An Alternative to Technological Singularity?

George Petelin
Published by Visions of Humanity in Cyberculture Conference 2014. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/critical-
issues/cyber/visions-of-humanity/conference-proramme-abstracts-and-papers/session-1-post-human-concepts/
Abstract
!echnoloical "inularity# as first articulated by "cience $iction writer %ernor %ine# and predicted by futurist &ay
'ur(weil to occur in )ust fourteen years from now# has provided lurid scenarios for the post-cyberpun* enre. +riters such as
Charles "tross and ,eal "tephenson have described worlds where -post-. humans are entirely dependent on machines that have
developed beyond their comprehension and have achieved an uncanny verisimilitude to sentience.
+hile much scepticism prevails in the academic community# 'ur(wiel/s portrayal of the comin phenomenon and that of
the "$ fraternity is predicated on a faith in proress. 0ven thouh# unli*e 'ur(weil# the science fiction writers invariably find
dystopian characteristics in this future# both envisae an unbro*en continuity of technoloical development. 1nd both dream of
machines achievin a level of sophistication beyond human comprehension or of humans merin with their creations to the
point of bein essentially indistinuishable from them.
2owever# 3 will arue that both over-enthusiasm and scepticism reardin this portrayal of robot entities smarter than
humans impede attention to a very real and mundane threatenin phenomenon: the acceleratin comple4ity of technoloies in
eneral and the increasin inability of human institutions to apply these technoloies critically# ethically# and advantaeously.
!echnoloy does not have to be 5smarter/ than us to become incomprehensible# only more comple4 and chane at a rate faster
than social processes can match. !his point# 3 will arue# we have already reached but refuse to admit.
6ut there may yet be another turnin-point at which we decide that the rate of chane needs to decelerate7 our mechanisms
are actually much 5dumber/ that we ourselves could be if only we used them )udiciously and stopped allowin mar*et-driven
hyperbole to persuade us they should be adopted indiscriminately. 8nfortunately# such a 5sinularity/ would need a redefinition
of both proress and machine intellience and will most li*ely be precipitated by a catastrophe# a cataclysmic failure of the
ultimately 5dumb/ technoloies on which we have been persuaded to be utterly dependent.
Key Words: Cyberculture# proress# technoloical sinularity# utopia# dystopia.
*****
1. Singularity
!he protaonists in %ernor %ine/s 19:; novel Marooned in Realtime, attemptin to e4plain the disappearance of a
precedin super civili(ation# sum up both the promise and the apprehension that the sinularity evo*es:
6y 2200# we could increase human intellience itself. 1nd intellience is the basis of all proress. <y uess is
that by midcentury# any oal=any oal you can state ob)ectively# without internal contradictions# could be
achieved. 1nd what would thins be li*e fifty years after that. !here would still be oals and there would still be
strivin# but not what we could understand.
!o call that time >the 04tinction? is absurd. 3t was a "inularity# a place where e4trapolation brea*s down and
new models must be applied. 1nd those new models are beyond our intellience.
1

3n %ine/s novel# civili(ations that attain sinularity vanish from the universe# at least to the perception of everyone else.
!his is because their intellience is so far above the ordinary that their civili(ation is beyond our comprehension and maybe
also because they have chosen a totally different plane of e4istence. !he catch is that# by definition# the nature of this state is
even beyond theorisation. 1nd the second catch is that# because this advance is the result of e4ponentially acceleratin returns#
it will ta*e us almost completely by surprise when it reaches a point on the raph where its rise becomes vertical=virtually of
infinite speed. 3s this threshold then desirable@
%ine is a scientist as well as a writer and the term he first coined in fiction has come to be ta*en so seriously amon
technophiles as to enerate somewhat of a cult and a rane of interpretations and e4trapolations amon professional futurists.
