<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="zh-Hans-CN">
	<id>https://wiki.swarma.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Alchemist</id>
	<title>集智百科 - 复杂系统|人工智能|复杂科学|复杂网络|自组织 - 用户贡献 [zh-cn]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://wiki.swarma.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Alchemist"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php/%E7%89%B9%E6%AE%8A:%E7%94%A8%E6%88%B7%E8%B4%A1%E7%8C%AE/Alchemist"/>
	<updated>2026-11-04T02:07:52Z</updated>
	<subtitle>用户贡献</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.0</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=Causation,_Prediction,_and_Search&amp;diff=33484</id>
		<title>Causation, Prediction, and Search</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=Causation,_Prediction,_and_Search&amp;diff=33484"/>
		<updated>2022-09-29T01:49:40Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Alchemist：&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[文件:Causation, Prediction, and Search.jpg|替代=|缩略图|Causation, Prediction, and Search]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=内容简介-英文=&lt;br /&gt;
      What assumptions and methods allow us to turn observations into causal knowledge, and how can even incomplete causal knowledge be used in planning and prediction to influence and control our environment? In this book Peter Spirtes, Clark Glymour, and Richard Scheines address these questions using the formalism of Bayes networks, with results that have been applied in diverse areas of research in the social, behavioral, and physical sciences.The authors show that although experimental and observational study designs may not always permit the same inferences, they are subject to uniform principles. They axiomatize the connection between causal structure and probabilistic independence, explore several varieties of causal indistinguishability, formulate a theory of manipulation, and develop asymptotically reliable procedures for searching over equivalence classes of causal models, including models of categorical data and structural equation models with and without latent variables.The authors show that the relationship between causality and probability can also help to clarify such diverse topics in statistics as the comparative power of experimentation versus observation, Simpson's paradox, errors in regression models, retrospective versus prospective sampling, and variable selection. The second edition contains a new introduction and an extensive survey of advances and applications that have appeared since the first edition was published in 1993.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=内容简介-中文=&lt;br /&gt;
什么样的假设和方法可以让我们将观察结果转化为因果知识，以及不完整的因果知识如何能够用于规划和预测，以影响和控制我们的环境?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在这本书中，Peter spirtes, clark glymour 和 Richard scheines 使用贝叶斯网络的形式来解决这些问题，其结果已经应用于社会、行为和物理科学的不同研究领域。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
作者指出，尽管实验和观察性研究设计可能不总是允许相同的推论，但它们遵循统一的原则。他们公理化了因果结构和概率独立性之间的联系，探索了几种不同的因果不可区分性，制定了一种操作理论，并开发了在'''因果模型的等价类中搜索'''的渐近可靠过程，包括有潜在变量和没有潜在变量的分类数据模型和结构方程模型。作者表明，因果关系和概率之间的关系也可以帮助澄清统计学中的不同主题，如：实验与观察的比较效力(power)，辛普森悖论，回归模型中的错误，回顾性与前瞻性抽样，以及变量选择。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第二版载有一个新的导言和对自1993年第一版出版以来出现的进展和应用的广泛调查。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=基本信息=&lt;br /&gt;
书名：Causation, Prediction, and Search&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
作者：[https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php/Peter_Spirtes Peter Spirtes] / [https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php/Clark_Glymour Clark Glymour] / Richard Scheines &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=作者介绍=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=内容目录=&lt;br /&gt;
1 Introduction and Advertisement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 Formal Preliminaries&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3 Causation and Prediction: Axioms and Explications&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4 Statistical Indistinguishability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5 Discovery Algorithms for Causally Sufficient Structures&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6 Discovery Algorithms without Causal Sufficiency&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7 Prediction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8 Regression, Causation, and Prediction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9 The Design of Empirical Studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
10 The Structure of the Unobserved&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
11 Elaborating Linear Theories with Unmeasured Variables&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
12 Prequels and Sequels&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
13 Proofs of Theorems&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=资源获取=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=相关wiki=&lt;br /&gt;
*[[因果推断 Causal inference]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[因果涌现 Causal Emergence]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[因果科学社区]]&lt;br /&gt;
=编者推荐=&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:因果推断.png|400px|right|thumb|[https://campus.swarma.org/course/1798 因果推理与机器学习读书会]]]&lt;br /&gt;
===集智俱乐部读书会推荐===&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://campus.swarma.org/course/1798 因果推理与机器学习读书会]====&lt;br /&gt;
大数据时代的下一场变革——因果革命正在酝酿之中，通过融合因果推理和机器学习而构建出来的Causal AI系统，有望奠定强人工智能的基石。集智俱乐部联合北京智源人工智能研究院，邀请了一批对因果科学与Casual AI感兴趣的研究者，开展为期2-3个月的系列线上读书会，研读经典和前沿论文，并尝试集体撰写一部书籍。&lt;br /&gt;
===集智俱乐部相关文章===&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://swarma.org/?p=27204 图模型与因果推理基础- SCM框架和Do-Calculus]====&lt;br /&gt;
:本文主要串讲了Pearl因果识别框架的基础知识，包括图模型、结构因果模型的范式，三种识别策略，以及如何运用do- calculus的三种规则来进行因果识别。本篇内容整理自因果科学读书会第一季。&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://swarma.org/?p=34072 第二种想象力：社会科学中的因果推断]====&lt;br /&gt;
:本文中南京大学陈云松教授从“因果”和“数据”两个维度，用因果推断、大数据和机器学习等方面的系列研究案例，阐释第二种想象力的八类思维面向。&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://pattern.swarma.org/article/145 因果科学的学习路线图]====&lt;br /&gt;
:本文主要根据对因果推断引擎的介绍，为关注因果科学领域的初学者提供了完整的学习路径&lt;br /&gt;
----本中文词条由因果读书会词条梳理志愿者[[用户:于沂渭|一尾鱼]]编辑，未经专家审核，带来阅读不便，请见谅。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''本词条内容源自wikipedia及公开资料，遵守 CC3.0协议。'''&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Alchemist</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=Causation,_Prediction,_and_Search&amp;diff=33483</id>
		<title>Causation, Prediction, and Search</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=Causation,_Prediction,_and_Search&amp;diff=33483"/>
		<updated>2022-09-29T01:49:07Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Alchemist：&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[文件:Causation, Prediction, and Search.jpg|替代=|缩略图|Causation, Prediction, and Search]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=内容简介-英文=&lt;br /&gt;
      What assumptions and methods allow us to turn observations into causal knowledge, and how can even incomplete causal knowledge be used in planning and prediction to influence and control our environment? In this book Peter Spirtes, Clark Glymour, and Richard Scheines address these questions using the formalism of Bayes networks, with results that have been applied in diverse areas of research in the social, behavioral, and physical sciences.The authors show that although experimental and observational study designs may not always permit the same inferences, they are subject to uniform principles. They axiomatize the connection between causal structure and probabilistic independence, explore several varieties of causal indistinguishability, formulate a theory of manipulation, and develop asymptotically reliable procedures for searching over equivalence classes of causal models, including models of categorical data and structural equation models with and without latent variables.The authors show that the relationship between causality and probability can also help to clarify such diverse topics in statistics as the comparative power of experimentation versus observation, Simpson's paradox, errors in regression models, retrospective versus prospective sampling, and variable selection. The second edition contains a new introduction and an extensive survey of advances and applications that have appeared since the first edition was published in 1993.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=内容简介-中文=&lt;br /&gt;
什么样的假设和方法可以让我们将观察结果转化为因果知识，以及不完整的因果知识如何能够用于规划和预测，以影响和控制我们的环境?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在这本书中，Peter spirtes, clark glymour 和 Richard scheines 使用贝叶斯网络的形式来解决这些问题，其结果已经应用于社会、行为和物理科学的不同研究领域。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
作者指出，尽管实验和观察性研究设计可能不总是允许相同的推论，但它们遵循统一的原则。他们公理化了因果结构和概率独立性之间的联系，探索了几种不同的因果不可区分性，制定了一种操作理论，并开发了在'''因果模型的等价类中搜索'''的渐近可靠过程，包括有潜在变量和没有潜在变量的分类数据模型和结构方程模型。作者表明，因果关系和概率之间的关系也可以帮助澄清统计学中的不同主题，如：实验与观察的比较效力(power)，辛普森悖论，回归模型中的错误，回顾性与前瞻性抽样，以及变量选择。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第二版载有一个新的导言和对自1993年第一版出版以来出现的进展和应用的广泛调查。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=基本信息=&lt;br /&gt;
书名：Causation, Prediction, and Search&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
作者：[https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php/Peter_Spirtes Peter Spirtes] / Clark Glymour / Richard Scheines &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=作者介绍=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=内容目录=&lt;br /&gt;
1 Introduction and Advertisement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 Formal Preliminaries&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3 Causation and Prediction: Axioms and Explications&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4 Statistical Indistinguishability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5 Discovery Algorithms for Causally Sufficient Structures&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6 Discovery Algorithms without Causal Sufficiency&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7 Prediction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8 Regression, Causation, and Prediction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9 The Design of Empirical Studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
10 The Structure of the Unobserved&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
11 Elaborating Linear Theories with Unmeasured Variables&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
12 Prequels and Sequels&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
13 Proofs of Theorems&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=资源获取=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=相关wiki=&lt;br /&gt;
*[[因果推断 Causal inference]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[因果涌现 Causal Emergence]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[因果科学社区]]&lt;br /&gt;
=编者推荐=&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:因果推断.png|400px|right|thumb|[https://campus.swarma.org/course/1798 因果推理与机器学习读书会]]]&lt;br /&gt;
===集智俱乐部读书会推荐===&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://campus.swarma.org/course/1798 因果推理与机器学习读书会]====&lt;br /&gt;
大数据时代的下一场变革——因果革命正在酝酿之中，通过融合因果推理和机器学习而构建出来的Causal AI系统，有望奠定强人工智能的基石。集智俱乐部联合北京智源人工智能研究院，邀请了一批对因果科学与Casual AI感兴趣的研究者，开展为期2-3个月的系列线上读书会，研读经典和前沿论文，并尝试集体撰写一部书籍。&lt;br /&gt;
===集智俱乐部相关文章===&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://swarma.org/?p=27204 图模型与因果推理基础- SCM框架和Do-Calculus]====&lt;br /&gt;
:本文主要串讲了Pearl因果识别框架的基础知识，包括图模型、结构因果模型的范式，三种识别策略，以及如何运用do- calculus的三种规则来进行因果识别。本篇内容整理自因果科学读书会第一季。&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://swarma.org/?p=34072 第二种想象力：社会科学中的因果推断]====&lt;br /&gt;
:本文中南京大学陈云松教授从“因果”和“数据”两个维度，用因果推断、大数据和机器学习等方面的系列研究案例，阐释第二种想象力的八类思维面向。&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://pattern.swarma.org/article/145 因果科学的学习路线图]====&lt;br /&gt;
:本文主要根据对因果推断引擎的介绍，为关注因果科学领域的初学者提供了完整的学习路径&lt;br /&gt;
----本中文词条由因果读书会词条梳理志愿者[[用户:于沂渭|一尾鱼]]编辑，未经专家审核，带来阅读不便，请见谅。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''本词条内容源自wikipedia及公开资料，遵守 CC3.0协议。'''&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Alchemist</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=Causation,_Prediction,_and_Search&amp;diff=32909</id>
		<title>Causation, Prediction, and Search</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=Causation,_Prediction,_and_Search&amp;diff=32909"/>
		<updated>2022-07-10T13:53:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Alchemist：&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[文件:Causation, Prediction, and Search.jpg|替代=|缩略图|Causation, Prediction, and Search]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=内容简介-英文=&lt;br /&gt;
      What assumptions and methods allow us to turn observations into causal knowledge, and how can even incomplete causal knowledge be used in planning and prediction to influence and control our environment? In this book Peter Spirtes, Clark Glymour, and Richard Scheines address these questions using the formalism of Bayes networks, with results that have been applied in diverse areas of research in the social, behavioral, and physical sciences.The authors show that although experimental and observational study designs may not always permit the same inferences, they are subject to uniform principles. They axiomatize the connection between causal structure and probabilistic independence, explore several varieties of causal indistinguishability, formulate a theory of manipulation, and develop asymptotically reliable procedures for searching over equivalence classes of causal models, including models of categorical data and structural equation models with and without latent variables.The authors show that the relationship between causality and probability can also help to clarify such diverse topics in statistics as the comparative power of experimentation versus observation, Simpson's paradox, errors in regression models, retrospective versus prospective sampling, and variable selection. The second edition contains a new introduction and an extensive survey of advances and applications that have appeared since the first edition was published in 1993.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=内容简介-中文=&lt;br /&gt;
什么样的假设和方法可以让我们将观察结果转化为因果知识，以及不完整的因果知识如何能够用于规划和预测，以影响和控制我们的环境?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在这本书中，Peter spirtes, clark glymour 和 Richard scheines 使用贝叶斯网络的形式来解决这些问题，其结果已经应用于社会、行为和物理科学的不同研究领域。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
作者指出，尽管实验和观察性研究设计可能不总是允许相同的推论，但它们遵循统一的原则。他们公理化了因果结构和概率独立性之间的联系，探索了几种不同的因果不可区分性，制定了一种操作理论，并开发了在'''因果模型的等价类中搜索'''的渐近可靠过程，包括有潜在变量和没有潜在变量的分类数据模型和结构方程模型。作者表明，因果关系和概率之间的关系也可以帮助澄清统计学中的不同主题，如：实验与观察的比较效力(power)，辛普森悖论，回归模型中的错误，回顾性与前瞻性抽样，以及变量选择。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第二版载有一个新的导言和对自1993年第一版出版以来出现的进展和应用的广泛调查。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=基本信息=&lt;br /&gt;
书名：Causation, Prediction, and Search&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
作者：Peter Spirtes / Clark Glymour / Richard Scheines &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=作者介绍=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=内容目录=&lt;br /&gt;
1 Introduction and Advertisement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 Formal Preliminaries&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3 Causation and Prediction: Axioms and Explications&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4 Statistical Indistinguishability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5 Discovery Algorithms for Causally Sufficient Structures&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6 Discovery Algorithms without Causal Sufficiency&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7 Prediction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8 Regression, Causation, and Prediction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9 The Design of Empirical Studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
10 The Structure of the Unobserved&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
11 Elaborating Linear Theories with Unmeasured Variables&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
12 Prequels and Sequels&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
13 Proofs of Theorems&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=资源获取=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=相关wiki=&lt;br /&gt;
*[[因果推断 Causal inference]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[因果涌现 Causal Emergence]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[因果科学社区]]&lt;br /&gt;
=编者推荐=&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:因果推断.png|400px|right|thumb|[https://campus.swarma.org/course/1798 因果推理与机器学习读书会]]]&lt;br /&gt;
===集智俱乐部读书会推荐===&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://campus.swarma.org/course/1798 因果推理与机器学习读书会]====&lt;br /&gt;
大数据时代的下一场变革——因果革命正在酝酿之中，通过融合因果推理和机器学习而构建出来的Causal AI系统，有望奠定强人工智能的基石。集智俱乐部联合北京智源人工智能研究院，邀请了一批对因果科学与Casual AI感兴趣的研究者，开展为期2-3个月的系列线上读书会，研读经典和前沿论文，并尝试集体撰写一部书籍。&lt;br /&gt;
===集智俱乐部相关文章===&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://swarma.org/?p=27204 图模型与因果推理基础- SCM框架和Do-Calculus]====&lt;br /&gt;
:本文主要串讲了Pearl因果识别框架的基础知识，包括图模型、结构因果模型的范式，三种识别策略，以及如何运用do- calculus的三种规则来进行因果识别。本篇内容整理自因果科学读书会第一季。&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://swarma.org/?p=34072 第二种想象力：社会科学中的因果推断]====&lt;br /&gt;
:本文中南京大学陈云松教授从“因果”和“数据”两个维度，用因果推断、大数据和机器学习等方面的系列研究案例，阐释第二种想象力的八类思维面向。&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://pattern.swarma.org/article/145 因果科学的学习路线图]====&lt;br /&gt;
:本文主要根据对因果推断引擎的介绍，为关注因果科学领域的初学者提供了完整的学习路径&lt;br /&gt;
----本中文词条由因果读书会词条梳理志愿者[[用户:于沂渭|一尾鱼]]编辑，未经专家审核，带来阅读不便，请见谅。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''本词条内容源自wikipedia及公开资料，遵守 CC3.0协议。'''&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Alchemist</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=Causation,_Prediction,_and_Search&amp;diff=32908</id>
		<title>Causation, Prediction, and Search</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=Causation,_Prediction,_and_Search&amp;diff=32908"/>
		<updated>2022-07-10T13:48:33Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Alchemist：&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[文件:Causation, Prediction, and Search.jpg|替代=|缩略图|Causation, Prediction, and Search]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=内容简介-英文=&lt;br /&gt;
      What assumptions and methods allow us to turn observations into causal knowledge, and how can even incomplete causal knowledge be used in planning and prediction to influence and control our environment? In this book Peter Spirtes, Clark Glymour, and Richard Scheines address these questions using the formalism of Bayes networks, with results that have been applied in diverse areas of research in the social, behavioral, and physical sciences.The authors show that although experimental and observational study designs may not always permit the same inferences, they are subject to uniform principles. They axiomatize the connection between causal structure and probabilistic independence, explore several varieties of causal indistinguishability, formulate a theory of manipulation, and develop asymptotically reliable procedures for searching over equivalence classes of causal models, including models of categorical data and structural equation models with and without latent variables.The authors show that the relationship between causality and probability can also help to clarify such diverse topics in statistics as the comparative power of experimentation versus observation, Simpson's paradox, errors in regression models, retrospective versus prospective sampling, and variable selection. The second edition contains a new introduction and an extensive survey of advances and applications that have appeared since the first edition was published in 1993.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=内容简介-中文=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=基本信息=&lt;br /&gt;
书名：Causation, Prediction, and Search&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
作者：Peter Spirtes / Clark Glymour / Richard Scheines &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=作者介绍=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=内容目录=&lt;br /&gt;
1 Introduction and Advertisement&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 Formal Preliminaries&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3 Causation and Prediction: Axioms and Explications&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4 Statistical Indistinguishability&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5 Discovery Algorithms for Causally Sufficient Structures&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6 Discovery Algorithms without Causal Sufficiency&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7 Prediction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8 Regression, Causation, and Prediction&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9 The Design of Empirical Studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
10 The Structure of the Unobserved&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
11 Elaborating Linear Theories with Unmeasured Variables&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
12 Prequels and Sequels&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
13 Proofs of Theorems&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=资源获取=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=相关wiki=&lt;br /&gt;
*[[因果推断 Causal inference]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[因果涌现 Causal Emergence]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[因果科学社区]]&lt;br /&gt;
=编者推荐=&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:因果推断.png|400px|right|thumb|[https://campus.swarma.org/course/1798 因果推理与机器学习读书会]]]&lt;br /&gt;
===集智俱乐部读书会推荐===&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://campus.swarma.org/course/1798 因果推理与机器学习读书会]====&lt;br /&gt;
大数据时代的下一场变革——因果革命正在酝酿之中，通过融合因果推理和机器学习而构建出来的Causal AI系统，有望奠定强人工智能的基石。集智俱乐部联合北京智源人工智能研究院，邀请了一批对因果科学与Casual AI感兴趣的研究者，开展为期2-3个月的系列线上读书会，研读经典和前沿论文，并尝试集体撰写一部书籍。&lt;br /&gt;
===集智俱乐部相关文章===&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://swarma.org/?p=27204 图模型与因果推理基础- SCM框架和Do-Calculus]====&lt;br /&gt;
:本文主要串讲了Pearl因果识别框架的基础知识，包括图模型、结构因果模型的范式，三种识别策略，以及如何运用do- calculus的三种规则来进行因果识别。本篇内容整理自因果科学读书会第一季。&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://swarma.org/?p=34072 第二种想象力：社会科学中的因果推断]====&lt;br /&gt;
:本文中南京大学陈云松教授从“因果”和“数据”两个维度，用因果推断、大数据和机器学习等方面的系列研究案例，阐释第二种想象力的八类思维面向。&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://pattern.swarma.org/article/145 因果科学的学习路线图]====&lt;br /&gt;
:本文主要根据对因果推断引擎的介绍，为关注因果科学领域的初学者提供了完整的学习路径&lt;br /&gt;
----本中文词条由因果读书会词条梳理志愿者[[用户:于沂渭|一尾鱼]]编辑，未经专家审核，带来阅读不便，请见谅。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''本词条内容源自wikipedia及公开资料，遵守 CC3.0协议。'''&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Alchemist</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=Causation,_Prediction,_and_Search&amp;diff=32907</id>
		<title>Causation, Prediction, and Search</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=Causation,_Prediction,_and_Search&amp;diff=32907"/>
		<updated>2022-07-10T13:47:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Alchemist：&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[文件:Causation, Prediction, and Search.jpg|替代=|缩略图|Causation, Prediction, and Search]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=内容简介-英文=&lt;br /&gt;
      What assumptions and methods allow us to turn observations into causal knowledge, and how can even incomplete causal knowledge be used in planning and prediction to influence and control our environment? In this book Peter Spirtes, Clark Glymour, and Richard Scheines address these questions using the formalism of Bayes networks, with results that have been applied in diverse areas of research in the social, behavioral, and physical sciences.The authors show that although experimental and observational study designs may not always permit the same inferences, they are subject to uniform principles. They axiomatize the connection between causal structure and probabilistic independence, explore several varieties of causal indistinguishability, formulate a theory of manipulation, and develop asymptotically reliable procedures for searching over equivalence classes of causal models, including models of categorical data and structural equation models with and without latent variables.The authors show that the relationship between causality and probability can also help to clarify such diverse topics in statistics as the comparative power of experimentation versus observation, Simpson's paradox, errors in regression models, retrospective versus prospective sampling, and variable selection. The second edition contains a new introduction and an extensive survey of advances and applications that have appeared since the first edition was published in 1993.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=内容简介-中文=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=基本信息=&lt;br /&gt;
书名：Causation, Prediction, and Search&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
作者：Peter Spirtes / Clark Glymour / Richard Scheines &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=作者介绍=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=内容目录=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=资源获取=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=相关wiki=&lt;br /&gt;
*[[因果推断 Causal inference]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[因果涌现 Causal Emergence]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[因果科学社区]]&lt;br /&gt;
=编者推荐=&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:因果推断.png|400px|right|thumb|[https://campus.swarma.org/course/1798 因果推理与机器学习读书会]]]&lt;br /&gt;
