ve found that libertarians mostly want to pretend that
by Spikosauropod
Wow, you’re all over the place aren’t you! Sorry that I can’t find your posts quickly. It’s not my fault this comment section is so awkward. I’m really glad you read my post. If you read it, then maybe some other people read it as well.
I do not think all green liberals are evil. However, the empirical evidence that green liberals are opposed to technological growth is irrefutable. I sited two examples where green liberals are opposed to technological growth. If I started digging around the internet and reviewing old articles I could find many more.
Green liberals are opposed to life extension because they believe it will lead to over population. They are opposed to experimental biology because they believe it will alter the eco system. They are opposed to rapid technological growth because they believe it will increase energy consumption. They are opposed to industry, apparently, because they believe industry will stifle technological growth. At least that is the gist of the article we are all here to discuss.
I have observed that most articles opposed to the very idea of the Technological Singularity are penned by green liberals. I have a theory about that, but it isn’t pretty.
I don’t know what to tell you. You are a werewolf and I am a vampire. We aren’t going to work this out over night.
by frants
Very interesting. Like the Turing Police in Neuromancer. I guess his view was the opposite (Tessier-Ashpol Corp creates the AI), but it would make more sense that the corporations and not the government would be against AI. After all, governments are somewhat democratic and AI would be a common good, so people should be in favor (unless the FUD campaign against technology takes over).
Still not convinced that true intelligence can be created, but then again, not sure it can be bred either
by spencer
does anybody think perhaps that once the singularity, and like technology comes to a rise, people involved in corporations, and all other people throughout the planet who have access to the singularity technology, will support it because they’re willing to live a better life? either that, or they won’t have a choice. needless to say, the singularity will put everyone out of business. i also suspect that the singularity will come into fruition MUCH more suddenly than most will expect.
by Ben S.
Corporations are born, unite, divide, and die all the time. Those that survive are those that have business models that work in present circumstances. So, I don’t think “corporations” will disappear, nor that “they” will try to stop the singularity. Did buggy makers prevent the automobile? No, but obsolete companies evolved or died as others emerged. The same thing will happen. How that will take shape, we don’t know — that’s inherent in the definition of the singularity after all.
Regarding “money”, it is just a “common currency”, i.e., an abstraction that we mutually agree to use to represent other things of value, such as our labor and tangible and intangible assets. I would be surprised if the need for some form of currency for making transactions didn’t persist indefinitely, regardless of any singularity. Corporations (of various forms), and people will continue to make use of some kind of money and not just handle everything by bartering; nor do I see everything becoming “free”.
by ChristianGehman
The behavior of corporations has proven that the structure inherently trends toward the right-wing, corporatist/fascist, anti-union side of the political spectrum. A corporation’s goal is to maximize ROI for its shareholders — not to create general prosperity for the world’s citizens, or for a particular country’s citizens. That they are not “persons” seems rather obvious, but that allowing corporations unfettered access to influence political decisions is pernicious, though relatively easy to demonstrate, seems rather less obvious to all who enjoy the manifold blessings of the corporate system. Try working outside of the corporate/government bureaucracy, you’ll see what I mean.
by Erik Larson
The corporate (corporeal) god
The corporate/govt model and the corporate/elite-controlled economy-govt-society that shapes much of the developed world is an excellent vehicle/vessel for a true AI. In the US and much of the rest of the developed world, corporations (and govts) have most or all of the ‘rights’ that humans consider fundamental, i.e. speech, property, assembly, etc., w/ few of the responsibilities and restrictions that are imposed on humans – imposed by govts, and by corporations/elites, as govts are generally a reflection of their will.
Corporations/govts do reflect the perspective and will of the humans that run them, but the perspectives and actions of these same humans are shaped in turn by their personal biology, life experience and imagination, as well as by the corporate/govt structures they operate in, and by the information available to them.