+hat ets debated is the type of intellience that could come about and whether it will remain 5human/ in the sense we now
understand ourselves to be. +ill the technoloy advance with or without its creators@ Ane scenario could be that we will
simply be able to hasten bioloical processes that improve health# increase lonevity# and ensure enouh increased reasonin
power to maintain some control over technoloy while still remainin essentially oranic creatures. !hese creatures# however#
because of enetic manipulation# miht be far from bein human as we now *now it. 1nother pronosis for the 3nformation
!echnoloy revolution suests that 5humans/ of the future may be e4tensively aumented by non-oranic hardware# or even
populated by sub-microscopic nano-computers. 1 combination of these scenarios is deemed hihly li*ely by futurists dubbed
"inularians because of the imminent converence of biotechnoloy and diital computin. 6ut what is also proposed is that
humans may not be able to *eep up with their machines and be replaced by them altoether. !o do this# machines would need
somethin eBuivalent to sentience# a consciousness# a sense of personal purpose apart from that of their creators# and to ta*e
control of their own reproduction and evolution=improve themselves rapidly in ways unimained by their oriinal creators. 3n
An Alternative to Technological ingularity!
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
other words# robots would have to invent a form of se4 and perhaps of 5robot-euenics/. Cet another hypothesis is that human
intellience could mere with the bi lobal machine# be uploaded# to frolic forever in a virtual environment. 6ut most
intriuin is the notion that the e4ponentially rowin internet miht reach a point where its comple4ity enerates an
5emerence/ of a conscious technoloical entity.
3 e4amine some criticisms of these predictions# but what 3 mainly want to arue is that it distracts from more immediate
problems: the fact that an increasin comple4ity and converence of technoloies incontrovertibly e4ists and precipitates
issues Buite apart from the promise or threat of its own sentience.
!he concept of a sinularity based on machine super intellience was first proposed by %ine in a 19:1 novella titled 5!rue
,ames5
2
and was immediately endorsed by <arvin <ins*y a conitive scientist wor*in on 1rtificial 3ntellience.
3
3n 199D
%ine set out its principles within a provocative paper titled The Coming Technological ingularity#
4
1s well as %ine# several
futurists stand out as proponents of sinularity the chief which is &ay 'ur(weil# author of boo*s such as The Age of piritual
Machines

, and The ingularity $s near% &hen Humans Transcend 'iology

!
and articles such as The (a) of Accelerating
Returns
7
# Ather such writers include robotics futurist 2ans <oravec
"
# popular science and "$ writer Eamien 6roderic*#
#
and
arch techno-optimist and proponent of media converence Fames Canton.
1$
1ll of these predict# as does %ine
11
# that the
sinularity is imminent within the ne4t two decades.
"cience $iction writers have pounced on the concept of "inularity with lee but invariably also with criticism: in the
cyberpun* era they produced accounts of dystopian societies approachin# or left behind by# sinularity and# in the post-
cyberpun* phase# )oyfully satirised the predictions and possible conseBuences of "inularity.
12
2. The Ter%s o& 'ebate and Why (achines are )'u%b*
1lthouh there had lon been little academic attention to this phenomenon# serious interdisciplinary discussion is
beinnin to ta*e place. 2owever# as amon the professional futurists# technoloical over-enthusiasm continues to limit
criticism to speculation instead of addressin what is actually occurrin. 3 use the followin debate started by philosopher
Eavid Chalmers to demonstrate the e4plicit and implicit issues at sta*e.
"ettin out to critiBue the dominant "inularian paradim# Chalmers starts to set out its parameters by Buotin 3.F. Good in
his 19;H article 5"peculations Concernin the $irst 8ltraintellient <achine/:
Iet an ultraintellient machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man
however clever. "ince the desin of machines is one of these intellectual activities# an ultra- intellient machine could
desin even better machines7 there would then unBuestionably be an 5intellience e4plosion/# and the intellience of man
would be left far behind. !hus the first ultraintellient machine is the last invention that man need ever ma*e.
1D
1cceptin this definition as his startin point# Chalmers ac*nowledes# but bypasses# the Buestion of what is intellience
and instead interroates the timeframe promised by "inularians. &e)ectin hardware e4trapolations based on 5<oore/s law/#
he writes 5<y own view is that the history of artificial intellience suests that the biest bottlenec* on the path to 13 is
software# not hardware: we have to find the riht alorithms# and no-one has come close to findin them yet/.