===集智俱乐部读书会推荐===&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://campus.swarma.org/course/1798 因果推理与机器学习读书会]====&lt;br /&gt;
大数据时代的下一场变革——因果革命正在酝酿之中，通过融合因果推理和机器学习而构建出来的Causal AI系统，有望奠定强人工智能的基石。集智俱乐部联合北京智源人工智能研究院，邀请了一批对因果科学与Casual AI感兴趣的研究者，开展为期2-3个月的系列线上读书会，研读经典和前沿论文，并尝试集体撰写一部书籍。&lt;br /&gt;
===集智俱乐部相关文章===&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://swarma.org/?p=27204 图模型与因果推理基础- SCM框架和Do-Calculus]====&lt;br /&gt;
:本文主要串讲了Pearl因果识别框架的基础知识，包括图模型、结构因果模型的范式，三种识别策略，以及如何运用do- calculus的三种规则来进行因果识别。本篇内容整理自因果科学读书会第一季。&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://swarma.org/?p=34072 第二种想象力：社会科学中的因果推断]====&lt;br /&gt;
:本文中南京大学陈云松教授从“因果”和“数据”两个维度，用因果推断、大数据和机器学习等方面的系列研究案例，阐释第二种想象力的八类思维面向。&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://pattern.swarma.org/article/145 因果科学的学习路线图]====&lt;br /&gt;
:本文主要根据对因果推断引擎的介绍，为关注因果科学领域的初学者提供了完整的学习路径&lt;br /&gt;
----本中文词条由因果读书会词条梳理志愿者[[用户:于沂渭|一尾鱼]]编辑，未经专家审核，带来阅读不便，请见谅。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''本词条内容源自wikipedia及公开资料，遵守 CC3.0协议。'''&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Alchemist</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=Causation,_Prediction,_and_Search&amp;diff=32906</id>
		<title>Causation, Prediction, and Search</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=Causation,_Prediction,_and_Search&amp;diff=32906"/>
		<updated>2022-07-10T13:46:56Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Alchemist：&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[文件:Causation, Prediction, and Search.jpg|替代=|缩略图|Causation, Prediction, and Search]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=内容简介-英文=&lt;br /&gt;
      What assumptions and methods allow us to turn observations into causal knowledge, and how can even incomplete causal knowledge be used in planning and prediction to influence and control our environment? In this book Peter Spirtes, Clark Glymour, and Richard Scheines address these questions using the formalism of Bayes networks, with results that have been applied in diverse areas of research in the social, behavioral, and physical sciences.The authors show that although experimental and observational study designs may not always permit the same inferences, they are subject to uniform principles. They axiomatize the connection between causal structure and probabilistic independence, explore several varieties of causal indistinguishability, formulate a theory of manipulation, and develop asymptotically reliable procedures for searching over equivalence classes of causal models, including models of categorical data and structural equation models with and without latent variables.The authors show that the relationship between causality and probability can also help to clarify such diverse topics in statistics as the comparative power of experimentation versus observation, Simpson's paradox, errors in regression models, retrospective versus prospective sampling, and variable selection. The second edition contains a new introduction and an extensive survey of advances and applications that have appeared since the first edition was published in 1993.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=内容简介-中文=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[文件:《因果推理：基础与学习算法》.jpg|缩略图]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=基本信息=&lt;br /&gt;
书名：Causation, Prediction, and Search&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
作者：Peter Spirtes / Clark Glymour / Richard Scheines &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=作者介绍=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=内容目录=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=资源获取=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=相关wiki=&lt;br /&gt;
*[[因果推断 Causal inference]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[因果涌现 Causal Emergence]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[因果科学社区]]&lt;br /&gt;
=编者推荐=&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:因果推断.png|400px|right|thumb|[https://campus.swarma.org/course/1798 因果推理与机器学习读书会]]]&lt;br /&gt;
===集智俱乐部读书会推荐===&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://campus.swarma.org/course/1798 因果推理与机器学习读书会]====&lt;br /&gt;
大数据时代的下一场变革——因果革命正在酝酿之中，通过融合因果推理和机器学习而构建出来的Causal AI系统，有望奠定强人工智能的基石。集智俱乐部联合北京智源人工智能研究院，邀请了一批对因果科学与Casual AI感兴趣的研究者，开展为期2-3个月的系列线上读书会，研读经典和前沿论文，并尝试集体撰写一部书籍。&lt;br /&gt;
===集智俱乐部相关文章===&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://swarma.org/?p=27204 图模型与因果推理基础- SCM框架和Do-Calculus]====&lt;br /&gt;
:本文主要串讲了Pearl因果识别框架的基础知识，包括图模型、结构因果模型的范式，三种识别策略，以及如何运用do- calculus的三种规则来进行因果识别。本篇内容整理自因果科学读书会第一季。&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://swarma.org/?p=34072 第二种想象力：社会科学中的因果推断]====&lt;br /&gt;
:本文中南京大学陈云松教授从“因果”和“数据”两个维度，用因果推断、大数据和机器学习等方面的系列研究案例，阐释第二种想象力的八类思维面向。&lt;br /&gt;
====[https://pattern.swarma.org/article/145 因果科学的学习路线图]====&lt;br /&gt;
:本文主要根据对因果推断引擎的介绍，为关注因果科学领域的初学者提供了完整的学习路径&lt;br /&gt;
----本中文词条由因果读书会词条梳理志愿者[[用户:于沂渭|一尾鱼]]编辑，未经专家审核，带来阅读不便，请见谅。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''本词条内容源自wikipedia及公开资料，遵守 CC3.0协议。'''&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Alchemist</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E6%96%87%E4%BB%B6:Causation,_Prediction,_and_Search.jpg&amp;diff=32905</id>
		<title>文件:Causation, Prediction, and Search.jpg</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E6%96%87%E4%BB%B6:Causation,_Prediction,_and_Search.jpg&amp;diff=32905"/>
		<updated>2022-07-10T13:46:10Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Alchemist：&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Causation, Prediction, and Search&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Alchemist</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E5%A5%87%E7%82%B9&amp;diff=25837</id>
		<title>技术奇点</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E5%A5%87%E7%82%B9&amp;diff=25837"/>
		<updated>2021-08-15T06:47:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Alchemist：&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;此词条暂由水流心不竞、嘉树初译，徐培审校，带来阅读不便，请见谅。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Redirect|The Singularity||Singularity (disambiguation)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Redirect |奇点| |奇点（释疑)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{short description|Hypothetical point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{简介}技术增长变得不可控制和不可逆转的假设时间点}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The '''technological singularity'''—also, simply, '''the singularity'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cadwalladr, Carole (2014). &amp;quot;[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/22/robots-google-ray-kurzweil-terminator-singularity-artificial-intelligence Are the robots about to rise? Google's new director of engineering thinks so…]&amp;quot; ''The Guardian''. Guardian News and Media Limited.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;—is a [[hypothetical]] point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web |title=Collection of sources defining &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; |url=http://www.singularitysymposium.com/definition-of-singularity.html |website=singularitysymposium.com |accessdate=17 April 2019}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book |author1=Eden, Amnon H. |author2=Moor, James H. |title=Singularity hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment |date=2012 |publisher=Springer |location=Dordrecht |isbn=9783642325601 |pages=1–2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to the most popular version of the singularity hypothesis, called [[Technological singularity#Intelligence explosion|intelligence explosion]], an upgradable [[intelligent agent]] will eventually enter a &amp;quot;runaway reaction&amp;quot; of self-improvement cycles, each new and more intelligent generation appearing more and more rapidly, causing an &amp;quot;explosion&amp;quot; in intelligence and resulting in a powerful [[superintelligence]] that qualitatively far surpasses all [[human intelligence]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;技术奇点 Technological singularity&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;——简称 奇点 Singularity &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cadwalladr, Carole (2014). &amp;quot;[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/22/robots-google-ray-kurzweil-terminator-singularity-artificial-intelligence Are the robots about to rise? Google's new director of engineering thinks so…]&amp;quot; ''The Guardian''. Guardian News and Media Limited.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;是一个假设的时间点。在该时间点上，技术的增长变得不可控制和不可逆转，从而导致人类文明发生无法预见的变化。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web |title=Collection of sources defining &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; |url=http://www.singularitysymposium.com/definition-of-singularity.html |website=singularitysymposium.com |accessdate=17 April 2019}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book |author1=Eden, Amnon H. |author2=Moor, James H. |title=Singularity hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment |date=2012 |publisher=Springer |location=Dordrecht |isbn=9783642325601 |pages=1–2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;根据奇点假说（也被称为智能爆炸 intelligence explosion）最流行的版本：一个可升级的智能体终将进入一种自我完善循环的“&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;失控反应 runaway reaction&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”。每个新的、更智能的世代将出现得越来越快，导致智能的“爆炸”，并产生一种在实质上远超所有人类智能的超级智能。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first use of the concept of a &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in the technological context was [[John von Neumann]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Technological Singularity'' by Murray Shanahan, (MIT Press, 2015), page 233&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Stanislaw Ulam]] reports a discussion with von Neumann &amp;quot;centered on the [[Accelerating change|accelerating progress]] of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential [[Wiktionary:singularity|singularity]] in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Subsequent authors have echoed this viewpoint.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;chalmers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Chalmers|first=David|date=2010|title=The singularity: a philosophical analysis|url=|journal=Journal of Consciousness Studies|volume=17|issue=9–10|pages=7–65|via=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一次在科技领域使用“奇点”这一概念的人是冯·诺依曼 John von Neumann&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Technological Singularity'' by Murray Shanahan, (MIT Press, 2015), page 233&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;。Stanislaw Ulam 报告了一次与冯·诺依曼的讨论。“围绕技术的加速进步和人类生活模式的改变，这让我们看到了人类历史上一些本质上的奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; 一旦超越了这些奇点，我们所熟知的人类事务就将无法继续下去了”。后来的作者也赞同这一观点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;chalmers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Chalmers|first=David|date=2010|title=The singularity: a philosophical analysis|url=|journal=Journal of Consciousness Studies|volume=17|issue=9–10|pages=7–65|via=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. J. Good]]'s &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; model predicts that a future superintelligence will trigger a singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Vinge, Vernor. [http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;], in ''Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace'', G. A. Landis, ed., NASA Publication CP-10129, pp. 11–22, 1993.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I. J.古德的“智能爆炸”模型预测未来的超级智能将触发一个奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Vinge, Vernor. [http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;], in ''Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace'', G. A. Landis, ed., NASA Publication CP-10129, pp. 11–22, 1993.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The concept and the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; were popularized by [[Vernor Vinge]] in his 1993 essay ''The Coming Technological Singularity'', in which he wrote that it would signal the end of the human era, as the new superintelligence would continue to upgrade itself and would advance technologically at an incomprehensible rate. He wrote that he would be surprised if it occurred before 2005 or after 2030.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“奇点”的概念和术语是由 Vernor Vinge 在他1993年的文章《即将到来的技术奇点 The Coming Technological Singularity》中得到推广的。他在文中写道，这将标志着人类时代的终结，因为新的超级智能将持续自我升级，并以不可思议的速度在技术上进步。他写道，如果奇点发生在2005年之前或2030年之后，他会感到惊讶。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Public figures such as [[Stephen Hawking]] and [[Elon Musk]] have expressed concern that full [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) could result in human extinction.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Sparkes|first1=Matthew|title=Top scientists call for caution over artificial intelligence|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11342200/Top-scientists-call-for-caution-over-artificial-intelligence.html|accessdate=24 April 2015|work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph (UK)]]|date=13 January 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540|title=Hawking: AI could end human race|date=2 December 2014|publisher=BBC|accessdate=11 November 2017}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The consequences of the singularity and its potential benefit or harm to the human race have been intensely debated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
斯蒂芬·霍金 Stephen Hawking 和埃隆·马斯克 Elon Musk 等公众人物对完全人工智能（AI）可能导致人类灭绝表示担忧。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Sparkes|first1=Matthew|title=Top scientists call for caution over artificial intelligence|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11342200/Top-scientists-call-for-caution-over-artificial-intelligence.html|accessdate=24 April 2015|work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph (UK)]]|date=13 January 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540|title=Hawking: AI could end human race|date=2 December 2014|publisher=BBC|accessdate=11 November 2017}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;奇点的后果及其对人类的潜在利益或伤害一直存在激烈的争论。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Four polls of AI researchers, conducted in 2012 and 2013 by [[Nick Bostrom]] and [[Vincent C. Müller]], suggested a median probability estimate of 50% that [[artificial general intelligence]] (AGI) would be developed by 2040–2050.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;newyorker&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Khatchadourian|first1=Raffi|title=The Doomsday Invention|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=The New Yorker|date=16 November 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Müller, V. C., &amp;amp; Bostrom, N. (2016). &amp;quot;Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion&amp;quot;. In V. C. Müller (ed): ''Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence'' (pp. 555–572). Springer, Berlin. http://philpapers.org/rec/MLLFPI&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年到2013年期间，Nick Bostrom 和 Vincent c. Müller 对人工智能研究人员进行了四次调查。结果显示，通用人工智能(artificial general intelligence, AGI)在2040年至2050年被成功开发出来的概率估计的中位数为50%。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;newyorker&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Khatchadourian|first1=Raffi|title=The Doomsday Invention|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=The New Yorker|date=16 November 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Müller, V. C., &amp;amp; Bostrom, N. (2016). &amp;quot;Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion&amp;quot;. In V. C. Müller (ed): ''Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence'' (pp. 555–572). Springer, Berlin. http://philpapers.org/rec/MLLFPI&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==背景==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although technological progress has been accelerating, it has been limited by the basic intelligence of the human brain, which has not, according to [[Paul R. Ehrlich]], changed significantly for millennia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Paul Ehrlich June 2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ehrlich, Paul. [http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/ The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, with the increasing power of computers and other technologies, it might eventually be possible to build a machine that is significantly more intelligent than humans.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;businessweek&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm Superbrains born of silicon will change everything.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801074729/http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm |date=August 1, 2010 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然技术进步一直在加速，但它一直受到人脑基本智力的限制，而根据 Paul R.Ehrlich 的说法，人类大脑的基本智力在几千年来并没有发生显著变化。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Paul Ehrlich June 2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ehrlich, Paul. [http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/ The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;然而，随着计算机和其他技术的日益强大，人类最终有可能制造出一台比人类智能得多的机器&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;businessweek&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm Superbrains born of silicon will change everything.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801074729/http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm |date=August 1, 2010 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a superhuman intelligence were to be invented—either through the amplification of human intelligence or through artificial intelligence—it would bring to bear greater problem-solving and inventive skills than current humans are capable of. Such an AI is referred to as Seed AI because if an AI were created with engineering capabilities that matched or surpassed those of its human creators, it would have the potential to autonomously improve its own software and hardware or design an even more capable machine. This more capable machine could then go on to design a machine of yet greater capability. These iterations of recursive self-improvement could accelerate, potentially allowing enormous qualitative change before any upper limits imposed by the laws of physics or theoretical computation set in. It is speculated that over many iterations, such an AI would far surpass human cognitive abilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如果一种超人类智能被发明出来。无论是通过人类智能的放大还是通过人工智能，它将带来比现在的人类更强的问题解决和发明创造能力。这种人工智能被称为&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;种子人工智能 Seed AI&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;。因为如果人工智能的工程能力能够与它的人类创造者相匹敌或超越，那么它就有潜力自主改进自己的软件和硬件，或者设计出更强大的机器。这台能力更强的机器可以继续设计一台能力更强的机器。这种自我递归式改进的迭代可以加速，以至于在物理定律或理论计算设定的任何上限之内发生巨大的质变。据推测，经过多次迭代，这样的人工智能将远远超过人类的认知能力。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==智能爆炸==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligence explosion is a possible outcome of humanity building [[artificial general intelligence]] (AGI). AGI would be capable of recursive self-improvement, leading to the rapid emergence of [[Superintelligence|artificial superintelligence]] (ASI), the limits of which are unknown, shortly after technological singularity is achieved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能爆炸是构建&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;通用人工智能 artificial general intelligence (AGI)&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 的可能结果。在技术奇点实现后不久，AGI 将能够进行递归式的自我迭代，从而导致&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;人工超级智能 artificial superintelligence (ASI)&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 的迅速出现，但其局限性尚不清楚。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. J. Good]] speculated in 1965 that artificial general intelligence might bring about an intelligence explosion. He speculated on the effects of superhuman machines, should they ever be invented:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1965年，I.J.Good 曾推测通用人工智能可能会带来智能爆炸。他对&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;超人类机器 superhuman machines &amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;及其影响进行了推测，如果他们真的被发明出来的话：&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an ‘intelligence explosion,’ and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{让我们把超智能机器定义为一种机器，它可以进行远超无论多么聪明的一个人的所有智力活动。由于机器的设计是一种智力活动，那么一台超智能机器可以设计出更好的机器；那么毫无疑问会出现“智能爆炸”，人类的智能将远远落后。因此，第一台超智能机器是人类所需要的最后一项发明，当然，假设机器足够温顺并能够告诉我们如何控制它们的话。}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good's scenario runs as follows: as computers increase in power, it becomes possible for people to build a machine that is more intelligent than humanity; this superhuman intelligence possesses greater problem-solving and inventive skills than current humans are capable of. This superintelligent machine then designs an even more capable machine, or re-writes its own software to become even more intelligent; this (even more capable) machine then goes on to design a machine of yet greater capability, and so on. These iterations of recursive self-improvement accelerate, allowing enormous qualitative change before any upper limits imposed by the laws of physics or theoretical computation set in.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
古德的设想如下：随着计算机能力的增加，人们有可能制造出一台比人类更智能的机器；这种超人的智能拥有比现在人类更强大的问题解决和发明创造的能力。这台超级智能机器随后设计一台功能更强大的机器，或者重写自己的软件来变得更加智能；这台（甚至更强大的）机器接着继续设计功能更强大的机器，以此类推。这些递归式的自我完善的迭代加速，允许在物理定律或理论计算设定的任何上限之内发生巨大的质变。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==其他表现形式==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===超级智能的出现===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Superintelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{超级智能}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A superintelligence, hyperintelligence, or superhuman intelligence is a hypothetical [[intelligent agent|agent]] that possesses intelligence far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human minds. &amp;quot;Superintelligence&amp;quot; may also refer to the form or degree of intelligence possessed by such an agent. [[John von Neumann]], [[Vernor Vinge]] and [[Ray Kurzweil]] define the concept in terms of the technological creation of super intelligence. They argue that it is difficult or impossible for present-day humans to predict what human beings' lives would be like in a post-singularity world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
超级智能、超智能或超人智能是一种假想的智能体。它拥有的智能远远超过最聪明、最有天赋的人类大脑的智能。“超级智能”也可以指这种智能体所拥有的智能的形式或程度。约翰·冯·诺依曼 John von Neumann，Vernor Vinge 和 Ray Kurzweil 从技术创造超级智能的角度定义了这个概念。他们认为，现在的人类很难或不可能预测人类在后奇点世界的生活会是什么样子&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Technology forecasters and researchers disagree about if or when human intelligence is likely to be surpassed. Some argue that advances in [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) will probably result in general reasoning systems that lack human cognitive limitations. Others believe that humans will evolve or directly modify their biology so as to achieve radically greater intelligence. A number of [[futures studies]] scenarios combine elements from both of these possibilities, suggesting that humans are likely to [[brain–computer interface|interface with computers]], or [[mind uploading|upload their minds to computers]], in a way that enables substantial intelligence amplification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
技术预言家和研究人员对人类智能是否或何时可能被超越存在分歧。一些人认为，人工智能（AI）的进步可能会产生没有人类认知局限的一般推理系统。另一些人则认为，人类将进化或直接改变自己的生物性，从而从根本上实现更高的智能。许多未来研究的场景结合了这两种可能的元素，认为人类很可能会与计算机交互，或以将他们的意识上传到计算机的方式实现大量的智能增益。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===非人工智能奇点===&lt;br /&gt;
Some writers use &amp;quot;the singularity&amp;quot; in a broader way to refer to any radical changes in our society brought about by new technologies such as [[molecular nanotechnology]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; although Vinge and other writers specifically state that without superintelligence, such changes would not qualify as a true singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些作家更宽泛地使用“奇点”的概念，用来指代任何我们社会中由新技术带来的剧烈变化，如分子纳米技术，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 尽管 Vernor Vinge 和其他作家明确指出，如果没有超级智能，这些改变就不能算作真正的奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===速度超智能===&lt;br /&gt;