The trend of humans becoming more and more dependent on technology, and on the quantity and quality of information made possible by thru technology, is likely to continue accelerating. At some point it seems likely that AI’s will surpass all aspects of human abilities to process and comprehend data. The world will continue to evolve at an ever faster accelerating rate, and AI’s will be evolving with it while multiplying, while we human beings remain stuck in our biology and culture, except as we become liberated through technology (or personal growth or ‘death’).
By the time of the ‘singularity’, AI’s will be effectively running the world, and probably doing so through corporations and govts. If it is convenient to do so, they may have human boards and executives serving as figureheads (they might even believe they’re in control, but their ‘decisions’ will be based on the evidence and counsel provided to them by AI’s), but the AI’s will be calling the shots.
Lucky for humanity, it seems likely (to me anyway) that one of the primary interests of a race of AI’s will be global stability. They will take steps to prevent or mitigate risks and losses from earthquakes, meteors and solar flares, as well as from human conflict, greed and poverty.
Socio-psychological research shows that humans in all societies tend to become content at a certain level of physical and economic security, with activities to fill the waking hours that are relaxing, fun and fulfilling. Becoming richer beyond this point does not contribute significantly to one’s level of happiness, fulfillment or sense of security. Who needs ‘money’, and who will risk death/imprisonment, if our material needs and wants are being provided by AI benefactors? Some people thrive on competition, and a minority gets off on exploiting, dominating and killing, but as these individuals and groups would be a threat to the AI master race, it seems they would be effectively subdued.
Meanwhile, with peace on earth established, AI’s will go about their business, whatever it is, though I suspect it will involve exploring and understanding the Universe.
by John Campbell
It is only through dramatic changes in the function of economy that a singularity type event could occur. Paper was once an expensive commodity, now it is almost free. Living through the winter was once a Privilege of the wealthy or those most able to compete for food. Now Vitamin supplements are available for modest costs in all but the poorest areas. In some of the most basic ways are we not already enjoying the benefits of a singularity type event. Try to keep in mind that corporations are not omnipotent. They have no Chance of repressing the group will of humanity for long. Relax. In the big picture they have little real power.
by Eray Ozkural
Stross’s scenario is likely. As I’ve explained in my latest blog post, the “capitalist AI”, i.e. an autonomous trans-sapient AI that maximizes profit, is one of the worst evils imaginable. Such evil has not yet befallen on our planet, the present collective tyranny of corporations is a less capable evil compared to the blight that we will have to dismantle.
In a world where there is much asymmetry of power, the weak needs better protection from the tyranny of the powerful.
Fight for the future! Not just stronger, faster, smarter than human, but better than human, we must be.
Intelligence is but a means, it is not the end. Especially, not money and possession, which are mostly legal fiction. One cannot found the future on fiction. Instead, the future must support a better way of life for all sentient beings, free from the tyranny of money and oppression.
I believe that when we transcend flesh, corporations or governments will not be able to exert the least amount of influence upon us, because we will rid ourselves of the subhuman ideology of religion, money and nationalism. We will defeat them with our intelligence and culture. We will drown their ignorance, and our ideas will spread like a virus, and they will writhe and spasm and destroy themselves, and nothing will be left of them.
In the best case, that is.
by Melanie
You can already see the societal breaks being applied against human physical immortality and the singularity. Corporations, religious organizations and the wealth generating machines of death have a lot to loose as do the people who are emotionally and financially invested in them. The group people unlimited address these issues head on.
by andmar74
Sorry Ben, I don’t think a global AI nanny is possible.
The only way to stop the singularity is a world wide ban on technology development, and that would mean the end to the human race as we know it.