14
3n brief# Chalmers does not re)ect the possibility of 13 and even super-13 since he holds that the human is a bioloical
machine and therefore there is no reason why we cannot duplicate what evolution has achieved. 2e also considers it a
li*elihood that recursive machines will lead to an e4plosion of intellience and hence to reater happiness. !his is despite the
fact that the proress of science has not thus far had a ood trac* record in this last reard# when all is considered.
,ow# alorithms are precise steps or instructions# principles of operation that allow calculation to ta*e place. !hey are
unli*e heuristics which are the fle4ible rules of thumb that uide embodied human interaction within the unpredictable totality
of their comple4 sensory and social environment. &ather than mathematical operations heuristics are more in the nature of
personal disciplines.
1 *ind of o4ymoron# the term 5heuristic alorithm/# has been coined by computer scientists to describe prorams that that
employ random choices and fu((y loic because it is theorised that they can arrive at a near optimum solution Buic*ly#
althouh a perfect solution only in infinite time. Ii*e heuristics employed by humans# they are thouht to be the path to new
discoveries and inventions. Computer heuristic alorithms nonetheless remain strictly defined calculations performed on
specified forms of data and not interpretations or )udements based on a totality of e4perience. <oreover# the criteria for
determinin whether their solution is 5optimum/ are necessarily finite and limited or else one would still have to wait for an
infinite time to ma*e that )udement. 3n an interview reardin the possibility of 13# ,oam Choms*y# whose theory of the
hierarchy of formal rammars
1H
is interal to distinuishin simple from comple4 alorithms# says:
+hat/s a proram@ 1 proram is a theory7 it/s a theory written in an arcane# comple4 notation desined to be e4ecuted by
the machine. +hat about the proram# you as*@ !he same Buestions you as* about any other theory: Eoes it ive insiht
and understandin@ !hese theories don/t.
1;
Abservin that# in addition to data processin# computation invariably reBuires humans to interpret 5multitudinous/#
5vaue/# and 5ambiuous/ real data and circumstances in terms of propositions which then need reduction to their 5elementary
denials/ before processin# and ultimately human interpretation of results# loician Fohn %enn in 1::1 dismissed the possibility
that 5any contrivances at present *nown or li*ely to be discovered Jmy italicsK really deserve the name of loical machines/.
1L
1nd virtually every definition of an alorithm stresses its precision at the e4pense of ambiuity and subtlety that characterises
human thin*in and e4perience. Eaniel Eennett sums up the limitation of alorithms:
2
George Petelin
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
,o matter how impressive the products of an alorithm# the underlyin process always consists of nothin but a set of
individually mindless steps succeedin each other without the help of any intellient supervision7 they are ?automatic? by
definition: the wor*ins of an automaton.
1:

1s Fohn "earle points out# in aspirin to intellience# computers attempt to deal with symbols but symbols in human society
derive their meanin not only from the rammar of their lanuae but out of the circumstances of their performance and
reception. 5,othin is intrinsically computational/ says "earle# 5Computation e4ists only relative to some aent or observer
who imposes a computational interpretation on some phenomenon M/.
19
!he eBuivocation that confuses alorithmic calculation with intellience leads to both an anthropomorphism and an
overreliance on technoloy. Chalmers proceeds to hypothesise how the threat of machines may be controlled by desinin
them to have 5values/ or limits in their functionality.
1nd how does he believe it should be determined what values machines should have@ +hy# by modellin their li*ely
proress in a computerN 1ain and aain# a technoloical solution# ad)ustin the alorithm in the machine# is called to the
rescue rather than an interroation of how )e use machines and how our political economy encouraes us to use them.
!a*in a somewhat abrupt leap from computational 5intellience/ to consciousness# Chalmers sees it as inevitable that the
conscious super-13 will successfully neotiate with humans to free itself from whatever constraints it reards as irrational. !he
only way to reinterate ourselves into this reime# accordin to Chalmers# would be to upload ourselves into the machines. 2e
then proceeds to discuss the merits of various ways of 5uploadin/ a human consciousness into the computer: whether this
would result in immortality or duplication of livin beins and related Buestions.