A speed superintelligence describes an AI that can do everything that a human can do, where the only difference is that the machine runs faster.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1007/978-3-662-54033-6_2 |year=2017 |publisher=Springer Berlin Heidelberg |pages=11–23 |author=Kaj Sotala and Roman Yampolskiy |title=The Technological Singularity |chapter=Risks of the Journey to the Singularity |series=The Frontiers Collection |isbn=978-3-662-54031-2 |conference=The Frontiers Collection }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, with a million-fold increase in the speed of information processing relative to that of humans, a subjective year would pass in 30 physical seconds.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Such a difference in information processing speed could drive the singularity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1002/9781118922590.ch16 |year=2016 |publisher=John Wiley \&amp;amp; Sons, Inc |pages=171–224 |author=David J. Chalmers |title=Science Fiction and Philosophy |chapter=The Singularity |isbn=9781118922590 |conference=Science Fiction and Philosophy }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;速度超级智能 speed superintelligence &amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;描述了一个人工智能，它可以做任何人类能做的事情，唯一的区别是这个机器运行得更快.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1007/978-3-662-54033-6_2 |year=2017 |publisher=Springer Berlin Heidelberg |pages=11–23 |author=Kaj Sotala and Roman Yampolskiy |title=The Technological Singularity |chapter=Risks of the Journey to the Singularity |series=The Frontiers Collection |isbn=978-3-662-54031-2 |conference=The Frontiers Collection }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。例如，与人类相比，它信息处理的速度提高了一百万倍，一个主观年将在30个物理秒内过去。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;这种在信息处理速度上的差异可能会导致奇点。.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1002/9781118922590.ch16 |year=2016 |publisher=John Wiley \&amp;amp; Sons, Inc |pages=171–224 |author=David J. Chalmers |title=Science Fiction and Philosophy |chapter=The Singularity |isbn=9781118922590 |conference=Science Fiction and Philosophy }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==合理性==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many prominent technologists and academics dispute the plausibility of a technological singularity, including [[Paul Allen]], [[Jeff Hawkins]], [[John Henry Holland|John Holland]], [[Jaron Lanier]], and [[Gordon Moore]], whose [[Moore's law|law]] is often cited in support of the concept.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
许多著名的技术专家和学者都对技术奇点的合理性提出质疑，包括 Paul Allen、Jeff Hawkins、 John Holland、Jaron Lanier 和 Gordon Moore，他的摩尔定律经常被引用来支持这一概念。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most proposed methods for creating superhuman or [[transhuman]] minds fall into one of two categories: intelligence amplification of human brains and artificial intelligence. The speculated ways to produce intelligence augmentation are many, and include [[bioengineering]], [[genetic engineering]], [[nootropic]] drugs, AI assistants, direct [[brain–computer interface]]s and [[mind uploading]]. Because multiple paths to an intelligence explosion are being explored, it makes a singularity more likely; for a singularity to not occur they would all have to fail.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity |title=What is the Singularity? &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
大多数创造超人或超越人类智能的方法分为两类：人脑的智能增强和人工智能。据推测，智能增强的方法很多，包括生物工程、基因工程、益智药物、AI 助手、直接脑机接口和思维上传。因为人们正在探索通向智能爆炸的多种途径，这使得奇点出现的可能性变得更大；如果奇点不发生，所有这些方法都必将失败。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity |title=What is the Singularity? &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robin Hanson]] expressed skepticism of human intelligence augmentation, writing that once the &amp;quot;low-hanging fruit&amp;quot; of easy methods for increasing human intelligence have been exhausted, further improvements will become increasingly difficult to find.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/vc.html#hanson |title=Some Skepticism |date=1998 |first=Robin |last=Hanson |author-link=Robin Hanson |accessdate=April 8, 2020}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Despite all of the speculated ways for amplifying human intelligence, non-human artificial intelligence (specifically seed AI) is the most popular option among the hypotheses that would advance the singularity.{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Robin Hanson 对人类智能增强表示怀疑，他写道，一旦提高人类智力的“唾手可得的”简单方法用尽，进一步的改进将变得越来越难。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/vc.html#hanson |title=Some Skepticism |date=1998 |first=Robin |last=Hanson |author-link=Robin Hanson |accessdate=April 8, 2020}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;尽管有各种提高人类智能的方法，但非人类人工智能(特别是种子人工智能)仍是所有能推进奇点的假说中最受欢迎的一个。{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether or not an intelligence explosion occurs depends on three factors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Chalmers John Locke Lecture, 10 May, Exam Schools, Oxford, [http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/news/2010/david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available Presenting a philosophical analysis of the possibility of a technological singularity or &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; resulting from recursively self-improving AI] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115205558/http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/news/2010/david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available |date=2013-01-15 }}.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The first accelerating factor is the new intelligence enhancements made possible by each previous improvement. Contrariwise, as the intelligences become more advanced, further advances will become more and more complicated, possibly overcoming the advantage of increased intelligence. Each improvement should beget at least one more improvement, on average, for movement towards singularity to continue. Finally, the laws of physics will eventually prevent any further improvements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能爆炸是否发生取决于三个因素。第一个加速因素是过去的每一次改进都使新的智能增强成为可能。相反，随着智能的进步，进一步的发展将变得越来越复杂，可能会抵消智力增长的优势。平均而言，每一次改进都应该至少带来一次改进，以便继续朝着奇点的方向发展。最后，物理定律最终会阻止任何进一步的改进。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are two logically independent, but mutually reinforcing, causes of intelligence improvements: increases in the speed of computation, and improvements to the [[algorithm]]s used.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;consc.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, David J. Chalmers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The former is predicted by [[Moore's law|Moore's Law]] and the forecasted improvements in hardware,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;itrs&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |title=ITRS |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929173755/http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |archivedate=2011-09-29 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and is comparatively similar to previous technological advances. But there are some AI researchers{{who|date=March 2017}} who believe software is more important than hardware.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|url=https://blog.chronicled.com/why-software-is-more-important-than-hardware-right-now-6a4b58feaa7c|title=Why Software Is More Important Than Hardware Right Now|last=Kulkarni|first=Ajit|date=2017-12-12|website=Chronicled|access-date=2019-02-23}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能改进有两个逻辑上独立但又相互加强的原因：计算速度的提高和使用的算法的改进。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;consc.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, David J. Chalmers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;前者由摩尔定律和硬件方面的改进进行预测，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;itrs&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |title=ITRS |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929173755/http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |archivedate=2011-09-29 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;与以前的技术进步比较相似。但也有一些人工智能研究人员认为软件比硬件更重要&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|url=https://blog.chronicled.com/why-software-is-more-important-than-hardware-right-now-6a4b58feaa7c|title=Why Software Is More Important Than Hardware Right Now|last=Kulkarni|first=Ajit|date=2017-12-12|website=Chronicled|access-date=2019-02-23}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2017 email survey of authors with publications at the 2015 [[Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems|NeurIPS]] and [[International Conference on Machine Learning|ICML]] machine learning conferences asked  about the chance of an intelligence explosion. Of the respondents, 12% said it was &amp;quot;quite likely&amp;quot;, 17% said it was &amp;quot;likely&amp;quot;, 21% said it was &amp;quot;about even&amp;quot;, 24% said it was &amp;quot;unlikely&amp;quot; and 26% said it was &amp;quot;quite unlikely&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在2017年，一项对2015年 NeurIPS 和 ICML 机器学习会议上发表论文的作者的电子邮件调查询问了智能爆炸的可能性。在受访者中，12% 的人认为“很有可能” ，17% 的人认为“有可能” ，21% 的人认为“可能性中等” ，24% 的人认为“不太可能” ，26% 的人认为“非常不可能”。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===速度改进 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both for human and artificial intelligence, hardware improvements increase the rate of future hardware improvements. Simply put,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arstechnica&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Moore's Law]] suggests that if the first doubling of speed took 18 months, the second would take 18 subjective months; or 9 external months, whereafter, four months, two months, and so on towards a speed singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html &amp;quot;Staring into the Singularity&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An upper limit on speed may eventually be reached, although it is unclear how high this would be.  Jeff Hawkins has stated that a self-improving computer system would inevitably run into upper limits on computing power: &amp;quot;in the end there are limits to how big and fast computers can run. We would end up in the same place; we'd just get there a bit faster. There would be no singularity.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hawkins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
无论对于人类智能还是人工智能，硬件改进都会提高未来硬件改进的速度。简单地说，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arstechnica&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;摩尔定律认为，如果第一次速度翻倍需要18个月，第二次则需要18个月；或者额外的9个月，之后，4个月、2个月，以此类推，走向速度奇点&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html &amp;quot;Staring into the Singularity&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 速度的上限最终可能会达到，尽管还不清楚这会有多高。杰夫·霍金斯（Jeff Hawkins）曾表示，一个自我完善的计算机系统不可避免地会遇到计算能力的上限：“最终，计算机的规模和速度都是有限的。我们最终会在停留在同一个地方；我们只会更快到达那里。不会有奇点。”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hawkins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is difficult to directly compare [[silicon]]-based hardware with [[neuron]]s. But {{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}} notes that computer [[speech recognition]] is approaching human capabilities, and that this capability seems to require 0.01% of the volume of the brain. This analogy suggests that modern computer hardware is within a few orders of magnitude of being as powerful as the human brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
很难直接将基于硅的硬件与神经元相比较。但是{Harvtxt| Berglas|2008}指出计算机语音识别正在接近人类的能力，而且这种能力似乎只需要0.01%的脑容量。这个类比表明，现代计算机硬件与人脑一样强大，只差几个数量级。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====指数增长====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Martin Ford in The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
马丁·福特 Martin Ford 的《隧道中的灯光: 自动化，加速技术和未来经济 The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future》&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:PPTMooresLawai.jpg|thumb|Ray Kurzweil writes that, due to [[paradigm shift]]s, a trend of exponential growth extends [[Moore's law]] from [[integrated circuits]] to earlier [[transistor]]s, [[vacuum tube]]s, [[relay]]s, and [[electromechanics|electromechanical]] computers. He predicts that the exponential growth will continue, and that in a few decades the computing power of all computers will exceed that of (&amp;quot;unenhanced&amp;quot;) human brains, with superhuman [[artificial intelligence]] appearing around the same time.|链接=Special:FilePath/PPTMooresLawai.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[图片：PPTMooresLawai.jpg|thumb | Ray Kurzweil 写道，由于[[范式转换]]s，指数增长的趋势将[[摩尔定律]]从[[集成电路]]扩展到早期的[[晶体管]]、[[真空管]]、[[继电器]]和[[机电机械]]计算机。他预测，这种指数增长将继续下去，在几十年内，所有计算机的计算能力将超过（“未增强的”）人脑，同时出现超人[[人工智能]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Moore's Law over 120 Years.png|thumb|left|An updated version of Moore's law over 120 Years (based on [[Ray Kurzweil|Kurzweil's]] [[c:File:PPTMooresLawai.jpg|graph]]). The 7 most recent data points are all [[Nvidia GPUs|NVIDIA GPUs]].|链接=Special:FilePath/Moore's_Law_over_120_Years.png]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[资料图：摩尔超过120的定律年.png|拇指|左|摩尔定律120年的更新版本（基于[[Ray Kurzweil | Kurzweil's]][[c:文件：PPTMooresLawai.jpg|图形]]）。最近的7个数据点都是[[Nvidia GPU | Nvidia GPU]].]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exponential growth in computing technology suggested by Moore's law is commonly cited as a reason to expect a singularity in the relatively near future, and a number of authors have proposed generalizations of Moore's law. Computer scientist and futurist [[Hans Moravec]] proposed in a 1998 book&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&amp;amp;pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that the exponential growth curve could be extended back through earlier computing technologies prior to the [[integrated circuit]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
摩尔定律所建议的计算技术的指数增长通常被认为是在相对不远的将来出现奇点的一个理由，许多作者已经提出了摩尔定律的推广。计算机科学家和未来主义者Hans Moravec在1998年的一本书中提到&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&amp;amp;pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;指数型增长曲线可以沿着集成电路之前的早期计算技术进行延伸。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ray Kurzweil]] postulates a [[law of accelerating returns]] in which the speed of technological change (and more generally, all evolutionary processes&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;) increases exponentially, generalizing Moore's law in the same manner as Moravec's proposal, and also including material technology (especially as applied to [[nanotechnology]]), [[Medical Technology|medical technology]] and others.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity2&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Between 1986 and 2007, machines' application-specific capacity to compute information per capita roughly doubled every 14 months; the per capita capacity of the world's general-purpose computers has doubled every 18 months; the global telecommunication capacity per capita doubled every 34 months; and the world's storage capacity per capita doubled every 40 months.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 &amp;quot;The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information&amp;quot;], Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), [[Science (journal)|Science]], 332(6025), 60–65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; On the other hand, it has been argued that the global acceleration pattern having the 21st century singularity as its parameter should be characterized as [[Hyperbolic growth|hyperbolic]] rather than exponential.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8 ''The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures. A Big History Perspective''] (Springer, 2020)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ray Kurzweil]]假设了一个[[加速回报定律]]，其中技术变革的速度（更广泛地说，所有进化过程&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;）急剧增长。从1986年到2007年，摩尔定律以与莫拉维克提案相同的方式呈指数增长，并包括材料技术（尤其是应用于[[纳米技术]]）、[[医疗技术|医疗技术]]和其他技术，计算机计算人均信息的特定应用能力大约每14个月翻一番；世界通用计算机的人均容量每18个月翻一番；全球人均电信容量每34个月翻一番；世界人均存储容量每40个月翻一番。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 &amp;quot;The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information&amp;quot;], Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), [[Science (journal)|Science]], 332(6025), 60–65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 另一方面，有人认为，以21世纪奇点为参数的全球加速度模式应该被描述为[[双曲线增长|双曲]]而不是指数型&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8 ''The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures. A Big History Perspective''] (Springer, 2020)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil reserves the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; for a rapid increase in artificial intelligence (as opposed to other technologies), writing for example that &amp;quot;The Singularity will allow us to transcend these limitations of our biological bodies and brains ... There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity3&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; He also defines his predicted date of the singularity (2045) in terms of when he expects computer-based intelligences to significantly exceed the sum total of human brainpower, writing that advances in computing before that date &amp;quot;will not represent the Singularity&amp;quot; because they do &amp;quot;not yet correspond to a profound expansion of our intelligence.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;transformation&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
库兹韦尔将“奇点”一词用于描述人工智能(相对于其他技术)的快速增长，例如他写道: “奇点将允许我们超越生物体和大脑的局限……后奇点时代，人类与机器之间将不再有区别”。库兹韦尔相信奇点将在大约2045年之前出现，那时基于计算机的智能将明显超越人类脑力的总和，在这个日期之前计算机技术的进步“并不代表奇点”，因为它们“还不符合智慧的深刻扩展”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====加速变革====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Main|Accelerating change}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Main |加速变革}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|thumb|According to Kurzweil, his [[logarithmic scale|logarithmic graph]] of 15 lists of [[paradigm shift]]s for key [[human history|historic]] events shows an [[exponential growth|exponential]] trend|链接=Special:FilePath/ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[图片：ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|thumb |根据Kurzweil的说法，他对关键的[[人类历史|历史]]事件的15个[[范式转移]]列表的[[对数标度|对数图]]显示了[[指数增长|指数]]趋势]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some singularity proponents argue its inevitability through extrapolation of past trends, especially those pertaining to shortening gaps between improvements to technology. In one of the first uses of the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in the context of technological progress, [[Stanislaw Ulam]] tells of a conversation with [[John von Neumann]] about accelerating change: &lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.&amp;lt;ref name=mathematical/&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些奇点论的支持者认为，通过对过去趋势的推断，特别是那些缩减技术进步的差距有关的趋势，奇点是不可避免的。技术进步的背景下，较早使用“奇点”一词时，Stanislaw Ulam讲述了与冯·诺伊曼关于加速变革的一次谈话：&lt;br /&gt;
一次围绕不断加速的技术进步和生活方式变化的对话，它使得人类历史上出现了一些基本的奇点，超过了这些奇点，如我们所知的那些人类的事务，将无法继续下去。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil claims that technological progress follows a pattern of&lt;br /&gt;
exponential growth, following what he calls the &amp;quot;law of&lt;br /&gt;
accelerating returns&amp;quot;. Whenever technology approaches a barrier,&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil writes, new technologies will surmount it. He predicts&lt;br /&gt;
paradigm shifts will become increasingly common, leading to&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;technological change so rapid and profound it represents a&lt;br /&gt;
rupture in the fabric of human history&amp;quot;.[43] Kurzweil believes that&lt;br /&gt;
the singularity will occur by approximately 2045.[38] His&lt;br /&gt;
predictions differ from Vinge's in that he predicts a gradual&lt;br /&gt;
ascent to the singularity, rather than Vinge's rapidly self�improving superhuman intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
库兹韦尔声称，技术进步遵循[[指数增长]的模式，遵循他所称的“加速返回定律 law of accelerating returns”。库兹韦尔写道，每当一项技术遇到障碍时，新技术就会出来克服这个障碍。他预测范式转变将变得越来越普遍，导致“技术变革非常迅速和深刻，以至于它代表着人类历史结构的一个断裂”。库兹韦尔相信奇点将在2045年之前出现。他和Vinge预测的不同点在于他预测的是一个逐渐上升到奇点的过程，而Vinge预测了一个快速自我更新的超人类智能。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oft-cited dangers include those commonly associated with molecular nanotechnology and genetic engineering. These threats are major issues for both singularity advocates and critics, and were the subject of Bill Joy's Wired magazine article &amp;quot;Why the future doesn't need us&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
经常被引用的危险包括那些与分子纳米技术和基因工程有关的技术。这些威胁是奇点论的倡导者和批评者面临的主要议题，也是比尔 · 乔伊《连线 Wired》杂志上所发表文章《为什么未来不需要我们 Why the future doesn't need us》的主题。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===算法改进 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some intelligence technologies, like &amp;quot;seed AI&amp;quot;,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Yampolskiy, Roman V 2015&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceA&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; may also have the potential to not just make themselves faster, but also more efficient, by modifying their [[source code]]. These improvements would make further improvements possible, which would make further improvements possible, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
一些智能技术，比如“种子人工智能”，通过修改自己的源代码，可能使自己不仅更快，而且更高效。这些改进将使进一步的改进成为可能，以此类推。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mechanism for a recursively self-improving set of algorithms differs from an increase in raw computation speed in two ways. First, it does not require external influence: machines designing faster hardware would still require humans to create the improved hardware, or to program factories appropriately.{{citation needed|date=July 2017}} An AI rewriting its own source code could do so while contained in an [[AI box]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
递归自我改进算法的机制在两个方面不同于原始计算速度的提高。首先，它不需要外部影响：设计更快的硬件的机器仍然需要人类来创造改进的硬件，或者对工厂进行适当的编程。AI可以既身处一个AI盒（AI box）里面，又同时改进自己的源代码。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second, as with [[Vernor Vinge]]’s conception of the singularity, it is much harder to predict the outcome. While speed increases seem to be only a quantitative difference from human intelligence, actual algorithm improvements would be qualitatively different. [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]] compares it to the changes that human intelligence brought: humans changed the world thousands of times more rapidly than evolution had done, and in totally different ways. Similarly, the evolution of life was a massive departure and acceleration from the previous geological rates of change, and improved intelligence could cause change to be as different again.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|author=Eliezer S. Yudkowsky |url=http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/power |title=Power of Intelligence |publisher=Yudkowsky |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第二，和 Vernor Vinge 关于奇点的概念一样，对结果的预测要困难得多。虽然速度的提高似乎与人类的智能只是数量上的区别，但实际的算法改进在质量上是不同的。Eliezer Yudkowsky将其与人类智能带来的变化相比较：人类改变世界的速度比进化速度快数千倍，而且方式完全不同。同样地，生命的进化与以前的地质变化又有着巨大的不同和加速，而智能的提高可能会使变化再次变得不同。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|author=Eliezer S. Yudkowsky |url=http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/power |title=Power of Intelligence |publisher=Yudkowsky |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are substantial dangers associated with an intelligence explosion singularity originating from a recursively self-improving set of algorithms. First, the goal structure of the AI might not be invariant under self-improvement, potentially causing the AI to optimise for something other than what was originally intended.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008 ]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;kurzweilai&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.kurzweilai.net/artificial-general-intelligence-now-is-the-time |title=Artificial General Intelligence: Now Is the Time |publisher=KurzweilAI |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Secondly, AIs could compete for the same scarce resources mankind uses to survive.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/10/05/paper-on-the-nature-of-self-improving-artificial-intelligence/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence.&amp;quot; Self-Aware Systems. 21 Jan. 2008. Web. 07 Jan. 2010.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|last1=Barrat|first1=James|title=Our Final Invention|year=2013|publisher=St. Martin's Press|location=New York|isbn=978-0312622374|pages=78–98|edition=First|chapter=6, &amp;quot;Four Basic Drives&amp;quot;|title-link=Our Final Invention}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