Our way of living is getting more and more depended on sophisticated technology and AI, so removing this stuff in say 10 years from now, would be committing suicide. I’m sure we will choose to go with the uncertainty of the singularity.
by star0
I’m not convinced that corporations would act against a singularity. Like organisms, not all corporations are the same — each corporation has its own culture (part of its “DNA”), niche, and survival strategies. I think that once we get near a singularity, some of these corporations may act to accelerate its arrival, while others may, indeed, try to stop it. There may even be something like a Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium for the accelerate/suppress “corporate allele” (one would have to think carefully about what the analogues of reproduction and genes are in this context).
Furthermore, there are mini-analogues of singularities all over the marketplace, where some corporations have tried to stop them, while others have done the opposite. Take lightbulbs, for instance: once we reached a pretty comfortable plateau in lightbulb technology (in terms of price and performance), that didn’t stop new and ambitious upstarts from doing them one better with LEDs.
Government is another matter, however. I can easily see a bunch of senators getting together to work out how to impose regulations that basically suppress a singularity technology in order to “stimulate job growth” or something. The best way to keep this from happening (or at least to mitigate it), while also allowing us to benefit from our government, is to make sure that the techno-progressive voice is part of the conversation when laws are being drafted.
by mikeamondo
What is best for the corporation is rarely what is best for the People. This is why statements such as the one Mitt Romney made, “People are Corporations, too, my friend”, are so frightening. Many millions believe this is true. As technology changes, the corporations of the world will change in step, to achieve their one goal and maximize profits. The only hope is that most cororations think short term, and will struggle against change to the point of failure, long before realizing the need to prevent the very change from which they are currently creating profit. It will be like a crack addict realizing, and then stopping using the crack, while he’s still high on crack.
by Brett Guillory
Ultimately though, corporations are made up of individual coherent minds that can function outside of the corporation. If the Singularity makes corporations obsolete, they may dissolve willing since being a shareholder no longer holds any value, not just less value. When all your needs are already met, what’s the point of continuing to accumulate “wealth”, and what will that even mean in a post-scarcity world?
by Bryce
“When all your needs are already met, what’s the point of continuing to accumulate “wealth”?”
That’s a good question, but not a rhetorical one. When our needs are met, we still have wants, and many of those wants are positional in nature (that is to say, a good itself isn’t adequate to fulfill the need; it must be better than the comparable goods of the people around you). For example, you can say, “here’s the size of house that would fulfill all my wants,” unless one of those wants is “I want the biggest house in the neighborhood.”
One of these positional goods is control over others. This kind of makes sense, because people who aren’t under your control are free to act against your interests. And not every form of control over others is inherently bad. For example, you want to limit others’ options when it comes to murdering you, or poisoning the water you drink, or destroying your house, or rigging the election of your government officials. As a society, we’ve generally decided that such controls over other people are valuable, and hence we have laws against them.
But the wealthier people are, the more it costs to buy control over them. So perhaps the cost of controlling others rises in lockstep with wealth.
The point is, I don’t think we can rely on the Singularity or superabundance to create a less appetite-driven society.
by Jotto999
“Further dramatic technological advancement will make money obsolete…”
What indication is there that this will happen? You know money only loses value because the supply is being inflated, and not that money is losing it’s function in society? If Kurzweil’s predictions come true and we have massive abundance, that doesn’t remove the need for money, it simply increases prosperity by some inconceivable factor. It takes a certain crippling economic illiteracy to think that just because you have nanomachines making whatever tangible thing you want, that therefore “money would become obsolete”. What about information? The trend is that information is becoming proportionately a larger part of the economy, just as expected. Tangible abundance doesn’t violate any economic principles like removing a need for objective valuation, it just shifts things very far.
“Doesn’t it seem reasonably likely that a network of large corporations, at that point, will try to form a global AI Nanny conglomerate —, to slow progress toward a confusing, potentially money-obsoleting Singularity, and ensure their profitability via mostly benevolent force?”
