Comments on: Will corporations prevent the Singularity?

By: Demetrius Marasigan

Demetrius Marasigan — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 01:26:38 +0000

If you would like to take much from this paragraph then you have to apply these techniques to your won website.|

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 12:43:12 +0000

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: Valkyrie Ice

Valkyrie Ice — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:22:32 +0000

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

Dan Foley — Wed, 30 May 2012 02:00:14 +0000

http://wfnt.com/how-greedy-can-a-corporation-be/

By: Dan Foley

Dan Foley — Mon, 28 May 2012 14:52:09 +0000

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: Julian

Julian — Mon, 21 May 2012 23:18:15 +0000

@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: Editor

Editor — Mon, 21 May 2012 05:16:37 +0000

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

Julian — Mon, 21 May 2012 04:25:44 +0000

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: Brian Peterson

Brian Peterson — Sat, 12 May 2012 20:52:47 +0000

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: Carl Brooks

Carl Brooks — Tue, 08 May 2012 23:12:38 +0000

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: Factor-H

Factor-H — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 04:21:46 +0000

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: mechtheist

mechtheist — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:29:00 +0000

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

Factor-H — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:41:06 +0000

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

Factor-H — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:19:09 +0000

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: Gabor

Gabor — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:16:11 +0000

Well said! Thank you, now I feel a bit less weird about putting insects outside of my door instead of killing them…

By: Gabor

Gabor — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:46:22 +0000

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: Edward Maran

Edward Maran — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 03:47:28 +0000

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: Edward Maran

Edward Maran — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 03:40:16 +0000

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: Spikosauropod

Spikosauropod — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:23:54 +0000

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: Factor-H

Factor-H — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:21:57 +0000

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: Lord Penguin

Lord Penguin — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:01:23 +0000

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

Spikosauropod — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 02:25:45 +0000

Finally, somoene says something intelligent.

By: Gabor

Gabor — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:37:09 +0000

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

Spikosauropod — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:20:39 +0000

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: birt

birt — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 19:00:13 +0000

totally agree

By: Lord Penguin

Lord Penguin — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 01:35:21 +0000

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: Marc

Marc — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 22:11:50 +0000

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

frazere — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:34:48 +0000

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: gt

gt — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:29:31 +0000

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: Spikosauropod

Spikosauropod — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 06:22:05 +0000

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: j

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:17:28 +0000

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: Nabu

Nabu — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:01:02 +0000

@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: Giulio Prisco

Giulio Prisco — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:18:32 +0000

@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

Nabu — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 09:55:45 +0000

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: Matt Straw

Matt Straw — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 19:15:27 +0000

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

Spikosauropod — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 03:10:44 +0000

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

Iain — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 23:03:30 +0000

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

Spikosauropod — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:41:54 +0000

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

Giulio Prisco — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:05:57 +0000

@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

DCWhatthe — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:54:07 +0000

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

DCWhatthe — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:45:17 +0000

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

Karl Kelman — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 23:26:03 +0000

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

Arowx — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 05:42:30 +0000

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: Spikosauropod

Spikosauropod — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:29:31 +0000

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: Ben Goertzel

Ben Goertzel — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:46:04 +0000

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

Spikosauropod — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:46:22 +0000

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: xd

xd — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:07:47 +0000

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

trakk — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:20:32 +0000

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: anthony

anthony — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:38:55 +0000

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: gaoptimize

gaoptimize — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:56:16 +0000

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.