由递归式自我改进的算法集合引起的智能爆炸存在着巨大的危险。首先，人工智能的目标结构在自我完善的情况下可能不是一成不变的，这可能会导致人工智能对原本计划之外的东西进行优化。第二，人工智能可以与人类竞争赖以生存的稀缺资源。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While not actively malicious, there is no reason to think that AIs would actively promote human goals unless they could be programmed as such, and if not, might use the resources currently used to support mankind to promote its own goals, causing human extinction.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;kurzweilai.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.kurzweilai.net/max-more-and-ray-kurzweil-on-the-singularity-2 |title=Max More and Ray Kurzweil on the Singularity |publisher=KurzweilAI |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceB&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/riskintro/index.html |title=Concise Summary &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.nickbostrom.com/fut/evolution.html Bostrom, Nick, The Future of Human Evolution, Death and Anti-Death: Two Hundred Years After Kant, Fifty Years After Turing, ed. Charles Tandy, pp. 339–371, 2004, Ria University Press.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然不是恶意的，但没有理由认为人工智能会积极促进人类目标的实现，除非这些目标可以被编程，否则，它们就可能利用目前用于支持人类的资源来促进自己的目标，从而导致人类灭绝。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Carl Shulman]] and [[Anders Sandberg]] suggest that algorithm improvements may be the limiting factor for a singularity; while hardware efficiency tends to improve at a steady pace, software innovations are more unpredictable and may be bottlenecked by serial, cumulative research. They suggest that in the case of a software-limited singularity, intelligence explosion would actually become more likely than with a hardware-limited singularity, because in the software-limited case, once human-level AI is developed, it could run serially on very fast hardware, and the abundance of cheap hardware would make AI research less constrained.&amp;lt;ref name=ShulmanSandberg2010&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Shulman|first=Carl|author2=Anders Sandberg |title=Implications of a Software-Limited Singularity|journal=ECAP10: VIII European Conference on Computing and Philosophy|year=2010|url=http://intelligence.org/files/SoftwareLimited.pdf|accessdate=17 May 2014|editor1-first=Klaus|editor1-last=Mainzer}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An abundance of accumulated hardware that can be unleashed once the software figures out how to use it has been called &amp;quot;computing overhang.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;MuehlhauserSalamon2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book|last=Muehlhauser|first=Luke|title=Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment|year=2012|publisher=Springer|chapter-url=http://intelligence.org/files/IE-EI.pdf|author2=Anna Salamon |editor=Amnon Eden |editor2=Johnny Søraker |editor3=James H. Moor |editor4=Eric Steinhart|chapter=Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carl Shulman 和 Anders Sandberg 认为，算法改进可能是奇点的限制因素；虽然硬件效率趋于稳步提高，但软件创新更不具可预测性，可能会受到连续、累积的研究的限制。他们认为，智能爆炸在受软件限制的奇点情况中发生的可能性实际上比在受硬件限制的奇点更高，因为在软件受限的情况下，一旦开发出人类水平的人工智能，它可以在非常快的硬件上连续运行，廉价硬件的丰富将使人工智能研究不那么受限制。&amp;lt;ref name=ShulmanSandberg2010&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Shulman|first=Carl|author2=Anders Sandberg |title=Implications of a Software-Limited Singularity|journal=ECAP10: VIII European Conference on Computing and Philosophy|year=2010|url=http://intelligence.org/files/SoftwareLimited.pdf|accessdate=17 May 2014|editor1-first=Klaus|editor1-last=Mainzer}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 一旦软件知道如何使用硬件，大量的硬件就可以被释放出来，这被称为“计算过剩”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;MuehlhauserSalamon2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book|last=Muehlhauser|first=Luke|title=Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment|year=2012|publisher=Springer|chapter-url=http://intelligence.org/files/IE-EI.pdf|author2=Anna Salamon |editor=Amnon Eden |editor2=Johnny Søraker |editor3=James H. Moor |editor4=Eric Steinhart|chapter=Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===危机===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some critics, like philosopher [[Hubert Dreyfus]], assert that computers or machines cannot achieve [[human intelligence]], while others, like physicist [[Stephen Hawking]], hold that the definition of intelligence is irrelevant if the net result is the same.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;dreyfus&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些批评者，如哲学家 Hubert Dreyfus 断言计算机或机器无法实现人类智能，而其他人，如物理学家史蒂芬·霍金 Stephen Hawking，则认为如果最终结果是相同的，那么智力的定义其实无关紧要。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An early description of the idea was made in John Wood Campbell Jr.'s 1932 short story &amp;quot;The last evolution&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
早在1932年，约翰·W·坎贝尔 John Wood Campbell Jr. 的短篇小说《最后的进化 The last evolution》中就对这个想法进行了描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psychologist [[Steven Pinker]] stated in 2008:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
心理学家史蒂芬·平克 Steven Pinker 在2008年指出：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|... There is not the slightest reason to believe in a coming singularity. The fact that you can visualize a future in your imagination is not evidence that it is likely or even possible. Look at domed cities, jet-pack commuting, underwater cities, mile-high buildings, and nuclear-powered automobiles—all staples of futuristic fantasies when I was a child that have never arrived. Sheer processing power is not a pixie dust that magically solves all your problems. ...&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
没有一点理由相信奇点即将到来。你可以想象一个未来并不能证明它是可能出现的。看看穹顶城市、喷气式飞行器通勤、水下城市、一英里高的建筑和核动力汽车：这些都是我小时候未来主义幻想的主要内容，然而它们都没有成真。纯粹的计算能力不是能神奇地解决所有问题的仙尘。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[University of California, Berkeley]], [[philosophy]] professor [[John Searle]] writes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[加州大学伯克利分校]，哲学教授约翰·塞尔 John Searle 写道：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{blockquote|[Computers] have, literally ..., no [[intelligence]], no [[motivation]], no [[autonomy]], and no agency.  We design them to behave as if they had certain sorts of [[psychology]], but there is no psychological reality to the corresponding processes or behavior. ...  [T]he machinery has no beliefs, desires, [or] motivations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[John R. Searle]], “What Your Computer Can’t Know”, ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', 9 October 2014, p. 54.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
毫不夸张地说，计算机没有智能，没有动机，没有自主，也没有智能体。我们设计他们，使他们的行为好像表示他们有某种心理，但其实没有对应这些过程或行为的心理现实……机器没有信仰、愿望或动机。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Martin Ford (author)|Martin Ford]] in ''The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thelightsinthetunnel&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; postulates a &amp;quot;technology paradox&amp;quot; in that before the singularity could occur most routine jobs in the economy would be automated, since this would require a level of technology inferior to that of the singularity. This would cause massive unemployment and plummeting consumer demand, which in turn would destroy the incentive to invest in the technologies that would be required to bring about the Singularity. Job displacement is increasingly no longer limited to work traditionally considered to be &amp;quot;routine.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Martin Ford 在“隧道中的灯光：自动化、加速技术和未来经济 The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thelightsinthetunnel&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;中提出了一个“技术悖论”：在奇点出现之前，经济体中的大多数日常工作都将自动化，因为这所需的技术水平低于奇点。这将导致大规模的失业和消费者需求的骤降，这反过来又会破坏投资于实现奇点所需技术的动机。工作的替代越来越不再局限于那些传统上被认为是“例行公事”的工作。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Theodore Modis]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; and [[Jonathan Huebner]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological14&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; argue that the rate of technological innovation has not only ceased to rise, but is actually now declining. Evidence for this decline is that the rise in computer [[clock rate]]s is slowing, even while Moore's prediction of exponentially increasing circuit density continues to hold. This is due to excessive heat build-up from the chip, which cannot be dissipated quickly enough to prevent the chip from melting when operating at higher speeds. Advances in speed may be possible in the future by virtue of more power-efficient CPU designs and multi-cell processors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; While Kurzweil used Modis' resources, and Modis' work was around accelerating change, Modis distanced himself from Kurzweil's thesis of a &amp;quot;technological singularity&amp;quot;, claiming that it lacks scientific rigor.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Theodore Modis&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;和Jonathan Huebner&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological14&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 认为技术创新的速度不仅停止上升，而且现在实际上正在下降。这种下降的证据是计算机时钟速率的增长正在放缓，尽管摩尔关于电路密度指数增长的预测仍然成立。这是由于芯片产生过多的热量，当它们以较高的速度运行时，这些热量不能足够快地散去，可能导致芯片熔化。在未来，随着更节能的CPU设计和多单元处理器的发明，速度的提高可能实现。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;尽管 Kurzweil 利用了 Modis 的（工作成果）作为资源，同时 Modis 的工作围绕着加速变革，但 Modis 对 Kurzweil 的“技术奇点”理论保持距离，称其缺乏科学严谨性。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a detailed empirical accounting, ''The Progress of Computing'', [[William Nordhaus]] argued that, prior to 1940, computers followed the much slower growth of a traditional industrial economy, thus rejecting extrapolations of Moore's law to 19th-century computers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal | doi=10.1017/S0022050707000058|title = Two Centuries of Productivity Growth in Computing| journal=The Journal of Economic History| volume=67|pages = 128–159|year = 2007|last1 = Nordhaus|first1 = William D.| citeseerx=10.1.1.330.1871}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在一份详细的实证报告《计算的进步 The Progress of Computing》中，威廉·诺德豪斯 William Nordhaus 认为，在 1940 年之前，计算机遵循传统工业经济增长缓慢的趋势，因此拒绝了摩尔定律对19世纪计算机的推断。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal | doi=10.1017/S0022050707000058|title = Two Centuries of Productivity Growth in Computing| journal=The Journal of Economic History| volume=67|pages = 128–159|year = 2007|last1 = Nordhaus|first1 = William D.| citeseerx=10.1.1.330.1871}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a 2007 paper, Schmidhuber stated that the frequency of subjectively &amp;quot;notable events&amp;quot; appears to be approaching a 21st-century singularity, but cautioned readers to take such plots of subjective events with a grain of salt: perhaps differences in memory of recent and distant events could create an illusion of accelerating change where none exists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schmidhuber, Jürgen. &amp;quot;New millennium AI and the convergence of history.&amp;quot; Challenges for computational intelligence. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. 15–35.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在2007年的一篇论文中，Schmidhuber 指出主观上“值得注意的事件”出现的频率似乎正在接近21世纪的奇点，但他提醒读者，对这些主观事件的情节要持保留态度：也许对近期和远期事件的记忆差异，可能会造成一种在根本不存在的情况下变化加速的错觉。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schmidhuber, Jürgen. &amp;quot;New millennium AI and the convergence of history.&amp;quot; Challenges for computational intelligence. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. 15–35.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paul Allen argued the opposite of accelerating returns, the complexity brake; the more progress science makes towards understanding intelligence, the more difficult it becomes to make additional progress. A study of the number of patents shows that human creativity does not show accelerating returns, but in fact, as suggested by Joseph Tainter in his The Collapse of Complex Societies, a law of diminishing returns. The number of patents per thousand peaked in the period from 1850 to 1900, and has been declining since.[60] The growth of complexity eventually becomes self-limiting, and leads to a widespread &amp;quot;general systems collapse&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
保罗·艾伦 Paul Allen 认为，与加速回报相反的是&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;复杂性制动 complexity brake&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;；科学在理解智力方面取得的进展越多，就越难取得更多的进展。一项对专利数量的研究表明，人类的创造力并没有表现出加速的回报。事实上，正如Joseph Tainter 在他的《复杂社会的崩溃 The Collapse of Complex Societies 》中所指出的那样，存在一个收益递减定律 a law of diminishing returns 的限制。每千人的专利的数量在1850年至1900年期间达到顶峰，此后一直在下降。复杂性的增长最终会自我限制，并导致广泛的“一般系统崩溃 general systems collapse”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jaron Lanier]] refutes the idea that the Singularity is inevitable. He states: &amp;quot;I do not think the technology is creating itself. It's not an autonomous process.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |author=Jaron Lanier |title=Who Owns the Future? |work=New York: Simon &amp;amp; Schuster |date=2013 |url=http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=JCB8D9LA&amp;amp;tocp=59}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He goes on to assert: &amp;quot;The reason to believe in human agency over technological determinism is that you can then have an economy where people earn their own way and invent their own lives. If you structure a society on ''not'' emphasizing individual human agency, it's the same thing operationally as denying people clout, dignity, and self-determination ... to embrace [the idea of the Singularity] would be a celebration of bad data and bad politics.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jaron Lanier 驳斥了奇点不可避免的观点。他说：“我不认为这项技术是在创造自我。这不是一个自主的过程。”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |author=Jaron Lanier |title=Who Owns the Future? |work=New York: Simon &amp;amp; Schuster |date=2013 |url=http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=JCB8D9LA&amp;amp;tocp=59}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;他接着断言：“相信人的能动性而不是技术决定论的原因是，这样你就可以有一个经济体，人们在其中可以自己挣钱，创造自己的生活。如果你在不强调个人主观能动性的基础上构建社会，就等于在操作上否认人们的影响力、尊严和自决...接受 [奇点的想法] 将是对糟糕数据和糟糕政治的颂扬。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Economics|Economist]] [[Robert J. Gordon]], in ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'' (2016), points out that measured economic growth has slowed around 1970 and slowed even further since the [[financial crisis of 2007–2008]], and argues that the economic data show no trace of a coming Singularity as imagined by mathematician [[I.J. Good]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[William D. Nordhaus]], &amp;quot;Why Growth Will Fall&amp;quot; (a review of [[Robert J. Gordon]], ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'', Princeton University Press, 2016, {{ISBN|978-0691147727}}, 762 pp., $39.95), ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', vol. LXIII, no. 13 (August 18, 2016), p. 68.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
经济学家 Robert J.Gordon 在《美国经济增长的兴衰：内战以来的美国生活水平 The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War》（2016）中指出，据测量，经济增长在1970年左右放缓，自2007-2008年金融危机以来甚至进一步放缓，并认为经济数据显示没有迹象表明数学家 I.J.Good 所设想的奇点将会到来。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[William D. Nordhaus]], &amp;quot;Why Growth Will Fall&amp;quot; (a review of [[Robert J. Gordon]], ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'', Princeton University Press, 2016, {{ISBN|978-0691147727}}, 762 pp., $39.95), ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', vol. LXIII, no. 13 (August 18, 2016), p. 68.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to general criticisms of the singularity concept, several critics have raised issues with Kurzweil's iconic chart. One line of criticism is that a [[Log-log plot|log-log]] chart of this nature is inherently biased toward a straight-line result. Others identify selection bias in the points that Kurzweil chooses to use. For example, biologist [[PZ Myers]] points out that many of the early evolutionary &amp;quot;events&amp;quot; were picked arbitrarily.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Kurzweil has rebutted this by charting evolutionary events from 15 neutral sources, and showing that they fit a straight line on [[:File:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|a log-log chart]]. ''[[The Economist]]'' mocked the concept with a graph extrapolating that the number of blades on a razor, which has increased over the years from one to as many as five, will increase ever-faster to infinity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
除了对奇点概念的一般性批评外，一些批评者还对 Kurzweil 的标志性图表提出了质疑。一种批评是，这种性质的对数图像本质上就会存在倾向于直线的有偏差结果。其他人批评 Kurzweil 在数据点的使用上存在选择偏差。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;例如，生物学家 P. Z. Myers 指出，许多早期的进化“事件”都是随意挑选的。Kurzweil 反驳了这一点，他绘制了15个中立来源的进化事件图，并表明它们都符合一条直线.《经济学人》用一张图表来嘲讽这个概念：一把剃须刀上的刀片数在过去几年里从一个增加到多达五个，并且它将以更快的速度增长到无穷大。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==潜在影响==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dramatic changes in the rate of economic growth have occurred in the past because of some technological advancement. Based on population growth, the economy doubled every 250,000 years from the [[Paleolithic]] era until the [[Neolithic Revolution]]. The new agricultural economy doubled every 900 years, a remarkable increase. In the current era, beginning with the Industrial Revolution, the world's economic output doubles every fifteen years, sixty times faster than during the agricultural era. If the rise of superhuman intelligence causes a similar revolution, argues Robin Hanson, one would expect the economy to double at least quarterly and possibly on a weekly basis.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url=http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/robotics-software/economics-of-the-singularity |title=Economics Of The Singularity |author=Robin Hanson |work=IEEE Spectrum Special Report: The Singularity }} &amp;amp; [http://hanson.gmu.edu/longgrow.pdf Long-Term Growth As A Sequence of Exponential Modes]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
过去由于一些技术进步，经济增长率发生了巨大变化。以人口增长为基础，从[[旧石器时代]]到[[新石器时代]]，经济每25万年翻一番。新农业经济每900年翻一番，增长显著。在当今时代，从工业革命开始，世界经济产出每15年翻一番，比农业时代快60倍。罗宾·汉森 Robin Hanson 认为，如果超人智能的兴起引发了类似的革命，人们会预期经济至少每季度翻一番，甚至可能每周翻一番。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===不确定性和风险===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Existential risk from artificial general intelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步|来自人工通用智能的存在风险}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;technological singularity&amp;quot; reflects the idea that such change may happen suddenly, and that it is difficult to predict how the resulting new world would operate.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|last=Yudkowsky |first=Eliezer |title=Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk |journal=Global Catastrophic Risks |editor-last=Bostrom |editor-first=Nick |editor2-last=Cirkovic |editor2-first=Milan |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |url=http://singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |bibcode=2008gcr..book..303Y |isbn=978-0-19-857050-9 |page=303 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080807132337/http://www.singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |archivedate=2008-08-07 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;theuncertainfuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; It is unclear whether an intelligence explosion resulting in a singularity would be beneficial or harmful, or even an [[Existential risk|existential threat]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Because AI is a major factor in singularity risk, a number of organizations pursue a technical theory of aligning AI goal-systems with human values, including the [[Future of Humanity Institute]], the [[Machine Intelligence Research Institute]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; the [[Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence]], and the [[Future of Life Institute]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“技术奇点”一词反映了这样一种想法&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|last=Yudkowsky |first=Eliezer |title=Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk |journal=Global Catastrophic Risks |editor-last=Bostrom |editor-first=Nick |editor2-last=Cirkovic |editor2-first=Milan |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |url=http://singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |bibcode=2008gcr..book..303Y |isbn=978-0-19-857050-9 |page=303 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080807132337/http://www.singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |archivedate=2008-08-07 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;theuncertainfuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; ：这种变化可能突然发生，而且很难预测由此产生的新世界将如何运作。目前尚不清楚导致奇点的智能爆炸是有益还是有害，甚至是一种存在威胁。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 由于人工智能是奇点风险的一个主要因素，许多组织追求一种将人工智能的目标系统与人类价值观相协调的技术理论。这些组织包括人类未来研究所 Future of Humanity Institute，机器智能研究所 The Machine Intelligence Research Institute， 人类兼容人工智能中心 &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;The Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence和未来生命研究所 The Future of Life Institute。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Physicist [[Stephen Hawking]] said in 2014 that &amp;quot;Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; Hawking believed that in the coming decades, AI could offer &amp;quot;incalculable benefits and risks&amp;quot; such as &amp;quot;technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; Hawking suggested that artificial intelligence should be taken more seriously and that more should be done to prepare for the singularity:&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-transcendence-looks-at-the-implications-of-artificial-intelligence--but-are-we-taking-ai-seriously-enough-9313474.html |title=Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of artificial intelligence - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'  |work=[[The Independent]] |author=Stephen Hawking |date=1 May 2014 |accessdate=May 5, 2014|author-link=Stephen Hawking }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
物理学家史蒂芬·霍金在2014年表示，“成功创造人工智能将是人类历史上最大的事件。不幸的是，这也可能是最后一次，除非我们学会如何规避风险。”&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt;  霍金认为，在未来几十年里，人工智能可能会带来“无法估量的利益和风险”，例如“技术超越金融市场的聪明程度，超越人类研究人员的创造力，超越人类领袖的操控力，开发我们甚至无法理解的武器”。霍金建议&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; ，人们应该更认真地对待人工智能，并做更多的工作来为奇点做准备：&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-transcendence-looks-at-the-implications-of-artificial-intelligence--but-are-we-taking-ai-seriously-enough-9313474.html |title=Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of artificial intelligence - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'  |work=[[The Independent]] |author=Stephen Hawking |date=1 May 2014 |accessdate=May 5, 2014|author-link=Stephen Hawking }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|So, facing possible futures of incalculable benefits and risks, the experts are surely doing everything possible to ensure the best outcome, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message saying, &amp;quot;We'll arrive in a few decades,&amp;quot; would we just reply, &amp;quot;OK, call us when you get here – we'll leave the lights on&amp;quot;? Probably not – but this is more or less what is happening with AI.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
所以，面对可能的收益和风险难以估量的未来，专家们肯定会尽一切可能确保最好的结果，对吗？错了。如果一个高级的外星文明给我们发了一条信息说，“我们几十年后就会到达”，我们会不会只回答，“好吧，你到了这里就打电话给我们——我们会开着灯的”？可能不会——但这或多或少就是人工智能正在发生的事情。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}} claims that there is no direct evolutionary motivation for an AI to be friendly to humans. Evolution has no inherent tendency to produce outcomes valued by humans, and there is little reason to expect an arbitrary optimisation process to promote an outcome desired by mankind, rather than inadvertently leading to an AI behaving in a way not intended by its creators.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom8&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nick Bostrom, [http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html &amp;quot;Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;], in ''Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making in Humans and in Artificial Intelligence'', Vol. 2, ed. I. Smit et al., Int. Institute of Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics, 2003, pp. 12–17&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]: [http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120611190606/http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf |date=2012-06-11 }}. Draft for a publication in ''Global Catastrophic Risk'' from August 31, 2006, retrieved July 18, 2011 (PDF file)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst9&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/06/11/the-stamp-collecting-device/ The Stamp Collecting Device, Nick Hay]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Anders Sandberg]] has also elaborated on this scenario, addressing various common counter-arguments.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;aleph&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2011/02/why_we_should_fear_the_paperclipper.html 'Why we should fear the Paperclipper'], 2011-02-14 entry of Sandberg's blog 'Andart'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; AI researcher [[Hugo de Garis]] suggests that artificial intelligences may simply eliminate the human race [[instrumental convergence|for access to scarce resources]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems10&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and humans would be powerless to stop them.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;forbes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;de Garis, Hugo. [https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/cosmist-terran-cyborgist-opinions-contributors-artificial-intelligence-09-hugo-de-garis.html &amp;quot;The Coming Artilect War&amp;quot;], Forbes.com, 22 June 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Alternatively, AIs developed under evolutionary pressure to promote their own survival could outcompete humanity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Berglas(2008) 声称, 没有直接的进化动机促使人工智能对人类友好。进化并不倾向于产生人类所重视的结果，也没有理由期望一个任意的优化过程会促进人类所期望的结果，而不是无意中导致人工智能以违背其创造者原有意图的方式行事。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom8&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nick Bostrom, [http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html &amp;quot;Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;], in ''Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making in Humans and in Artificial Intelligence'', Vol. 2, ed. I. Smit et al., Int. Institute of Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics, 2003, pp. 12–17&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]: [http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120611190606/http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf |date=2012-06-11 }}. Draft for a publication in ''Global Catastrophic Risk'' from August 31, 2006, retrieved July 18, 2011 (PDF file)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst9&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/06/11/the-stamp-collecting-device/ The Stamp Collecting Device, Nick Hay]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 安德斯·桑德伯格 Anders Sandberg 也也对这一情景进行了详细阐述，讨论了各种常见的反驳意见&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;aleph&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2011/02/why_we_should_fear_the_paperclipper.html 'Why we should fear the Paperclipper'], 2011-02-14 entry of Sandberg's blog 'Andart'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。人工智能研究员 Hugo de Garis&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems10&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  认为，人工智能可能会为了获取稀缺资源而直接消灭人类，并且人类将无力阻止它们。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;forbes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;de Garis, Hugo. [https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/cosmist-terran-cyborgist-opinions-contributors-artificial-intelligence-09-hugo-de-garis.html &amp;quot;The Coming Artilect War&amp;quot;], Forbes.com, 22 June 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 或者，在进化压力下为了促进自身生存而发展起来的人工智能可能会胜过人类。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bostrom (2002) discusses human extinction scenarios, and lists superintelligence as a possible cause:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bostrom(2002)讨论了人类灭绝的场景，并列举超级智能作为一个可能的原因:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person who asked the question.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the  matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person  who asked the question.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