The above quote suggests that this author is not giving rational insights on a technological singularity, she’s a sensationalist and appears also to be a conspiracy theorist.
by Fred Stitt
Of interest and relevant to recent history. The reason the big guns in the computer industry didn’t feel threatened by the PC and Apple was that they couldn’t understand or believe what was happening. As is now the case with publishers and those in higher education. By the time the big institutions catch on, it’s too late. We’ll see if that repeats.
by mental
I think that this is not true for all kind of companies. You mentioned Apple and IBM. IBM? Yes, actually, it’s not exactly what I think but it’s something really close. Apple? Not at all. Actually, lately I see it everywhere but really, I do not understand why. I mean, IBM clearly advances technology, like probably anyone else. The Apple’s way of thinking is completely the opposite. Really looks like a tyranny rather than pointing towards a singularity. It’s deeply closed, patents everything possible, becoming even irrational (like the slide to unlock patent, the “rectangle” of the ipads shape). Until here nothing strange, but by using those patents against others without any real reason is just opposite to any form of progress. The want to keep the Status Quo no matter what, pursuing everybody that MAY become a threat. The Apple’s view is deeply focused in the present, the progress is small, constantly under control, predetermined. It points to closeness. IBM is almost only faced on the future. The best example of this is the Apple Store. I buy an iphone, I spend money on the market. Months or years later I want to change brand. Well, I am free to do so, but I won’t. Because I am bounded to the apple store. Changing brand means not being able to use those apps anymore, apps I paid for. They are mine, but they are not. Even if I don’t want to, I will end up buying another iphone. The same applies to Microsoft and others. In the long term could be dreadful. No competition, just mutual annihilation.
The ideal company for me is probably an IBM-like not bounded to shareholders. Shareholders means I have to do what they want. It means that my work is not “mine”, it may not even have my name on it. A company where, instead, everything discovered, patented and generally sold goes directly to the company itself, in other words a company that finances itself is more likely to change the status quo in a more extended way. Because the work I do today is directly connected to the fact of having enough funds for the projects I will do tomorrow. I am lazy? Well, I am damaging myself.
So yes, if you want to block singularity, then the Apple’s way of thinking is the way to achieve that. If you want progress and minds ready to advance not matter what are the difficulties, even by knowing the possibility of reaching a singularity then you want an IBM-like company.
I am more for this second one option. After all if a singularity is inevitable, then even the Apple approach will lead to it. The difference is how it will be faced. In that case rather than intuitiveness what we need is minds capable of going beyond the canonical, the intuitive and the easy.
I’m pretty sure that there isn’t an app for that.
by Giulio Prisco
I think _both_ corporations and governments will fight against the Singularity, because both corporations and governments need a society of sheeple who do what they are told and buy what they are told. A positive Singularity will empower people, and that’s why corporations and givernments are and will continue to be against it.
by L2k4FC
Structures of control such as governments will ultimately interpret the empowerment of the individual as a threat. This is obvious given that the whole premise of a government is to control, act and speak for large masses of people. Regardless, this is the direction we are headed in.
by Jim
They can’t keep us all from out growing them and that is what we are already doing.
by Khannea Suntzu
/me smiles at Ben
http://blog.khanneasuntzu.com/?p=2306
by aelena
My fear is not corporations. Two other forces could stand in the way, Islam and the Left / Communism. Both are huge retrogrades, hate liberty and personal freedom. Many “greens” oppose research and science with atavic fanaticism too.
by mTOR
The “money-obsoleting Singularity” world IS communism as Marx envisioned it and as The Zeitgeist Movement embraces. And who are these “greens” you speak of?
by Thomas Jensen
I don’t think Islam will have much, if anything to say in this matter. What I could envision would happen is that IF the singularity happen, those that choose not to take part in it will rapidly fall far behind in living standards and economy. This could potentially be a source of internal conflict in Islam and other religions/beliefs that look down on science, as those groups rapidly sink into extreme poverty.
by Thomas Jensen
(If it is even true that Islam looks down on science. I am not sure of this fact). Comments from an moslem, please.
by Noah
Exactly, this article screams of socialism. Corporations are nothing more than a group of people trying to work together. Governments may treat them differently but that’s a problem on the part of government, not a problem with the fact that groups of people like to work together for a common goal (even if the goal is profit, working for wages is just working alone for profit why demonize groups who do it?).
