Log

The Singularity Controversy: 3 years later

 

A London Futurists Meetup

14 May 2016, 14:00–16:00, Birbeck College

Download the slides

Cite as: Amnon H. Eden, “The Singularity Controversy: Three Years Later“, Sapience Project, London Futurists Meetup (14 May 2016), Birbeck College, London, DOI 10.13140/RG.2.1.1878.7448

Three years have passed since the publication of the volume of essays “The Singularity Hypotheses” — a publication that was marked at the time by a London Futurists discussion event. During these three years, public awareness of the concepts of an intelligence explosion has grown sharply – fuelled, in part, by statements from luminaries such as Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk.

In this event, Amnon Eden, lead editor of Singularity Hypotheses, returns to London Futurists to provide an update on the controversies about the Singularity. Topics to be covered will include:

• Luddites, Philistines, and Starry-Eyed: The War over Killer Robots
• AI (Artificial Intelligence) vs. IA (Intelligence Augmentation)
• “Technological Singularity”: A Definition, Sufficient and Necessary Conditions
• Perennial Fallacies, Debunked and Re-debunked
• Learning from the media storm

Registration & Further details

Related posts:

Energetics of the Brain and AI

Sapience Technical Report STR 2016-02 Author: Anders Sandberg Does the energy requirements for the human brain give energy constraints that give reason to doubt the feasibility of artificial intelligence? In Energetics of the Brain & AI I review some relevant estimates of brain bioenergetics and analyze some of the methods of estimating brain emulation energy requirements.

The Singularity Controversy, Part I

Sapience Technical Report STR 2016-1 Author: Amnon H. Eden ‘The Singularity Controversy, Part I: Lessons Learned and Open Questions: Conclusions from the Battle on the Legitimacy of the Debate‘ informs policy makers on the nature and the merit of the arguments for and against the concerns associated with a potential technological singularity. Part I describes the lessons learned from our investigation of the subject, separating the arguments of merit from the fallacies and misconceptions that confuse the debate and undermine its rational resolution.

Leave a Reply