当我们创造出第一个超级智能实体时，我们可能会犯错并给它一个导致人类毁灭的目标（假设它巨大的智力优势赋予它这样做的力量）。例如，我们可能会错误地将子目标提升为超级目标。我们告诉它去解决一个数学问题，然后它将太阳系中的所有物质变成一个巨大的计算装置，在这个过程中杀死了提出这个问题的人。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]], a significant problem in AI safety is that unfriendly artificial intelligence is likely to be much easier to create than friendly AI. While both require large advances in recursive optimisation process design, friendly AI also requires the ability to make goal structures invariant under self-improvement (or the AI could transform itself into something unfriendly) and a goal structure that aligns with human values and does not automatically destroy the human race. An unfriendly AI, on the other hand, can optimize for an arbitrary goal structure, which does not need to be invariant under self-modification.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst12&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html Coherent Extrapolated Volition, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, May 2004 ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100815055725/http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html |date=2010-08-15 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{harvtxt|Bill Hibbard|2014}} proposes an AI design that avoids several dangers including self-delusion,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JAGI2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| journal=Journal of Artificial General Intelligence| year=2012| volume=3| issue=1| title=Model-Based Utility Functions| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.| doi=10.2478/v10229-011-0013-5| page=1|arxiv = 1111.3934 |bibcode = 2012JAGI....3....1H | s2cid=8434596}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; unintended instrumental actions,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_56.pdf  Avoiding Unintended AI Behaviors.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle. [http://intelligence.org/2012/12/19/december-2012-newsletter/ This paper won the Machine Intelligence Research Institute's 2012 Turing Prize for the Best AGI Safety Paper].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and corruption of the reward generator.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; He also discusses social impacts of AI&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JET2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| url=http://jetpress.org/v17/hibbard.htm| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology| year=2008| volume=17| title=The Technology of Mind and a New Social Contract| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and testing AI.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12b&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_57.pdf  Decision Support for Safe AI Design|.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His 2001 book ''[[Super-Intelligent Machines]]'' advocates the need for public education about AI and public control over AI. It also proposed a simple design that was vulnerable to corruption of the reward generator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
按照[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]的观点，人工智能安全的一个重要问题是，不友好的人工智能可能比友好的人工智能更容易创建。虽然两者都需要递归优化过程的进步，但友好的人工智能还需要目标结构在自我改进过程中保持不变（否则人工智能可以将自己转变成不友好的东西），以及一个与人类价值观相一致且不会自动毁灭人类的目标结构。另一方面，一个不友好的人工智能可以针对任意的目标结构进行优化，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst12&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html Coherent Extrapolated Volition, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, May 2004 ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100815055725/http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html |date=2010-08-15 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 而目标结构不需要在自我改进过程中保持不变。Bill Hibbard (2014)提出了一种人工智能设计&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JAGI2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| journal=Journal of Artificial General Intelligence| year=2012| volume=3| issue=1| title=Model-Based Utility Functions| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.| doi=10.2478/v10229-011-0013-5| page=1|arxiv = 1111.3934 |bibcode = 2012JAGI....3....1H | s2cid=8434596}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ，可以避免包括自欺欺人&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_56.pdf  Avoiding Unintended AI Behaviors.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle. [http://intelligence.org/2012/12/19/december-2012-newsletter/ This paper won the Machine Intelligence Research Institute's 2012 Turing Prize for the Best AGI Safety Paper].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 、无意的工具性行为和奖励机制&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;的腐败等一些危险。他还讨论了人工智能&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JET2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| url=http://jetpress.org/v17/hibbard.htm| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology| year=2008| volume=17| title=The Technology of Mind and a New Social Contract| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;和人工智能测试的社会影响&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12b&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_57.pdf  Decision Support for Safe AI Design|.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。他在2001年出版的“超级智能机器Super-Intelligent Machines”一书中提倡对人工智能的公共教育和公众控制。该书还提出了一个简单的易受奖励机制的腐败影响的设计。It also proposed a simple design that was vulnerable to corruption of the reward generator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===社会生物进化的下一步===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Sociocultural evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{社会文化进化}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Major Evolutionary Transitions digital.jpg|thumb|upright=1.6|Schematic Timeline of Information and Replicators in the Biosphere: Gillings et al.'s &amp;quot;[[The Major Transitions in Evolution|major evolutionary transitions]]&amp;quot; in information processing.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Major_Evolutionary_Transitions_digital.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[档案：主要进化过渡数字.jpg|thumb |直立=1.6 |生物圈中信息和复制因子的示意时间线：Gillings等人在信息处理中的“[[进化中的主要转变|主要进化转变]]”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-99|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[99]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Biological vs. digital information.jpg|thumb|Amount of digital information worldwide (5{{e|21}} bytes) versus human genome information worldwide (10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;19&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; bytes) in 2014.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Biological_vs._digital_information.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[档案：生物vs。数字信息.jpg|2014年，全球数字信息总量（5{e | 21}字节）与全球人类基因组信息（10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;19&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;字节）的对比。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-99|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[99]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the technological singularity is usually seen as a sudden event, some scholars argue the current speed of change already fits this description.{{citation needed|date=April 2018}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然技术奇点通常被视为一个突发事件，但一些学者认为目前的变化速度已经符合这种描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, some argue that we are already in the midst of a [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|major evolutionary transition]] that merges technology, biology, and society. Digital technology has infiltrated the fabric of human society to a degree of indisputable and often life-sustaining dependence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
此外，有人认为，我们已经处在一个融合了技术、生物学和社会学的&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;进化巨变 major evolutionary transition &amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;之中。数字技术已经无可争辩地渗透到人类社会的结构中，而且生命的维持常常依赖数字技术。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2016 article in ''[[Trends in Ecology &amp;amp; Evolution]]'' argues that &amp;quot;humans already embrace fusions of biology and technology. We spend most of our waking time communicating through digitally mediated channels... we trust [[artificial intelligence]] with our lives through [[Anti-lock braking system|antilock braking in cars]] and [[autopilot]]s in planes... With one in three marriages in America beginning online, digital algorithms are also taking a role in human pair bonding and reproduction&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2016年发表在《生态学和进化进展 Trends in Ecology and Evolution》的一篇文章认为，“人类已经接受了生物和技术的融合。我们清醒时大部分时间都是通过数字媒介进行交流的……我们拿性命做担保信任汽车上的&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;防抱死制动系统 Anti-lock braking system&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 和飞机上的&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;自动巡航模式 autopilot&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;……在美国，三分之一的婚姻都是在网络上开始的，数字算法也在人类配对和繁殖中也发挥了作用”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article further argues that from the perspective of the [[evolution]], several previous [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|Major Transitions in Evolution]] have transformed life through innovations in information storage and replication ([[RNA]], [[DNA]], [[multicellularity]], and [[culture]] and [[language]]). In the current stage of life's evolution, the carbon-based biosphere has generated a [[cognitive system]] (humans) capable of creating technology that will result in a comparable [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|evolutionary transition]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
文章进一步指出，从进化的角度来看，以前的几次[[进化]]巨变通过信息存储和复制方式（如RNA、DNA、多细胞性、文化和语言的出现）的创新来改变生命。在生命进化的当前阶段，以碳为基础的生物圈产生了一个认知系统（人类），能够创造技术，从而导致一个类似的进化变迁。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The digital information created by humans has reached a similar magnitude to biological information in the biosphere. Since the 1980s, the quantity of digital information stored has doubled about every 2.5 years, reaching about 5 [[zettabyte]]s in 2014 (5{{e|21}} bytes).{{Citation needed|date=April 2019}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
人类创造的数字信息已经达到了与生物圈中生物信息相似的规模。自20世纪80年代以来，存储的数字信息量大约每2.5年翻一番，2014年达到约5泽字节（5e21字节）。{{Citation needed|date=April 2019}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In biological terms, there are 7.2&amp;amp;nbsp;billion humans on the planet, each having a genome of 6.2&amp;amp;nbsp;billion nucleotides. Since one byte can encode four nucleotide pairs, the individual genomes of every human on the planet could be encoded by approximately 1{{e|19}} bytes. The digital realm stored 500 times more information than this in 2014 (see figure). The total amount of DNA contained in all of the cells on Earth is estimated to be about 5.3{{e|37}} base pairs, equivalent to 1.325{{e|37}} bytes of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在生物学方面，地球上有72亿人，每个人的基因组有62亿个核苷酸。由于一个字节可以编码四个核苷酸对，地球上每个人类的个体基因组可以编码大约1{e | 19}字节。2014年，数字领域存储的信息是这个数字的500倍（见图）。据估计，地球上所有细胞所含的DNA总量约为5.3{e | 37}碱基对，相当于1.325{e | 37}字节的信息。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If growth in digital storage continues at its current rate of 30–38% compound annual growth per year,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; it will rival the total information content contained in all of the DNA in all of the cells on Earth in about 110 years. This would represent a doubling of the amount of information stored in the biosphere across a total time period of just 150 years&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal |url=http://escholarship.org/uc/item/38f4b791 |doi=10.1016/j.tree.2015.12.013|pmid=26777788|title=Information in the Biosphere: Biological and Digital Worlds|journal=Trends in Ecology &amp;amp; Evolution|volume=31|issue=3|pages=180–189|year=2016|last1=Kemp|first1=D. J.|last2=Hilbert|first2=M.|last3=Gillings|first3=M. R.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如果数字存储以目前每年30-38%的复合年增长率继续增长，它将在大约110年内与地球上所有细胞中的所有DNA所包含的信息总量相抗衡。这将意味着在仅仅150年的时间里，生物圈中储存的信息量翻了一番”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===对人类社会的影响===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{further|Artificial intelligence in fiction}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{小说中的人工智能}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In February 2009, under the auspices of the [[Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence]] (AAAI), [[Eric Horvitz]] chaired a meeting of leading computer scientists, artificial intelligence researchers and roboticists at Asilomar in Pacific Grove, California. The goal was to discuss the potential impact of the hypothetical possibility that robots could become self-sufficient and able to make their own decisions. They discussed the extent to which computers and robots might be able to acquire [[autonomy]], and to what degree they could use such abilities to pose threats or hazards.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009年2月，在&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;人工智能促进协会Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence(AAAI) &amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;的主持下，Eric Horvitz 在加利福尼亚州 Pacific Grove 的 Asilomar 主持了一次由主要计算机科学家、人工智能研究人员和机器人学家参加的会议。其目的是讨论机器人能够自给自足并能够自己做决定的假设可能性的潜在影响。他们讨论了计算机和机器人能够在多大程度上获得自主性 autonomy，以及在多大程度上可以利用这些能力对人类构成威胁或危险。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some machines are programmed with various forms of semi-autonomy, including the ability to locate their own power sources and choose targets to attack with weapons. Also, some [[computer viruses]] can evade elimination and, according to scientists in attendance, could therefore be said to have reached a &amp;quot;cockroach&amp;quot; stage of machine intelligence. The conference attendees noted that self-awareness as depicted in science-fiction is probably unlikely, but that other potential hazards and pitfalls exist.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?_r=1&amp;amp;ref=todayspaper Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man] By JOHN MARKOFF, NY Times, July 26, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有些机器被编程成各种形式的&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;半自主 semi-autonomy&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;，包括定位自己的电源和选择武器攻击的目标等。此外，有些计算机病毒可以避免被消除，根据与会科学家的说法，可以说已经达到了机器智能的“蟑螂”阶段。与会者指出，科幻小说中描述的自我意识可能不太可能，但也存在其他潜在的危险和陷阱。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?_r=1&amp;amp;ref=todayspaper Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man] By JOHN MARKOFF, NY Times, July 26, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank S. Robinson predicts that once humans achieve a machine with the intelligence of a human, scientific and technological problems will be tackled and solved with brainpower far superior to that of humans. He notes that artificial systems are able to share data more directly than humans, and predicts that this would result in a global network of super-intelligence that would dwarf human capability.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |last=Robinson |first=Frank S. |title=The Human Future: Upgrade or Replacement? |magazine=[[The Humanist]] |date=27 June 2013 |url=https://thehumanist.com/magazine/july-august-2013/features/the-human-future-upgrade-or-replacement}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Robinson also discusses how vastly different the future would potentially look after such an intelligence explosion. One example of this is solar energy, where the Earth receives vastly more solar energy than humanity captures, so capturing more of that solar energy would hold vast promise for civilizational growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank S. Robinson 预言，一旦人类实现了具有人类智能的机器，科学技术问题将被远远优于人类的智力来解决。他指出，人工系统能够比人类更直接地共享数据，并预测这将导致一个全球的超级智能网络，使人类的能力相形见绌。Robinson 还讨论了在这样一次智能爆炸之后，未来可能会有多大的不同。其中一个例子就是太阳能，地球接收到的太阳能远远多于人类捕获的太阳能，因此捕捉更多的太阳能将为文明发展带来巨大的希望。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==硬起飞与软起飞==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Recursive self-improvement.svg|thumb|upright=1.6|In this sample recursive self-improvement scenario, humans modifying an AI's architecture would be able to double its performance every three years through, for example, 30 generations before exhausting all feasible improvements (left). If instead the AI is smart enough to modify its own architecture as well as human researchers can, its time required to complete a redesign halves with each generation, and it progresses all 30 feasible generations in six years (right).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky-global-risk&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]. &amp;quot;Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk.&amp;quot; Global catastrophic risks (2008).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Recursive_self-improvement.svg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[文件：在这个示例递归自我改进场景中，修改人工智能体系结构的人可以每三年将其性能提高一倍，例如，30代人，然后用尽所有可行的改进（左）。相反，如果人工智能足够聪明，能够像人类研究人员那样修改自己的架构，那么每一代人完成一次重新设计所需的时间将减半，并且它在6年内将所有30代可行的代都推进（右图）。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky-global-risk&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]. &amp;quot;Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk.&amp;quot; Global catastrophic risks (2008).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a hard takeoff scenario, an AGI rapidly self-improves, &amp;quot;taking control&amp;quot; of the world (perhaps in a matter of hours), too quickly for significant human-initiated error correction or for a gradual tuning of the AGI's goals. In a soft takeoff scenario, AGI still becomes far more powerful than humanity, but at a human-like pace (perhaps on the order of decades), on a timescale where ongoing human interaction and correction can effectively steer the AGI's development.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bugaj, Stephan Vladimir, and Ben Goertzel. &amp;quot;Five ethical imperatives and their implications for human-AGI interaction.&amp;quot; Dynamical Psychology (2007).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sotala, Kaj, and Roman V. Yampolskiy. &amp;quot;Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a survey.&amp;quot; Physica Scripta 90.1 (2014): 018001.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在硬起飞的情况下，通用人工智能 AGI 迅速自我完善并“掌控”世界（也许在几个小时内）。速度太快，以致于无法进行重大的人为纠错或对 AGI 的目标进行逐步调整。在软起飞的情况下，虽然 AGI 仍然比人类强大得多，但却以一种类似人类的速度进步（也许是几十年的数量级），持续的人类互动和修正可以有效地引导AGI 的发展。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bugaj, Stephan Vladimir, and Ben Goertzel. &amp;quot;Five ethical imperatives and their implications for human-AGI interaction.&amp;quot; Dynamical Psychology (2007).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sotala, Kaj, and Roman V. Yampolskiy. &amp;quot;Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a survey.&amp;quot; Physica Scripta 90.1 (2014): 018001.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ramez Naam]] argues against a hard takeoff. He has pointed that we already see recursive self-improvement by superintelligences, such as corporations. [[Intel]], for example, has &amp;quot;the collective brainpower of tens of thousands of humans and probably millions of CPU cores to... design better CPUs!&amp;quot; However, this has not led to a hard takeoff; rather, it has led to a soft takeoff in the form of [[Moore's law]].&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Further&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=The Singularity Is Further Than It Appears|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/the-singularity-is-further-tha.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Naam further points out that the computational complexity of higher intelligence may be much greater than linear, such that &amp;quot;creating a mind of intelligence 2 is probably ''more'' than twice as hard as creating a mind of intelligence 1.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Ascend&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=Why AIs Won't Ascend in the Blink of an Eye - Some Math|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/why-ais-wont-ascend-in-blink-of-an-eye.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ramez Naam 反对硬起飞。他指出，我们已经看到企业等超级智能体的递归式地自我完善。例如，Intel拥有“数万人的集体脑力，可能还有数百万个CPU核心……来设计更好的CPU！”然而，这并没有导致硬起飞；相反，它以摩尔定律的形式实现了软起飞&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Further&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=The Singularity Is Further Than It Appears|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/the-singularity-is-further-tha.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。Naam进一步指出，高等智能的计算复杂度可能比线性大得多，因此，“创建智能系统2的难度可能两倍于是创建智能系统1的两倍多。”&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Ascend&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=Why AIs Won't Ascend in the Blink of an Eye - Some Math|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/why-ais-wont-ascend-in-blink-of-an-eye.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[J. Storrs Hall]] believes that &amp;quot;many of the more commonly seen scenarios for overnight hard takeoff are circular – they seem to assume hyperhuman capabilities at the ''starting point'' of the self-improvement process&amp;quot; in order for an AI to be able to make the dramatic, domain-general improvements required for takeoff. Hall suggests that rather than recursively self-improving its hardware, software, and infrastructure all on its own, a fledgling AI would be better off specializing in one area where it was most effective and then buying the remaining components on the marketplace, because the quality of products on the marketplace continually improves, and the AI would have a hard time keeping up with the cutting-edge technology used by the rest of the world.&amp;lt;ref name=Hall2008&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Hall|first=J. Storrs|title=Engineering Utopia|journal=Artificial General Intelligence, 2008: Proceedings of the First AGI Conference|date=2008|pages=460–467|url=http://www.agiri.org/takeoff_hall.pdf|accessdate=16 May 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J.Storrs Hall 认为，“许多常见的一夜之间出现的硬起飞场景都是循环论证——它们似乎在自我提升过程的起点上假设了超人类的能力”，以便人工智能能够实现起飞所需的戏剧性的、领域通用的改进。Hall 认为，一个初出茅庐的人工智能与其靠自己不断地自我改进硬件、软件和基础设施，不如专注于一个它最有效的领域，然后在市场上购买剩余的组件，因为市场上产品的质量不断提高，人工智能将很难跟上世界其他地方使用的尖端技术。&amp;lt;ref name=Hall2008&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Hall|first=J. Storrs|title=Engineering Utopia|journal=Artificial General Intelligence, 2008: Proceedings of the First AGI Conference|date=2008|pages=460–467|url=http://www.agiri.org/takeoff_hall.pdf|accessdate=16 May 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ben Goertzel]] agrees with Hall's suggestion that a new human-level AI would do well to use its intelligence to accumulate wealth. The AI's talents might inspire companies and governments to disperse its software throughout society. Goertzel is skeptical of a hard five minute takeoff but speculates that a takeoff from human to superhuman level on the order of five years is reasonable. Goerzel refers to this scenario as a &amp;quot;semihard takeoff&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Goertzel2014&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Goertzel|first1=Ben|title=Superintelligence — Semi-hard Takeoff Scenarios|url=http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/09/26/superintelligence-semi-hard-takeoff-scenarios/|accessdate=25 October 2014|agency=h+ Magazine|date=26 Sep 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ben Goertzel 同意 Hall 的意见，即一种新的人类级别的人工智能将很好地利用其智能来积累财富。人工智能的天赋可能会激励公司和政府将其软件分散到整个社会。Goertzel 对5分钟的硬起飞持怀疑态度，但他推测从人类到超人的水平，以5年的速度起飞是合理的。