<uch of the debate that occurs amon "inularists is based on circular aruments. Computation is considered to be
intellience as a first premise. 3ntellect# consciousness# and humanity# then all become uncritically conflated with this
5intellience/. $or e4ample# FOren "chmidhuber# in replyin to Chalmers/s paper# cateorically asserts that
!he scientific way of measurin intellience involves measurin problem solvin capacity. !here are mathematically sound
ways of doin this# usin basic concepts of theoretical computer science# all of them avoidin the sub)ectivity of the ancient
and popular but scientifically not very useful !urin test# which essentially says 5intellient is what 3 feel is intellient.
20
"chmidhuber/s notion of intellience derives from computer science rather than from the humanities# which surely have a
primary sta*e in its definition. 3ntellience# in this conte4t# is entirely a matter of calculation rather than phenomenoloical
e4perience. 3f computers bein as the yardstic* of intellience# they will surely also end up bein )uded the epitome of its
attainment. !hus# almost predictably# "chmidhuber concludes that 5there already e4ists the blueprint of a 8niversal 13 which
will solve almost all problems almost as Buic*ly as if it already *new the best -un*nown. alorithm for solvin them/.
21

Conflatin hardware with software and neuroloical structure with intellect# "chmidhuber arues that such a 8niversal 13
would 5create feature hierarchies# lower level neurons correspondin to simple feature detectors similar to those found in
human brains# hiher layer neurons typically correspondin to more abstract features# but fine-rained where necessary/.
22

1nother reply to Chalmers# by $rancis 2eylihen# claims to adopt a 5situated and embodied view of conition/# notin that
5intellience is rooted in a hih-bandwidth# sensory-motor interaction with the outside world/.
2D
Pointin out Chalmers/s
reductionist nelect of holistic embodied e4perience and accusin him and other "inularity theorists of mind-matter dualism#
2eylihen nonetheless also proposes a technoloical solution=computer networ*in.
3n networ*ed technoloies# he arues#
the mind is no loner locali(ed in any particular component# but distributed over a massive number of internal and
e4ternal components which all cooperate in a self-orani(in manner. 3ntellience -and with it consciousness. can
then be seen as an emerent phenomenon of coordination between these processes# an interated manner of dealin
with an enormous amount of bits and pieces that toether determine an individual/s e4perience of its situation# and
that define a potential problem to be dealt with.
24
1s a result of this consideration# 2eylihen notes that
3n the last decade or so# the focus of 13 has therefore shifted towards machine learnin and data minin# i.e. lettin the
computer proram itself e4tract *nowlede from the hue amounts of data available in speciali(ed databases and on
the web.
2H

1c*nowledin that most data is entered by humans# 2eylihen sees the 13/s lac* of a bioloical body only a temporary
handicap. 1part from ma*in the absurd conclusion that sheer comple4ity inevitably leads to the emerence of consciousness
-we can as* for e4ample why the brain of a corpse# no less comple4 than when it was livin# lac*s consciousness.# he inores a
multitude of sinister factors implicit in the accomplishment of this stratey: the ethical issue of mass surveillance# the fact that
increasin obliations to enter data reduce us to disempowered servants of the techno-economic comple4# the fact that much of
this data is reductivist# distorted# or sheer misinformation# and the unwarranted assumption that the data will be used for
benevolent problem-solvin. ,onetheless# 2eylihen )udes that
Mthere are plenty of observations as well as theoretical aruments for believin that this collective system# which
may be called the Global 6rain# is not only intellient# but becomin Buic*ly more intellient. !he reason is that its
D
An Alternative to Technological ingularity!
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
self-orani(ation is facilitated and accelerated by the seeminly unpreventable processes of lobali(ation and of the
increasin spread of information and communication technoloy. !he result of these processes is that information
about what is happenin on this planet becomes ever more easily available# helpin us to ma*e better# more informed
decisions# and to tac*le more comple4 problems.
2;

,ot only is technoloy thus rendered unproblematic but# toether with it# the whole process of lobalisation.
3. What are the real threats?
!he entire debate is confused throuh an inability to define or admit what is human intellience# what are intellectual
activities# and what constitutes bein 5better/ at them. 3t is repeatedly implied that intellect can be reduced to mere calculation.