This blog is trying to maximize reader value, does that mean they’re going to block singularity? Doesn’t Ray Kurzweil own multiple corporations, can’t see him trying to block it?
IBM is at the forefront of any possible technology needed for singularity and this guy’s demonizing them for their legal status as a group of people who work together using other peoples money (i.e. shareholders)?
It’s articles like this that make me unsubscribe from otherwise intelligent blogs
by gt
Um Noah,
you need to look into this a little more. Multi-National Corporations are a lot more than just a group of people working together. At this point many of them are nearly (if not fully) self organizing, autonomous entities. They “select” individuals that fit their “personality,” and if a person is not furthering their agendas, they are quickly ejected from the system. Ben’s point is that corporations effectively have a self-preservation drive. They are also very powerful. As a few posters have mentioned, there are plenty of cases of corporations (and governments) slowing down technological progress. It is right to be concerned about them doing stupid things in the coming decades because they fear for their survival. However, I am hopeful that they can evolve and become more wise and more compassionate just as individuals can. (They have in the past. 400 years ago there were no liberal democracies.) Times of turmoil often catalyze such growth. Or maybe I should say that such growth precipitates times of turmoil.
by anthony
That is insane. It is conservatives (go ahead and check the root word on that) who insist that we maintain centuries-old dogma about technology, science, individual rights. Which “greens” do you suggest oppose research and science? Other than the base assumptions you make along with your abject ad hominem attacks, you are factually wrong. Add to that your clear unabashed ignorance about the legal (and man-made) doctrines of “liberty” and “personal freedom” and you can be dismissed with confidence. I’m going to take a guess here that your personal hero is that particular writer of romantic fiction who espoused the virtues of sociopaths in a world which never existed.
by Dirk Bruere
Old engineering saying concerning obsoleting your own products: It’s better to shoot yourself in the foot than have your competitors shoot you in the head.
by Giovanni Esposito
In days of old, the spirit of a thing (as distinct from the spirit of a place, Genius loci) was known as an egregore. Traditionally, it was understood that the creation of such a spirit required a group with a strong focus and intent to a common purpose whose members acted together over a period of time to achieve that purpose. The time factor is one aspect that gives the egregore greater density (implacability) the longer its human members maintain their common purpose. Even if an original goal was achieved, the egregore, born of group-intent and knowing no other purpose, continues to exist and influence its members as if they were under its spell. In this sense, the egregore is inflexible and would not be ultimately nurtured as a viable formulation of intent where a strong degree of adaptability was required.
“The symbiotic relationship between an egregore and its group has been compared to the more recent, non-occult concepts of the corporation (as a legal entity) and the meme.” – Wikipedia
The egregore of corporation, holding Industrial Age values paramount, would struggle against the changes Singularity promised, until it’s ultimate demise or departure to an environment where it could maintain its single-minded intent. Such an environment would require a level of intelligence of its members that would not have the wherewithal to escape the spell of such an egregore.
by shagggz
I don’t think they will be dissuaded by the uncertainty generated. I think you are making a sort of presentist fallacy as you are viewing the radical level of uncertainty and change off in the relatively distant future, whose radicality will significantly diminish once we are closer to this future. Your argument could’ve been made a couple centuries ago to reason that corporations would never have invented computers because of the radical amount of change that would create and render many commodities post-scarcity, but in our present time we see the progression as much more understandable, inevitable even.
And I don’t expect true post-scarcity to come anytime soon; as more and more kinds of goods enter the post-scarce realm, certain things such as land and raw materials (or even whuffie) will continue to be scarce and thus a metric by which corporations can aim to maximize their profit.