Goerzel将这种情况称为“半硬起飞semihard takeoff”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Goertzel2014&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Goertzel|first1=Ben|title=Superintelligence — Semi-hard Takeoff Scenarios|url=http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/09/26/superintelligence-semi-hard-takeoff-scenarios/|accessdate=25 October 2014|agency=h+ Magazine|date=26 Sep 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Max More]] disagrees, arguing that if there were only a few superfast human-level AIs, that they would not radically change the world, as they would still depend on other people to get things done and would still have human cognitive constraints. Even if all superfast AIs worked on intelligence augmentation, it is unclear why they would do better in a discontinuous way than existing human cognitive scientists at producing super-human intelligence, although the rate of progress would increase. More further argues that a superintelligence would not transform the world overnight: a superintelligence would need to engage with existing, slow human systems to accomplish physical impacts on the world. &amp;quot;The need for collaboration, for organization, and for putting ideas into physical changes will ensure that all the old rules are not thrown out overnight or even within years.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=More&amp;gt;{{cite web|last1=More|first1=Max|title=Singularity Meets Economy|url=http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#more|accessdate=10 November 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Max More 不同意这一观点，他认为，如果只有少数超高速的人类水平的人工智能，它们不会从根本上改变世界，因为它们仍将依赖人来完成任务，并且仍然会受到人类认知的限制。即使所有的超高速人工智能都致力于智能增强，但目前还不清楚为什么它们在产生超人类智能方面比现有的人类认知科学家做得更好，尽管进展速度会加快。更进一步指出，超级智能不会在一夜之间改变世界：超级智能需要与现有的、缓慢的人类系统进行接触，以完成对世界的物理影响。”合作、组织和将想法付诸实际变革的需要将确保所有旧规则不会在一夜之间甚至几年内被抛弃。”&amp;lt;ref name=More&amp;gt;{{cite web|last1=More|first1=Max|title=Singularity Meets Economy|url=http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#more|accessdate=10 November 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==永生==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his 2005 book, ''[[The Singularity is Near]]'', [[Ray Kurzweil|Kurzweil]] suggests that medical advances would allow people to protect their bodies from the effects of aging, making the [[Life extension|life expectancy limitless]]. Kurzweil argues that the technological advances in medicine would allow us to continuously repair and replace defective components in our bodies, prolonging life to an undetermined age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Singularity Is Near'', p.&amp;amp;nbsp;215.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Kurzweil further buttresses his argument by discussing current bio-engineering advances. Kurzweil suggests [[somatic gene therapy]]; after synthetic viruses with specific genetic information, the next step would be to apply this technology to gene therapy, replacing human DNA with synthesized genes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Singularity is Near'', p.&amp;amp;nbsp;216.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在 Kurzweil 2005年出版的《奇点近了 The Singularity is Near》一书中，他指出，医学的进步将使人们能够保护自己的身体免受衰老的影响，从而延长寿命。Kurzweil 认为，医学的技术进步将使我们能够不断地修复和更换我们身体中有缺陷的部件，从而将寿命延长到某个他无法确定的年龄。Kurzweil 通过讨论当前的生物工程进展进一步支持了他的论点。Kurzweil 建议了体细胞基因疗法somatic gene therapy；在合成具有特定遗传信息的病毒之后，下一步则是把这项技术应用到基因治疗中，用合成的基因取代人类的DNA。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[K. Eric Drexler]], one of the founders of [[nanotechnology]], postulated cell repair devices, including ones operating within cells and utilizing as yet hypothetical [[biological machine]]s, in his 1986 book ''[[Engines of Creation]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[K.Eric Drexler]]，纳米技术 nanotechnology 的创始人之一，在他1986年的著作《创造的引擎 Engines of Creation》中，假设了细胞修复设备，包括在细胞内运行并利用目前假设的[[生物机器]]的设备。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Richard Feynman]], it was his former graduate student and collaborator [[Albert Hibbs]] who originally suggested to him (circa 1959) the idea of a ''medical'' use for Feynman's theoretical micromachines. Hibbs suggested that certain repair machines might one day be reduced in size to the point that it would, in theory, be possible to (as Feynman put it) &amp;quot;[[Molecular machine#Biological|swallow the doctor]]&amp;quot;. The idea was incorporated into Feynman's 1959 essay ''[[There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom]].''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url = http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html|title = There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom|first = Richard P.|last = Feynman |author-link = Richard Feynman|date = December 1959|url-status = dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100211190050/http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html|archive-date = 2010-02-11}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
根据[[Richard Feynman]]，他过去的研究生和合作者[[Albert Hibbs]]最初向他建议（大约在1959年）费曼理论微型机械Feynman's theoretical micromachines的“医学”用途。Hibbs 认为，有一天，理论上某些修理机器的尺寸可能会被尽可能地缩小（正如费曼所说的那样）“[[Molecular machine#Biological|swallow the doctor]]”。这个想法被收入了费曼1959年的文章“在底部有很多空间[There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beyond merely extending the operational life of the physical body, [[Jaron Lanier]] argues for a form of immortality called &amp;quot;Digital Ascension&amp;quot; that involves &amp;quot;people dying in the flesh and being uploaded into a computer and remaining conscious&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |title = You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto |last = Lanier |first = Jaron |author-link = Jaron Lanier |publisher = [[Alfred A. Knopf]] |year = 2010 |isbn = 978-0307269645 |location = New York, NY |page = [https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780307269645/page/26 26] |url-access = registration |url = https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780307269645 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
除了仅仅延长物质身体的运行寿命之外，[[Jaron Lanier]]还主张一种称为“数字提升 Digital Ascension”的不朽形式，即“人在肉体层面死亡，意识被上传到电脑里并保持清醒”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==概念史==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A paper by Mahendra Prasad, published in ''[[AI Magazine]]'', asserts that the 18th-century mathematician [[Marquis de Condorcet]] was the first person to hypothesize and mathematically model an intelligence explosion and its effects on humanity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Prasad|first=Mahendra|year=2019|title=Nicolas de Condorcet and the First Intelligence Explosion Hypothesis|journal=AI Magazine|volume=40|issue=1|pages=29–33|doi=10.1609/aimag.v40i1.2855}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahendra Prasad在“[[人工智能杂志]]”上发表的一篇论文断言，18世纪的数学家[[Marquis de Condorcet]]是第一个对智能爆炸及其对人类影响进行假设和数学建模的人。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An early description of the idea was made in [[John Wood Campbell Jr.]]'s 1932 short story &amp;quot;The last evolution&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1932年[[约翰.伍德.坎贝尔]的短篇小说《最后的进化》（the last evolution）对这一想法作了早期的描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his 1958 obituary for [[John von Neumann]], Ulam recalled a conversation with von Neumann about the &amp;quot;ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=mathematical/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ulam 在1958年为约翰·冯·诺依曼写的讣告中，回忆了与冯·诺依曼的一次对话：“技术的不断进步和人类生活方式的变化，这使我们似乎接近了种族历史上某些基本的奇点，超出了这些奇点，人类的事务就不能继续下去了。”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1965, Good wrote his essay postulating an &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; of recursive self-improvement of a machine intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1965年，古德写了一篇文章，假设机器智能的自我改进迭代是“智能爆炸”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981, [[Stanisław Lem]] published his [[science fiction]] novel ''[[Golem XIV]]''. It describes a military AI computer (Golem XIV) who obtains consciousness and starts to increase his own intelligence, moving towards personal technological singularity. Golem XIV was originally created to aid its builders in fighting wars, but as its intelligence advances to a much higher level than that of humans, it stops being interested in the military requirement because it finds them lacking internal logical consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1981年，[[Stanisław Lem]]出版了他的[[科幻小说]]小说“[[Golem XIV]]”。它描述了一台军用人工智能计算机（Golem XIV）获得了意识并开始增加自己的智能，朝着个体的技术奇点迈进。Golem XIV最初是为了帮助它的建造者打仗，但随着它的智力发展到比人类更高的水平，它不再对军事感兴趣，因为它发现它们缺乏内在的逻辑一致性。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1983, [[Vernor Vinge]] greatly popularized Good's intelligence explosion in a number of writings, first addressing the topic in print in the January 1983 issue of ''[[Omni (magazine)|Omni]]'' magazine. In this op-ed piece, Vinge seems to have been the first to use the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in a way that was specifically tied to the creation of intelligent machines:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google4&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1983年，[[Vernor Vinge]]在许多著作中极大地普及了Good的智能爆炸，他第一次在1983年1月出版的“[[Omni”杂志上提到了这一主题。在这篇评论文章中，Vinge似乎是第一个使用“奇点”一词的人，并将“奇点”的概念特别地与智能机器的创造进行联系：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|We will soon create intelligences greater than our own. When this happens, human history will have reached a kind of singularity, an intellectual transition as impenetrable as the knotted space-time at the center of a black hole, and the world will pass far beyond our understanding. This singularity, I believe, already haunts a number of science-fiction writers. It makes realistic extrapolation to an interstellar future impossible. To write a story set more than a century hence, one needs a nuclear war in between ... so that the world remains intelligible.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{我们很快就会创造出比我们自己更强大的智能。当这种情况发生时，人类历史将达到一种奇点，一种如同黑洞中心打结的时空一样难以逾越的知识转变，世界将远远超出我们的理解。我相信，这种奇点已经困扰了许多科幻作家。这使得对星际未来的现实推断变得不可能。要写一个多世纪以后的故事，科幻小说家需要一场核战争……这样世界就可以理解了。}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1985, in &amp;quot;The Time Scale of Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;, artificial intelligence researcher [[Ray Solomonoff]] articulated mathematically the related notion of what he called an &amp;quot;infinity point&amp;quot;: if a research community of human-level self-improving AIs take four years to double their own speed, then two years, then one year and so on, their capabilities increase infinitely in finite time.&amp;lt;ref name=chalmers /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;std&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1985年，在《人工智能的时间尺度 The Time Scale of Artificial Intelligence》一书中，人工智能研究人员[[Ray Solomonoff]]以数学的方式阐述了他所说的“无限点”的相关概念：如果一个人类水平的能自我改进人工智能的研究社区需要四年时间使其速度加倍，那么两年，然后一年，依此类推，它们的能力在有限的时间内无限增长。&amp;lt;ref name=chalmers/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=“std”/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vinge's 1993 article &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; spread widely on the internet and helped to popularize the idea.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google5&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; This article contains the statement, &amp;quot;Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.&amp;quot; Vinge argues that science-fiction authors cannot write realistic post-singularity characters who surpass the human intellect, as the thoughts of such an intellect would be beyond the ability of humans to express.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vinge 1993年的文章《未来的技术奇点：如何在后人类时代生存 The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era》在互联网上广为传播，普及了这一理念。“在三十年内，我们将拥有创造超人智慧的技术手段。不久之后，人类时代将结束。”Vinge认为，科幻小说作者无法写出超越人类智力的现实主义后奇点人物，因为这种智力的思想将超出人类的表达能力。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2000, [[Bill Joy]], a prominent technologist and a co-founder of [[Sun Microsystems]], voiced concern over the potential dangers of the singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2000年，著名的技术专家和 Sun Microsystems 的联合创始人 Bill Joy，表达了对奇点潜在危险的担忧。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2005, Kurzweil published ''[[The Singularity is Near]]''. Kurzweil's publicity campaign included an appearance on ''[[The Daily Show with Jon Stewart]]''.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2005年，Kurzweil 发表了《奇点临近 The Singularity is Near》。Kurzweil 的宣传活动包括参加“ Jon Stewart 的每日秀 The Daily Show with Jon Stewart”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2007, [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]] suggested that many of the varied definitions that have been assigned to &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; are mutually incompatible rather than mutually supporting.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sandberg, Anders. &amp;quot;An overview of models of technological singularity.&amp;quot; Roadmaps to AGI and the Future of AGI Workshop, Lugano, Switzerland, March. Vol. 8. 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, Kurzweil extrapolates current technological trajectories past the arrival of self-improving AI or superhuman intelligence, which Yudkowsky argues represents a tension with both I. J. Good's proposed discontinuous upswing in intelligence and Vinge's thesis on unpredictability.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2007年，Eliezer Yudkowsky指出，“奇点”被赋予的许多不同的定义是互不兼容而不是相互支持的&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sandberg, Anders. &amp;quot;An overview of models of technological singularity.&amp;quot; Roadmaps to AGI and the Future of AGI Workshop, Lugano, Switzerland, March. Vol. 8. 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;。例如，Kurzweil 推断了在自我提升的人工智能或超人智能到来之前的当前技术轨迹。Yudkowsky 认为，这与I.J.Good 提出的智能的不连续上升和 Vinge 关于不可预测性的论点存在矛盾。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2009, Kurzweil and [[X-Prize]] founder [[Peter Diamandis]] announced the establishment of [[Singularity University]], a nonaccredited private institute whose stated mission is &amp;quot;to educate, inspire and empower leaders to apply exponential technologies to address humanity's grand challenges.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Funded by [[Google]], [[Autodesk]], [[ePlanet Ventures]], and a group of [[High tech|technology industry]] leaders, Singularity University is based at [[NASA]]'s [[Ames Research Center]] in [[Mountain View, California|Mountain View]], [[California]]. The not-for-profit organization runs an annual ten-week graduate program during summer that covers ten different technology and allied tracks, and a series of executive programs throughout the year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009年，Kurzweil 和 X-Prize 的创始人Peter Diamandis宣布成立奇点大学，这是一所未经认证的私立学院，其宣称的使命是“教育、激励和赋能领导者来使用指数技术应对人类的重大挑战&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 。”奇点大学由Google、Autodesk、ePlanet Ventures和一群高科技产业的领导团队资助，总部设在位于加州山景城的美国宇航局 NASA 的 艾姆斯研究中心 Ames Research Center。这家非营利组织在每年夏季举办为期十周的研究生课程，涵盖十种不同的技术和相关领域，并全年举办一系列高管课程。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==在政治中==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2007, the Joint Economic Committee of the [[United States Congress]] released a report about the future of nanotechnology. It predicts significant technological and political changes in the mid-term future, including possible technological singularity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vyp1AwAAQBAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA375|title=Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society|first=David H.|last=Guston|date=14 July 2010|publisher=SAGE Publications|isbn=978-1-4522-6617-6}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web | url=http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20120213_TheFutureisComingSoonerThanYouThink.pdf | title=Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think | publisher=Joint Economic Committee | date=March 2007}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2007/03/congress_and_th.html|title=Congress and the Singularity}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2007年，美国国会联合经济委员会 the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress 发布了一份关于纳米技术的未来的报告。它预测在中期的未来会发生诸多重大的技术和政治变化，包括可能的技术奇点。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vyp1AwAAQBAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA375|title=Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society|first=David H.|last=Guston|date=14 July 2010|publisher=SAGE Publications|isbn=978-1-4522-6617-6}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web | url=http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20120213_TheFutureisComingSoonerThanYouThink.pdf | title=Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think | publisher=Joint Economic Committee | date=March 2007}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2007/03/congress_and_th.html|title=Congress and the Singularity}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former President of the United States [[Barack Obama]] spoke about singularity in his interview to ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' in 2016:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.wired.com/2016/10/president-obama-mit-joi-ito-interview/|title=Barack Obama Talks AI, Robo Cars, and the Future of the World|first=Scott|last=Dadich|journal=Wired|date=12 October 2016}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2016年，美国前总统巴拉克·奥巴马 Barack Obama 在接受《连线》杂志采访时谈到了奇点:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.wired.com/2016/10/president-obama-mit-joi-ito-interview/|title=Barack Obama Talks AI, Robo Cars, and the Future of the World|first=Scott|last=Dadich|journal=Wired|date=12 October 2016}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|text=One thing that we haven't talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren't spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about &amp;quot;Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?&amp;quot;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that we haven't talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren't spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about &amp;quot;Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有一件事我们没有谈得太多，我还想回过去谈谈，那就是我们真的必须考虑对经济的影响。因为大多数人现在并没有花太多时间去担心奇点，而是在担心“好吧，我的工作会被机器取代吗？”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==参考文献==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20010527181244/http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Authors/Computing/Good-IJ/SCtFUM.html |archive-date = 2001-05-27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archive-url =  https://web.archive.org/web/20010527181244/http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/authors/computing/good-ij/sctfum.html  | archive-date = 2001-05-27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Portal| Technology}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Accelerating change}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| series = Advances in Computers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
系列 = 计算机的进步&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial consciousness}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| isbn = 9780120121069| title = Advances in Computers Volume 6&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9780120121069&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial intelligence arms race}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl = 10919/89424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl = 10919/89424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial intelligence in fiction}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Brain simulation}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Brain–computer interface}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Emerging technologies}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Fermi paradox}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Some Skepticism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些怀疑论者&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Flynn effect}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Robin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一名: 罗宾&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Futures studies}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Global brain}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{sectionlink|Human intelligence|Improving intelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year = 1998&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1998年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Mind uploading}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Neuroenhancement}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| accessdate = 2009-06-19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009-06-19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Outline of transhumanism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20090828023928/http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年3月24日 | archiveurl =  https://web.archive.org/web/20090828023928/http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Robot learning}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archivedate = 2009-08-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archivedate = 2009-08-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Singularitarianism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological determinism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological revolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first=Anthony&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一名: 安东尼&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological unemployment}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last=Berglas&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Berglas&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title=Artificial Intelligence will Kill our Grandchildren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
人工智能会杀死我们的孙子&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year=2008&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2008年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TODO: end here&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Citations引用 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://berglas.org/Articles/AIKillGrandchildren/AIKillGrandchildren.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://berglas.org/articles/aikillgrandchildren/aikillgrandchildren.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Reflist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2008-06-13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2008-06-13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|refs =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url = http://www.technologyreview.com/view/425733/paul-allen-the-singularity-isnt-near |title= Paul Allen: The Singularity Isn't Near |access-date=2015-04-12 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Nick&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一 = 尼克&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation | first=Bill | last=Joy | author-link=Bill Joy | title=Why the future doesn't need us | journal=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired Magazine]] | volume=8 | date= April 2000 | issue=4 |url = https://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html | access-date=2007-08-07 | isbn=978-0-670-03249-5 | publisher=Viking Adult }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Bostrom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
博斯特罗姆&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Nick Bostrom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
作者: 尼克 · 博斯特罗姆&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php |title=Singularly Silly Singularity |access-date=2009-04-13 |first1=PZ |last1=Myers |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090228161422/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php |archive-date=2009-02-28 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title=Existential Risks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
存在风险&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