1nd this sort of intellect is independent of social and personal parameters. Cet human achievements in our society by definition
are measured in terms of the Buality of human satisfaction that they enerate in relation to a specific individual or a roup
within society# rather than in terms of some comple4ity or Buantity of problem solvin. "ome e4tremely simple inventions and
wor*s of art reBuirin little calculation are considered achievements of enius. Eespite this# and the essentially dispassionate
nature of the alorithms on which 5robots/ of the future must be based# they are invariably conceived as some *ind of
homunculi# with potential personal and social oals and desires eBuivalent to the most superficial aspirations attributed to
humans in western society.
1lthouh they may mimic human behaviour# there can be no spontaneous affect# no unconscious nor philosophical
dimension to these calculatin machines. !here are no conseBuences that they can be committed to e4cept abstractly 5better/
performance accordin to ethically and politically unspecified criteria. !hey are the ultimate triumph of instrumental reason
without purpose. !hey are# in short# manaerial bureaucrats# 5ob)ectively/ carryin out tas*s in (ombie fashion without any
commitment to intrinsic e4perience. !he frihtenin thin is that we are reBuired to be increasinly li*e them# <achines are
not turnin themselves into people# it is we who are turnin into mindless performers of alorithms in the service of blind
accumulation and rowth.
3 would arue that the process of turnin us into robots has already beun# but that it is not of the same nature and as
inevitable or desirable as arued by <orovac.
2L
+hat is crucial is not that our bodily parts# or even our calculatin ability# are
bein replaced# but that we are abroatin our )udement and our human rihts to the idol of technoloy and its commercial
interests. !hus any concern about the potential consciousness and tyranny over humans of robots is sadly misplaced. !he real
issue is the rihts of human individuals and communities in relation to commercial interests vested in alorithm-operated
corporations# accountin systems# software services# and the li*e. 3t is precisely their lac* of consciousness that ma*es these
mechanisms a tyrannical threat to humanity.
4. Techno+o,oti%is% and the inevitable colla,se o& global -T
!he adoption of e4treme optimistic positions reardin technoloy by industry fiures such as 'ur(weil and <ins*y can be
e4plained simply. &obert Geraci in his research for the boo* Apocalyptic A$, found that researchers in robotics were concerned
with far more mundane issues of simply ettin a robot to wor* and in the main were not an4ious about their transcendental or
ethical conseBuences.
0ventually# 3 ained a clearer understandin of how prestie and public approval of robotics/13 research plays a role in
1pocalyptic 13=robotics and 13 en)oy overnment support as a conseBuence of the fantastic promises made by
1pocalyptic 13 authors. Promises of intellient robots and uploaded consciousness could have replicated successfully
throuh science Pction without ever mi4in so closely with laboratory science# as they do in 1pocalyptic 13 pop science
boo*s. !he value of the apocalyptic imaination lies in its power to create e4citement in the lay public and overnment
fundin aencies. Pop science in eneral# and 1pocalyptic 13 in particular# is a=sometimes conscious# sometimes
unconscious=stratey for the acBuisition of cultural prestie# especially as such prestie is measured in Pnancial support.
2:
!here are unfortunate potential conseBuences of technoloy converence# the cult of optimism surroundin it# and its real
or apparent e4ponential proress that have ained little purchase in the debates. Ane is that e4ponential rowth is not infinitely
sustainable. 1nother# is that when it even falters# and more so if it collapses# everythin we do will be affected. 2owever# the
hype that attends technoloy continues to ure us to trust in mindless alorithmic proress and put all our resources into one
ultimately fraile bas*et.
.otes
4
1
%ine# Marooned in Realtime.
2
%ine# 5!rue ,ames/.
D
<ins*y# The ociety of Mind. <ins*y first wrote part of this as an epiloue for %ernor %ine/s +!rue ,ames/#
4
%ine# 5!he Comin !echnoloical "inularity/.
H
'ur(weil# The Age of piritual Machines.
;
'ur(weil# The ingularity $s near.
L
'ur(weil# ?!he Iaw of 1cceleratin &eturns./
:
<oravec# Robot.
9
6roderic*# The pi*e.
10
Canton# The ,-treme .uture.
11
%ine# 5!he Comin !echnoloical "inularity./
12
&aulerson# ?"inularities./
1D
Chalmers# 5!he "inularity#/ L.
14
3bid.# 12.