进化与技术杂志&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil.htm Modis, Theodore. ''The Singularity Myth''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121030072409/http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil.htm |date=2012-10-30 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year=2002&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2002年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| volume=9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| volume = 9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Anders Sandberg|Sandberg, Anders]]. [http://agi-conf.org/2010/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/agi10singmodels2.pdf An overview of models of technological singularity]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date=2007-08-07&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2007-08-07&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3854/global-catastrophic-risks-report.pdf|title=GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS SURVEY (2008) Technical Report 2008/1 Published by Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University. Anders Sandberg and Nick Bostrom|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110516021945/http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3854/global-catastrophic-risks-report.pdf|archivedate=2011-05-16}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Krazit, Tom. [http://news.cnet.com/2100-1006_3-6119618.html Intel pledges 80 cores in five years], ''CNET News'', 26 September 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Bill&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 第一 = 比尔&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;dreyfus&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Harvnb|Dreyfus|Dreyfus|2000|p=xiv}}: 'The truth is that human intelligence can never be replaced with machine intelligence simply because we are not ourselves &amp;quot;thinking machines&amp;quot; in the sense in which that term is commonly understood.' {{Harvtxt|Hawking|1998}}: 'Some people say that computers can never show true intelligence whatever that may be. But it seems to me that if very complicated chemical molecules can operate in humans to make them intelligent then equally complicated electronic circuits can also make computers act in an intelligent way. And if they are intelligent they can presumably design computers that have even greater complexity and intelligence.'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Bill Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 作者链接 = Bill Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Ethical Artificial Intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Ethical Artificial Intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{IMDb title|847969|Episode dated 23 August 2006}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| date = 5 November 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 日期 = 2014年11月5日&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| eprint=1411.1373&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1411.1373&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, ''[[The Age of Spiritual Machines]]'', Viking; 1999,  {{ISBN|978-0-14-028202-3}}. pp. [https://books.google.com/books?id=ldAGcyh0bkUC&amp;amp;pg=PA630 30, 32]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| class = cs.AI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年10月12日 | class = cs.AI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| ref=harv&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= harv&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Theodore Modis, [http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/TedWEB.htm Forecasting the Growth of Complexity and Change], ''Technological Forecasting &amp;amp; Social Change'', 69, No 4, 2002 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120615054939/http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/TedWEB.htm |date=June 15, 2012 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dooling, Richard. ''[[Rapture for the Geeks|Rapture for the Geeks: When AI Outsmarts IQ]]'' (2008), [https://books.google.com/books?id=VbBRsv1lxsUC&amp;amp;lpg=PP1&amp;amp;pg=PA88 p. 88]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dooling, Richard. ''[[Rapture for the Geeks|Rapture for the Geeks: When AI Outsmarts IQ]]'' (2008), [https://books.google.com/books?id=VbBRsv1lxsUC&amp;amp;lpg=PP1&amp;amp;pg=PA89 p. 89]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/nano/singularity-nanotech-or-ai |title=h+ Magazine &amp;amp;#124; Covering technological, scientific, and cultural trends that are changing human beings in fundamental ways |publisher=Hplusmagazine.com |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/whos-who-in-the-singularity |title=Who's Who In The Singularity – IEEE Spectrum |publisher=Spectrum.ieee.org |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1958-64-03/S0002-9904-1958-10189-5/S0002-9904-1958-10189-5.pdf | last=Ulam|first=Stanislaw |title=Tribute to John von Neumann|publisher=Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society|volume=64, #3, part 2|date=May 1958|page=5}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |title=More blades good |author=Anonymous |newspaper=The Economist |date=18 March 2006 |url=http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5624861 |location=London |page=85 |volume=378  |issue=8469 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html |title=Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards |website=nickbostrom.com }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news |url = https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html |newspaper = The New York Times | first=John | last=Markoff | title=Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced by Cheaper Software | date=2011-03-04}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near, pp. 135–136. Penguin Group, 2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, ''The Singularity is Near'', Penguin Group, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near, p. 9. Penguin Group, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Eschatology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 末世论&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Futures studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 未来研究&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singularityu.org/ Singularity University] at its official website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Philosophy of artificial intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
范畴: 人工智能哲学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Existential risk from artificial general intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 来自人工一般智能的世界末日&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;This page was moved from [[wikipedia:en:Technological singularity]]. Its edit history can be viewed at [[技术奇点/edithistory]]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:待整理页面]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Alchemist</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E5%A5%87%E7%82%B9&amp;diff=25835</id>
		<title>技术奇点</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E5%A5%87%E7%82%B9&amp;diff=25835"/>
		<updated>2021-08-15T06:21:27Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Alchemist：&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;此词条暂由水流心不竞、嘉树初译，徐培审校，带来阅读不便，请见谅。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Redirect|The Singularity||Singularity (disambiguation)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Redirect |奇点| |奇点（释疑)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{short description|Hypothetical point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{简介}技术增长变得不可控制和不可逆转的假设时间点}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The '''technological singularity'''—also, simply, '''the singularity'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cadwalladr, Carole (2014). &amp;quot;[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/22/robots-google-ray-kurzweil-terminator-singularity-artificial-intelligence Are the robots about to rise? Google's new director of engineering thinks so…]&amp;quot; ''The Guardian''. Guardian News and Media Limited.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;—is a [[hypothetical]] point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web |title=Collection of sources defining &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; |url=http://www.singularitysymposium.com/definition-of-singularity.html |website=singularitysymposium.com |accessdate=17 April 2019}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book |author1=Eden, Amnon H. |author2=Moor, James H. |title=Singularity hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment |date=2012 |publisher=Springer |location=Dordrecht |isbn=9783642325601 |pages=1–2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to the most popular version of the singularity hypothesis, called [[Technological singularity#Intelligence explosion|intelligence explosion]], an upgradable [[intelligent agent]] will eventually enter a &amp;quot;runaway reaction&amp;quot; of self-improvement cycles, each new and more intelligent generation appearing more and more rapidly, causing an &amp;quot;explosion&amp;quot; in intelligence and resulting in a powerful [[superintelligence]] that qualitatively far surpasses all [[human intelligence]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;技术奇点 Technological singularity&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;——简称 奇点 Singularity &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cadwalladr, Carole (2014). &amp;quot;[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/22/robots-google-ray-kurzweil-terminator-singularity-artificial-intelligence Are the robots about to rise? Google's new director of engineering thinks so…]&amp;quot; ''The Guardian''. Guardian News and Media Limited.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;是一个假设的时间点。在该时间点上，技术的增长变得不可控制和不可逆转，从而导致人类文明发生无法预见的变化。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web |title=Collection of sources defining &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; |url=http://www.singularitysymposium.com/definition-of-singularity.html |website=singularitysymposium.com |accessdate=17 April 2019}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book |author1=Eden, Amnon H. |author2=Moor, James H. |title=Singularity hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment |date=2012 |publisher=Springer |location=Dordrecht |isbn=9783642325601 |pages=1–2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;根据奇点假说（也被称为智能爆炸 intelligence explosion）最流行的版本：一个可升级的智能体终将进入一种自我完善循环的“&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;失控反应 runaway reaction&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”。每个新的、更智能的世代将出现得越来越快，导致智能的“爆炸”，并产生一种在实质上远超所有人类智能的超级智能。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first use of the concept of a &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in the technological context was [[John von Neumann]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Technological Singularity'' by Murray Shanahan, (MIT Press, 2015), page 233&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Stanislaw Ulam]] reports a discussion with von Neumann &amp;quot;centered on the [[Accelerating change|accelerating progress]] of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential [[Wiktionary:singularity|singularity]] in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Subsequent authors have echoed this viewpoint.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;chalmers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Chalmers|first=David|date=2010|title=The singularity: a philosophical analysis|url=|journal=Journal of Consciousness Studies|volume=17|issue=9–10|pages=7–65|via=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一次在科技领域使用“奇点”这一概念的人是冯·诺依曼 John von Neumann&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Technological Singularity'' by Murray Shanahan, (MIT Press, 2015), page 233&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;。Stanislaw Ulam 报告了一次与冯·诺依曼的讨论。“围绕技术的加速进步和人类生活模式的改变，这让我们看到了人类历史上一些本质上的奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; 一旦超越了这些奇点，我们所熟知的人类事务就将无法继续下去了”。后来的作者也赞同这一观点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;chalmers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Chalmers|first=David|date=2010|title=The singularity: a philosophical analysis|url=|journal=Journal of Consciousness Studies|volume=17|issue=9–10|pages=7–65|via=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. J. Good]]'s &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; model predicts that a future superintelligence will trigger a singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Vinge, Vernor. [http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;], in ''Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace'', G. A. Landis, ed., NASA Publication CP-10129, pp. 11–22, 1993.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I. J.古德的“智能爆炸”模型预测未来的超级智能将触发一个奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Vinge, Vernor. [http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;], in ''Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace'', G. A. Landis, ed., NASA Publication CP-10129, pp. 11–22, 1993.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The concept and the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; were popularized by [[Vernor Vinge]] in his 1993 essay ''The Coming Technological Singularity'', in which he wrote that it would signal the end of the human era, as the new superintelligence would continue to upgrade itself and would advance technologically at an incomprehensible rate. He wrote that he would be surprised if it occurred before 2005 or after 2030.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“奇点”的概念和术语是由 Vernor Vinge 在他1993年的文章《即将到来的技术奇点 The Coming Technological Singularity》中得到推广的。他在文中写道，这将标志着人类时代的终结，因为新的超级智能将持续自我升级，并以不可思议的速度在技术上进步。他写道，如果奇点发生在2005年之前或2030年之后，他会感到惊讶。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Public figures such as [[Stephen Hawking]] and [[Elon Musk]] have expressed concern that full [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) could result in human extinction.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Sparkes|first1=Matthew|title=Top scientists call for caution over artificial intelligence|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11342200/Top-scientists-call-for-caution-over-artificial-intelligence.html|accessdate=24 April 2015|work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph (UK)]]|date=13 January 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540|title=Hawking: AI could end human race|date=2 December 2014|publisher=BBC|accessdate=11 November 2017}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The consequences of the singularity and its potential benefit or harm to the human race have been intensely debated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
斯蒂芬·霍金 Stephen Hawking 和埃隆·马斯克 Elon Musk 等公众人物对完全人工智能（AI）可能导致人类灭绝表示担忧。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Sparkes|first1=Matthew|title=Top scientists call for caution over artificial intelligence|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11342200/Top-scientists-call-for-caution-over-artificial-intelligence.html|accessdate=24 April 2015|work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph (UK)]]|date=13 January 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540|title=Hawking: AI could end human race|date=2 December 2014|publisher=BBC|accessdate=11 November 2017}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;奇点的后果及其对人类的潜在利益或伤害一直存在激烈的争论。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Four polls of AI researchers, conducted in 2012 and 2013 by [[Nick Bostrom]] and [[Vincent C. Müller]], suggested a median probability estimate of 50% that [[artificial general intelligence]] (AGI) would be developed by 2040–2050.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;newyorker&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Khatchadourian|first1=Raffi|title=The Doomsday Invention|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=The New Yorker|date=16 November 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Müller, V. C., &amp;amp; Bostrom, N. (2016). &amp;quot;Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion&amp;quot;. In V. C. Müller (ed): ''Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence'' (pp. 555–572). Springer, Berlin. http://philpapers.org/rec/MLLFPI&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年到2013年期间，Nick Bostrom 和 Vincent c. Müller 对人工智能研究人员进行了四次调查。结果显示，通用人工智能(artificial general intelligence, AGI)在2040年至2050年被成功开发出来的概率估计的中位数为50%。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;newyorker&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Khatchadourian|first1=Raffi|title=The Doomsday Invention|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=The New Yorker|date=16 November 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Müller, V. C., &amp;amp; Bostrom, N. (2016). &amp;quot;Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion&amp;quot;. In V. C. Müller (ed): ''Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence'' (pp. 555–572). Springer, Berlin. http://philpapers.org/rec/MLLFPI&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==背景==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although technological progress has been accelerating, it has been limited by the basic intelligence of the human brain, which has not, according to [[Paul R. Ehrlich]], changed significantly for millennia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Paul Ehrlich June 2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ehrlich, Paul. [http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/ The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, with the increasing power of computers and other technologies, it might eventually be possible to build a machine that is significantly more intelligent than humans.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;businessweek&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm Superbrains born of silicon will change everything.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801074729/http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm |date=August 1, 2010 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然技术进步一直在加速，但它一直受到人脑基本智力的限制，而根据 Paul R.Ehrlich 的说法，人类大脑的基本智力在几千年来并没有发生显著变化。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Paul Ehrlich June 2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ehrlich, Paul. [http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/ The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;然而，随着计算机和其他技术的日益强大，人类最终有可能制造出一台比人类智能得多的机器&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;businessweek&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm Superbrains born of silicon will change everything.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801074729/http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm |date=August 1, 2010 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a superhuman intelligence were to be invented—either through the amplification of human intelligence or through artificial intelligence—it would bring to bear greater problem-solving and inventive skills than current humans are capable of. Such an AI is referred to as Seed AI because if an AI were created with engineering capabilities that matched or surpassed those of its human creators, it would have the potential to autonomously improve its own software and hardware or design an even more capable machine. This more capable machine could then go on to design a machine of yet greater capability. These iterations of recursive self-improvement could accelerate, potentially allowing enormous qualitative change before any upper limits imposed by the laws of physics or theoretical computation set in. It is speculated that over many iterations, such an AI would far surpass human cognitive abilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如果一种超人类智能被发明出来。无论是通过人类智能的放大还是通过人工智能，它将带来比现在的人类更强的问题解决和发明创造能力。这种人工智能被称为&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;种子人工智能 Seed AI&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;。因为如果人工智能的工程能力能够与它的人类创造者相匹敌或超越，那么它就有潜力自主改进自己的软件和硬件，或者设计出更强大的机器。这台能力更强的机器可以继续设计一台能力更强的机器。这种自我递归式改进的迭代可以加速，以至于在物理定律或理论计算设定的任何上限之内发生巨大的质变。据推测，经过多次迭代，这样的人工智能将远远超过人类的认知能力。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==智能爆炸==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligence explosion is a possible outcome of humanity building [[artificial general intelligence]] (AGI). AGI would be capable of recursive self-improvement, leading to the rapid emergence of [[Superintelligence|artificial superintelligence]] (ASI), the limits of which are unknown, shortly after technological singularity is achieved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能爆炸是构建&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;通用人工智能 artificial general intelligence (AGI)&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 的可能结果。在技术奇点实现后不久，AGI 将能够进行递归式的自我迭代，从而导致&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;人工超级智能 artificial superintelligence (ASI)&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 的迅速出现，但其局限性尚不清楚。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. J. Good]] speculated in 1965 that artificial general intelligence might bring about an intelligence explosion. He speculated on the effects of superhuman machines, should they ever be invented:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1965年，I.J.Good 曾推测通用人工智能可能会带来智能爆炸。他对&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;超人类机器 superhuman machines &amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;及其影响进行了推测，如果他们真的被发明出来的话：&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an ‘intelligence explosion,’ and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{让我们把超智能机器定义为一种机器，它可以进行远超无论多么聪明的一个人的所有智力活动。由于机器的设计是一种智力活动，那么一台超智能机器可以设计出更好的机器；那么毫无疑问会出现“智能爆炸”，人类的智能将远远落后。因此，第一台超智能机器是人类所需要的最后一项发明，当然，假设机器足够温顺并能够告诉我们如何控制它们的话。}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good's scenario runs as follows: as computers increase in power, it becomes possible for people to build a machine that is more intelligent than humanity; this superhuman intelligence possesses greater problem-solving and inventive skills than current humans are capable of. This superintelligent machine then designs an even more capable machine, or re-writes its own software to become even more intelligent; this (even more capable) machine then goes on to design a machine of yet greater capability, and so on. These iterations of recursive self-improvement accelerate, allowing enormous qualitative change before any upper limits imposed by the laws of physics or theoretical computation set in.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
古德的设想如下：随着计算机能力的增加，人们有可能制造出一台比人类更智能的机器；这种超人的智能拥有比现在人类更强大的问题解决和发明创造的能力。这台超级智能机器随后设计一台功能更强大的机器，或者重写自己的软件来变得更加智能；这台（甚至更强大的）机器接着继续设计功能更强大的机器，以此类推。这些递归式的自我完善的迭代加速，允许在物理定律或理论计算设定的任何上限之内发生巨大的质变。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==其他表现形式==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===超级智能的出现===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Superintelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{超级智能}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A superintelligence, hyperintelligence, or superhuman intelligence is a hypothetical [[intelligent agent|agent]] that possesses intelligence far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human minds. &amp;quot;Superintelligence&amp;quot; may also refer to the form or degree of intelligence possessed by such an agent. [[John von Neumann]], [[Vernor Vinge]] and [[Ray Kurzweil]] define the concept in terms of the technological creation of super intelligence. They argue that it is difficult or impossible for present-day humans to predict what human beings' lives would be like in a post-singularity world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
超级智能、超智能或超人智能是一种假想的智能体。它拥有的智能远远超过最聪明、最有天赋的人类大脑的智能。“超级智能”也可以指这种智能体所拥有的智能的形式或程度。约翰·冯·诺依曼 John von Neumann，Vernor Vinge 和 Ray Kurzweil 从技术创造超级智能的角度定义了这个概念。他们认为，现在的人类很难或不可能预测人类在后奇点世界的生活会是什么样子&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Technology forecasters and researchers disagree about if or when human intelligence is likely to be surpassed. Some argue that advances in [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) will probably result in general reasoning systems that lack human cognitive limitations. Others believe that humans will evolve or directly modify their biology so as to achieve radically greater intelligence. A number of [[futures studies]] scenarios combine elements from both of these possibilities, suggesting that humans are likely to [[brain–computer interface|interface with computers]], or [[mind uploading|upload their minds to computers]], in a way that enables substantial intelligence amplification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
技术预言家和研究人员对人类智能是否或何时可能被超越存在分歧。一些人认为，人工智能（AI）的进步可能会产生没有人类认知局限的一般推理系统。另一些人则认为，人类将进化或直接改变自己的生物性，从而从根本上实现更高的智能。许多未来研究的场景结合了这两种可能的元素，认为人类很可能会与计算机交互，或以将他们的意识上传到计算机的方式实现大量的智能增益。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===非人工智能奇点===&lt;br /&gt;
Some writers use &amp;quot;the singularity&amp;quot; in a broader way to refer to any radical changes in our society brought about by new technologies such as [[molecular nanotechnology]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; although Vinge and other writers specifically state that without superintelligence, such changes would not qualify as a true singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些作家更宽泛地使用“奇点”的概念，用来指代任何我们社会中由新技术带来的剧烈变化，如分子纳米技术，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 尽管 Vernor Vinge 和其他作家明确指出，如果没有超级智能，这些改变就不能算作真正的奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===速度超智能===&lt;br /&gt;
A speed superintelligence describes an AI that can do everything that a human can do, where the only difference is that the machine runs faster.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1007/978-3-662-54033-6_2 |year=2017 |publisher=Springer Berlin Heidelberg |pages=11–23 |author=Kaj Sotala and Roman Yampolskiy |title=The Technological Singularity |chapter=Risks of the Journey to the Singularity |series=The Frontiers Collection |isbn=978-3-662-54031-2 |conference=The Frontiers Collection }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, with a million-fold increase in the speed of information processing relative to that of humans, a subjective year would pass in 30 physical seconds.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Such a difference in information processing speed could drive the singularity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1002/9781118922590.ch16 |year=2016 |publisher=John Wiley \&amp;amp; Sons, Inc |pages=171–224 |author=David J. Chalmers |title=Science Fiction and Philosophy |chapter=The Singularity |isbn=9781118922590 |conference=Science Fiction and Philosophy }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;速度超级智能 speed superintelligence &amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;描述了一个人工智能，它可以做任何人类能做的事情，唯一的区别是这个机器运行得更快.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1007/978-3-662-54033-6_2 |year=2017 |publisher=Springer Berlin Heidelberg |pages=11–23 |author=Kaj Sotala and Roman Yampolskiy |title=The Technological Singularity |chapter=Risks of the Journey to the Singularity |series=The Frontiers Collection |isbn=978-3-662-54031-2 |conference=The Frontiers Collection }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。例如，与人类相比，它信息处理的速度提高了一百万倍，一个主观年将在30个物理秒内过去。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;这种在信息处理速度上的差异可能会导致奇点。.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1002/9781118922590.ch16 |year=2016 |publisher=John Wiley \&amp;amp; Sons, Inc |pages=171–224 |author=David J. Chalmers |title=Science Fiction and Philosophy |chapter=The Singularity |isbn=9781118922590 |conference=Science Fiction and Philosophy }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==合理性==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many prominent technologists and academics dispute the plausibility of a technological singularity, including [[Paul Allen]], [[Jeff Hawkins]], [[John Henry Holland|John Holland]], [[Jaron Lanier]], and [[Gordon Moore]], whose [[Moore's law|law]] is often cited in support of the concept.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