1H
Choms*y# 5!hree <odels for the Eescription of Ianuae./
1;
5,oam Choms*y on "inularity 1 on 1: !he "inularity 3s "cience $ictionN/
1L
%enn# ymbolic (ogic# 1;1.
1:
Eennett# /ar)in0s /angerous $dea% ,volution and the Meanings of (ife# H9.
19
"earle# Consciousness and (anguage# 1L.
20
"chmidhuber# 5Philosophers Q $uturists# Catch up#/ 1LH.
21
3bid.# 1LL.
22
3bid.# 1:0.
2D
2eylihen# ?1 6rain in a %at Cannot 6rea* out#? 12;.
24
3bid.# 1D0.
2H
3bid.# 1D2.
2;
3bid.# 1D:R1D9.
2L
Geraci# Apocalyptic A$# D0.
2:
Geraci# Apocalyptic A$# D.
/ibliogra,hy
6roderic*# Eamien. The pi*e% Ho) 1ur (ives Are 'eing Transformed by Rapidly Advancing Technologies. 1st ed. ,ew
Cor*: $ore# 2001.
Canton# Fames. The ,-treme .uture% The Top Trends That &ill Reshape the &orld for the ne-t 2, 34, and 54 6ears. ,ew
Cor*: Eutton# 200;.
Chalmers# Eavid. 5!he "inularity: 1 Philosophical 1nalysis./ 7ournal of Consciousness tudies 1L# no. 9R10 -2010.: LR;H.
Choms*y# ,oam. 5!hree <odels for the Eescription of Ianuae./ $nformation Theory, $R, Transactions on 2# no. D
-19H;.: 11DR24.
Eennett# Eaniel C. /ar)in0s /angerous $dea% ,volution and the Meanings of (ife. Iondon: Penuin 6oo*s# 199;.
Geraci# &obert <. Apocalyptic A$% Visions of Heaven in Robotics, Artificial $ntelligence, and Virtual Reality. ,ew Cor*:
A4ford 8niversity Press# 2010.
2eylihen# $rancis. 51 6rain in a %at Cannot 6rea* out: +hy the "inularity <ust 6e 04tended# 0mbedded and
0mbodied./ 7ournal of Consciousness tudies 19# no. 1R2 -2012.: 12;R42.
'ac(yns*i# !heodore Fohn. The 8nabomber0s Manifesto. $indlay Publishin Company# 200;.
'ur(weil# &ay. The Age of piritual Machines% &hen Computers ,-ceed Human $ntelligence. ,ew Cor*: %i*in# 1999.
===. 5!he Iaw of 1cceleratin &eturns./ 3n Alan Turing% (ife and (egacy of a Great Thin*er# D:1R41;. "priner# 2004.
===. The ingularity $s near% &hen Humans Transcend 'iology. ,ew Cor*: %i*in# 200H.
<ins*y# <arvin Iee. The ociety of Mind. ,ew Cor*: "imon and "chuster# 19:;.
<oravec# 2ans P. Robot% Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind. A4ford 8niversity Press# 2000.
5,oam Choms*y on "inularity 1 on 1: !he "inularity 3s "cience $ictionN/ 1ccessed $ebruary 14# 2014.
http://www.sinularityweblo.com/noam-choms*y-the-sinularity-is-science-fiction/.
&aulerson# Foshua !homas. 5"inularities: !echnoculture# !ranshumanism# and "cience $iction in the 21st Century#/ 2010.
http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/29;:/.
"chmidhuber# FOren. 5Philosophers Q $uturists# Catch up./ 7ournal of Consciousness tudies 19# no. 1R2 -2012.: 1LDR:2.
"earle# Fohn &. Consciousness and (anguage. ,ew Cor*: Cambride 8niversity Press# 2002.
%enn# Fohn. ymbolic (ogic. Iondon: <acmillan# 1::1. https://archive.or/details/symbolicloic00venniala.
%ine# %ernor. Marooned in Realtime. ,ew Cor*: 6aen 6oo*s# 19:L.
===. 5!he Comin !echnoloical "inularity./ &hole ,arth Revie) :1 -199D.: ::R9H.
===. 5!rue ,ames./ 3n 'inary tar 9o# 2# edited by Fames & $ren*el. ,ew Cor*: Eell# 19:1.