许多著名的技术专家和学者都对技术奇点的合理性提出质疑，包括 Paul Allen、Jeff Hawkins、 John Holland、Jaron Lanier 和 Gordon Moore，他的摩尔定律经常被引用来支持这一概念。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most proposed methods for creating superhuman or [[transhuman]] minds fall into one of two categories: intelligence amplification of human brains and artificial intelligence. The speculated ways to produce intelligence augmentation are many, and include [[bioengineering]], [[genetic engineering]], [[nootropic]] drugs, AI assistants, direct [[brain–computer interface]]s and [[mind uploading]]. Because multiple paths to an intelligence explosion are being explored, it makes a singularity more likely; for a singularity to not occur they would all have to fail.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity |title=What is the Singularity? &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
大多数创造超人或超越人类智能的方法分为两类：人脑的智能增强和人工智能。据推测，智能增强的方法很多，包括生物工程、基因工程、益智药物、AI 助手、直接脑机接口和思维上传。因为人们正在探索通向智能爆炸的多种途径，这使得奇点出现的可能性变得更大；如果奇点不发生，所有这些方法都必将失败。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity |title=What is the Singularity? &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robin Hanson]] expressed skepticism of human intelligence augmentation, writing that once the &amp;quot;low-hanging fruit&amp;quot; of easy methods for increasing human intelligence have been exhausted, further improvements will become increasingly difficult to find.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/vc.html#hanson |title=Some Skepticism |date=1998 |first=Robin |last=Hanson |author-link=Robin Hanson |accessdate=April 8, 2020}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Despite all of the speculated ways for amplifying human intelligence, non-human artificial intelligence (specifically seed AI) is the most popular option among the hypotheses that would advance the singularity.{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Robin Hanson 对人类智能增强表示怀疑，他写道，一旦提高人类智力的“唾手可得的”简单方法用尽，进一步的改进将变得越来越难。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/vc.html#hanson |title=Some Skepticism |date=1998 |first=Robin |last=Hanson |author-link=Robin Hanson |accessdate=April 8, 2020}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;尽管有各种提高人类智能的方法，但非人类人工智能(特别是种子人工智能)仍是所有能推进奇点的假说中最受欢迎的一个。{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether or not an intelligence explosion occurs depends on three factors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Chalmers John Locke Lecture, 10 May, Exam Schools, Oxford, [http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/news/2010/david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available Presenting a philosophical analysis of the possibility of a technological singularity or &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; resulting from recursively self-improving AI] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115205558/http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/news/2010/david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available |date=2013-01-15 }}.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The first accelerating factor is the new intelligence enhancements made possible by each previous improvement. Contrariwise, as the intelligences become more advanced, further advances will become more and more complicated, possibly overcoming the advantage of increased intelligence. Each improvement should beget at least one more improvement, on average, for movement towards singularity to continue. Finally, the laws of physics will eventually prevent any further improvements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能爆炸是否发生取决于三个因素。第一个加速因素是过去的每一次改进都使新的智能增强成为可能。相反，随着智能的进步，进一步的发展将变得越来越复杂，可能会抵消智力增长的优势。平均而言，每一次改进都应该至少带来一次改进，以便继续朝着奇点的方向发展。最后，物理定律最终会阻止任何进一步的改进。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are two logically independent, but mutually reinforcing, causes of intelligence improvements: increases in the speed of computation, and improvements to the [[algorithm]]s used.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;consc.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, David J. Chalmers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The former is predicted by [[Moore's law|Moore's Law]] and the forecasted improvements in hardware,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;itrs&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |title=ITRS |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929173755/http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |archivedate=2011-09-29 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and is comparatively similar to previous technological advances. But there are some AI researchers{{who|date=March 2017}} who believe software is more important than hardware.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|url=https://blog.chronicled.com/why-software-is-more-important-than-hardware-right-now-6a4b58feaa7c|title=Why Software Is More Important Than Hardware Right Now|last=Kulkarni|first=Ajit|date=2017-12-12|website=Chronicled|access-date=2019-02-23}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能改进有两个逻辑上独立但又相互加强的原因：计算速度的提高和使用的算法的改进。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;consc.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, David J. Chalmers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;前者由摩尔定律和硬件方面的改进进行预测，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;itrs&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |title=ITRS |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929173755/http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |archivedate=2011-09-29 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;与以前的技术进步比较相似。但也有一些人工智能研究人员认为软件比硬件更重要&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|url=https://blog.chronicled.com/why-software-is-more-important-than-hardware-right-now-6a4b58feaa7c|title=Why Software Is More Important Than Hardware Right Now|last=Kulkarni|first=Ajit|date=2017-12-12|website=Chronicled|access-date=2019-02-23}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2017 email survey of authors with publications at the 2015 [[Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems|NeurIPS]] and [[International Conference on Machine Learning|ICML]] machine learning conferences asked  about the chance of an intelligence explosion. Of the respondents, 12% said it was &amp;quot;quite likely&amp;quot;, 17% said it was &amp;quot;likely&amp;quot;, 21% said it was &amp;quot;about even&amp;quot;, 24% said it was &amp;quot;unlikely&amp;quot; and 26% said it was &amp;quot;quite unlikely&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在2017年，一项对2015年 NeurIPS 和 ICML 机器学习会议上发表论文的作者的电子邮件调查询问了智能爆炸的可能性。在受访者中，12% 的人认为“很有可能” ，17% 的人认为“有可能” ，21% 的人认为“可能性中等” ，24% 的人认为“不太可能” ，26% 的人认为“非常不可能”。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===速度改进 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both for human and artificial intelligence, hardware improvements increase the rate of future hardware improvements. Simply put,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arstechnica&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Moore's Law]] suggests that if the first doubling of speed took 18 months, the second would take 18 subjective months; or 9 external months, whereafter, four months, two months, and so on towards a speed singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html &amp;quot;Staring into the Singularity&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An upper limit on speed may eventually be reached, although it is unclear how high this would be.  Jeff Hawkins has stated that a self-improving computer system would inevitably run into upper limits on computing power: &amp;quot;in the end there are limits to how big and fast computers can run. We would end up in the same place; we'd just get there a bit faster. There would be no singularity.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hawkins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
无论对于人类智能还是人工智能，硬件改进都会提高未来硬件改进的速度。简单地说，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arstechnica&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;摩尔定律认为，如果第一次速度翻倍需要18个月，第二次则需要18个月；或者额外的9个月，之后，4个月、2个月，以此类推，走向速度奇点&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html &amp;quot;Staring into the Singularity&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 速度的上限最终可能会达到，尽管还不清楚这会有多高。杰夫·霍金斯（Jeff Hawkins）曾表示，一个自我完善的计算机系统不可避免地会遇到计算能力的上限：“最终，计算机的规模和速度都是有限的。我们最终会在停留在同一个地方；我们只会更快到达那里。不会有奇点。”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hawkins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is difficult to directly compare [[silicon]]-based hardware with [[neuron]]s. But {{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}} notes that computer [[speech recognition]] is approaching human capabilities, and that this capability seems to require 0.01% of the volume of the brain. This analogy suggests that modern computer hardware is within a few orders of magnitude of being as powerful as the human brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
很难直接将基于硅的硬件与神经元相比较。但是{Harvtxt| Berglas|2008}指出计算机语音识别正在接近人类的能力，而且这种能力似乎只需要0.01%的脑容量。这个类比表明，现代计算机硬件与人脑一样强大，只差几个数量级。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====指数增长====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Martin Ford in The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
马丁·福特 Martin Ford 的《隧道中的灯光: 自动化，加速技术和未来经济 The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future》&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:PPTMooresLawai.jpg|thumb|Ray Kurzweil writes that, due to [[paradigm shift]]s, a trend of exponential growth extends [[Moore's law]] from [[integrated circuits]] to earlier [[transistor]]s, [[vacuum tube]]s, [[relay]]s, and [[electromechanics|electromechanical]] computers. He predicts that the exponential growth will continue, and that in a few decades the computing power of all computers will exceed that of (&amp;quot;unenhanced&amp;quot;) human brains, with superhuman [[artificial intelligence]] appearing around the same time.|链接=Special:FilePath/PPTMooresLawai.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[图片：PPTMooresLawai.jpg|thumb | Ray Kurzweil 写道，由于[[范式转换]]s，指数增长的趋势将[[摩尔定律]]从[[集成电路]]扩展到早期的[[晶体管]]、[[真空管]]、[[继电器]]和[[机电机械]]计算机。他预测，这种指数增长将继续下去，在几十年内，所有计算机的计算能力将超过（“未增强的”）人脑，同时出现超人[[人工智能]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Moore's Law over 120 Years.png|thumb|left|An updated version of Moore's law over 120 Years (based on [[Ray Kurzweil|Kurzweil's]] [[c:File:PPTMooresLawai.jpg|graph]]). The 7 most recent data points are all [[Nvidia GPUs|NVIDIA GPUs]].|链接=Special:FilePath/Moore's_Law_over_120_Years.png]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[资料图：摩尔超过120的定律年.png|拇指|左|摩尔定律120年的更新版本（基于[[Ray Kurzweil | Kurzweil's]][[c:文件：PPTMooresLawai.jpg|图形]]）。最近的7个数据点都是[[Nvidia GPU | Nvidia GPU]].]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exponential growth in computing technology suggested by Moore's law is commonly cited as a reason to expect a singularity in the relatively near future, and a number of authors have proposed generalizations of Moore's law. Computer scientist and futurist [[Hans Moravec]] proposed in a 1998 book&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&amp;amp;pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that the exponential growth curve could be extended back through earlier computing technologies prior to the [[integrated circuit]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
摩尔定律所建议的计算技术的指数增长通常被认为是在相对不远的将来出现奇点的一个理由，许多作者已经提出了摩尔定律的推广。计算机科学家和未来主义者Hans Moravec在1998年的一本书中提到&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&amp;amp;pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;指数型增长曲线可以沿着集成电路之前的早期计算技术进行延伸。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ray Kurzweil]] postulates a [[law of accelerating returns]] in which the speed of technological change (and more generally, all evolutionary processes&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;) increases exponentially, generalizing Moore's law in the same manner as Moravec's proposal, and also including material technology (especially as applied to [[nanotechnology]]), [[Medical Technology|medical technology]] and others.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity2&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Between 1986 and 2007, machines' application-specific capacity to compute information per capita roughly doubled every 14 months; the per capita capacity of the world's general-purpose computers has doubled every 18 months; the global telecommunication capacity per capita doubled every 34 months; and the world's storage capacity per capita doubled every 40 months.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 &amp;quot;The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information&amp;quot;], Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), [[Science (journal)|Science]], 332(6025), 60–65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; On the other hand, it has been argued that the global acceleration pattern having the 21st century singularity as its parameter should be characterized as [[Hyperbolic growth|hyperbolic]] rather than exponential.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8 ''The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures. A Big History Perspective''] (Springer, 2020)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ray Kurzweil]]假设了一个[[加速回报定律]]，其中技术变革的速度（更广泛地说，所有进化过程&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;）急剧增长。从1986年到2007年，摩尔定律以与莫拉维克提案相同的方式呈指数增长，并包括材料技术（尤其是应用于[[纳米技术]]）、[[医疗技术|医疗技术]]和其他技术，计算机计算人均信息的特定应用能力大约每14个月翻一番；世界通用计算机的人均容量每18个月翻一番；全球人均电信容量每34个月翻一番；世界人均存储容量每40个月翻一番。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 &amp;quot;The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information&amp;quot;], Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), [[Science (journal)|Science]], 332(6025), 60–65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 另一方面，有人认为，以21世纪奇点为参数的全球加速度模式应该被描述为[[双曲线增长|双曲]]而不是指数型&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8 ''The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures. A Big History Perspective''] (Springer, 2020)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil reserves the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; for a rapid increase in artificial intelligence (as opposed to other technologies), writing for example that &amp;quot;The Singularity will allow us to transcend these limitations of our biological bodies and brains ... There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity3&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; He also defines his predicted date of the singularity (2045) in terms of when he expects computer-based intelligences to significantly exceed the sum total of human brainpower, writing that advances in computing before that date &amp;quot;will not represent the Singularity&amp;quot; because they do &amp;quot;not yet correspond to a profound expansion of our intelligence.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;transformation&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
库兹韦尔将“奇点”一词用于描述人工智能(相对于其他技术)的快速增长，例如他写道: “奇点将允许我们超越生物体和大脑的局限……后奇点时代，人类与机器之间将不再有区别”。库兹韦尔相信奇点将在大约2045年之前出现，那时基于计算机的智能将明显超越人类脑力的总和，在这个日期之前计算机技术的进步“并不代表奇点”，因为它们“还不符合智慧的深刻扩展”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====加速变革====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Main|Accelerating change}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Main |加速变革}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|thumb|According to Kurzweil, his [[logarithmic scale|logarithmic graph]] of 15 lists of [[paradigm shift]]s for key [[human history|historic]] events shows an [[exponential growth|exponential]] trend|链接=Special:FilePath/ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[图片：ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|thumb |根据Kurzweil的说法，他对关键的[[人类历史|历史]]事件的15个[[范式转移]]列表的[[对数标度|对数图]]显示了[[指数增长|指数]]趋势]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some singularity proponents argue its inevitability through extrapolation of past trends, especially those pertaining to shortening gaps between improvements to technology. In one of the first uses of the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in the context of technological progress, [[Stanislaw Ulam]] tells of a conversation with [[John von Neumann]] about accelerating change: &lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.&amp;lt;ref name=mathematical/&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些奇点论的支持者认为，通过对过去趋势的推断，特别是那些缩减技术进步的差距有关的趋势，奇点是不可避免的。技术进步的背景下，较早使用“奇点”一词时，Stanislaw Ulam讲述了与冯·诺伊曼关于加速变革的一次谈话：&lt;br /&gt;
一次围绕不断加速的技术进步和生活方式变化的对话，它使得人类历史上出现了一些基本的奇点，超过了这些奇点，人类的事务，如我们所知，将无法继续下去。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil claims that technological progress follows a pattern of&lt;br /&gt;
exponential growth, following what he calls the &amp;quot;law of&lt;br /&gt;
accelerating returns&amp;quot;. Whenever technology approaches a barrier,&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil writes, new technologies will surmount it. He predicts&lt;br /&gt;
paradigm shifts will become increasingly common, leading to&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;technological change so rapid and profound it represents a&lt;br /&gt;
rupture in the fabric of human history&amp;quot;.[43] Kurzweil believes that&lt;br /&gt;
the singularity will occur by approximately 2045.[38] His&lt;br /&gt;
predictions differ from Vinge's in that he predicts a gradual&lt;br /&gt;
ascent to the singularity, rather than Vinge's rapidly self�improving superhuman intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
库兹韦尔声称，技术进步遵循[[指数增长]的模式，遵循他所称的“加速返回定律law of accelerating returns”。库兹韦尔写道，每当一项技术遇到障碍时，新技术就会出来克服这个障碍。他预测范式转变将变得越来越普遍，导致“技术变革非常迅速和深刻，以至于它代表着人类历史结构的一个断裂”。库兹韦尔相信奇点将在2045年之前出现。他和Vinge预测的不同点在于他预测的是一个逐渐上升到奇点的过程，而Vinge预测了一个快速自我更新的超人类智能。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oft-cited dangers include those commonly associated with molecular nanotechnology and genetic engineering. These threats are major issues for both singularity advocates and critics, and were the subject of Bill Joy's Wired magazine article &amp;quot;Why the future doesn't need us&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
经常被引用的危险包括那些与分子纳米技术和基因工程有关的技术。这些威胁是奇点论的倡导者和批评者面临的主要议题，也是比尔 · 乔伊《连线 Wired》杂志上所发表文章《为什么未来不需要我们Why the future doesn't need us》的主题。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===算法改进 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some intelligence technologies, like &amp;quot;seed AI&amp;quot;,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Yampolskiy, Roman V 2015&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceA&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; may also have the potential to not just make themselves faster, but also more efficient, by modifying their [[source code]]. These improvements would make further improvements possible, which would make further improvements possible, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
一些智能技术，比如“种子人工智能”，通过修改自己的源代码，可能使自己不仅更快，而且更高效。这些改进将使进一步的改进成为可能，以此类推。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mechanism for a recursively self-improving set of algorithms differs from an increase in raw computation speed in two ways. First, it does not require external influence: machines designing faster hardware would still require humans to create the improved hardware, or to program factories appropriately.{{citation needed|date=July 2017}} An AI rewriting its own source code could do so while contained in an [[AI box]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
递归自我改进算法集的机制在两个方面不同于原始计算速度的提高。首先，它不需要外部影响：设计更快的硬件的机器仍然需要人类来创造改进的硬件，或者对工厂进行适当的编程。AI可以既身处一个AI盒 AI box里面，又同时改进自己的 源代码。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second, as with [[Vernor Vinge]]’s conception of the singularity, it is much harder to predict the outcome. While speed increases seem to be only a quantitative difference from human intelligence, actual algorithm improvements would be qualitatively different. [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]] compares it to the changes that human intelligence brought: humans changed the world thousands of times more rapidly than evolution had done, and in totally different ways. Similarly, the evolution of life was a massive departure and acceleration from the previous geological rates of change, and improved intelligence could cause change to be as different again.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|author=Eliezer S. Yudkowsky |url=http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/power |title=Power of Intelligence |publisher=Yudkowsky |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第二，和Vernor Vinge关于奇点的概念一样，对结果的预测要困难得多。虽然速度的提高似乎与人类的智能只是数量上的区别，但实际的算法改进在质量上是不同的。Eliezer Yudkowsky将其与人类智能带来的变化相比较：人类改变世界的速度比进化速度快数千倍，而且方式完全不同。同样地，生命的进化与以前的地质变化又有着巨大的不同和加速，而智能的提高可能会使变化再次变得不同。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|author=Eliezer S. Yudkowsky |url=http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/power |title=Power of Intelligence |publisher=Yudkowsky |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are substantial dangers associated with an intelligence explosion singularity originating from a recursively self-improving set of algorithms. First, the goal structure of the AI might not be invariant under self-improvement, potentially causing the AI to optimise for something other than what was originally intended.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008 ]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;kurzweilai&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.kurzweilai.net/artificial-general-intelligence-now-is-the-time |title=Artificial General Intelligence: Now Is the Time |publisher=KurzweilAI |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Secondly, AIs could compete for the same scarce resources mankind uses to survive.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/10/05/paper-on-the-nature-of-self-improving-artificial-intelligence/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence.&amp;quot; Self-Aware Systems. 21 Jan. 2008. Web. 07 Jan. 2010.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|last1=Barrat|first1=James|title=Our Final Invention|year=2013|publisher=St. Martin's Press|location=New York|isbn=978-0312622374|pages=78–98|edition=First|chapter=6, &amp;quot;Four Basic Drives&amp;quot;|title-link=Our Final Invention}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
由递归自我改进的算法集合引起的智能爆炸存在着巨大的危险。首先，人工智能的目标结构在自我完善的情况下可能不是一成不变的，这可能会导致人工智能对原本计划之外的东西进行优化。第二，人工智能可以与人类竞争赖以生存的稀缺资源。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While not actively malicious, there is no reason to think that AIs would actively promote human goals unless they could be programmed as such, and if not, might use the resources currently used to support mankind to promote its own goals, causing human extinction.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;kurzweilai.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.kurzweilai.net/max-more-and-ray-kurzweil-on-the-singularity-2 |title=Max More and Ray Kurzweil on the Singularity |publisher=KurzweilAI |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceB&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/riskintro/index.html |title=Concise Summary &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.nickbostrom.com/fut/evolution.html Bostrom, Nick, The Future of Human Evolution, Death and Anti-Death: Two Hundred Years After Kant, Fifty Years After Turing, ed. Charles Tandy, pp. 339–371, 2004, Ria University Press.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然不是恶意的，但没有理由认为人工智能会积极促进人类目标的实现，除非这些目标可以被编程，否则，它们就可能利用目前用于支持人类的资源来促进自己的目标，从而导致人类灭绝。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Carl Shulman]] and [[Anders Sandberg]] suggest that algorithm improvements may be the limiting factor for a singularity; while hardware efficiency tends to improve at a steady pace, software innovations are more unpredictable and may be bottlenecked by serial, cumulative research. They suggest that in the case of a software-limited singularity, intelligence explosion would actually become more likely than with a hardware-limited singularity, because in the software-limited case, once human-level AI is developed, it could run serially on very fast hardware, and the abundance of cheap hardware would make AI research less constrained.&amp;lt;ref name=ShulmanSandberg2010&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Shulman|first=Carl|author2=Anders Sandberg |title=Implications of a Software-Limited Singularity|journal=ECAP10: VIII European Conference on Computing and Philosophy|year=2010|url=http://intelligence.org/files/SoftwareLimited.pdf|accessdate=17 May 2014|editor1-first=Klaus|editor1-last=Mainzer}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An abundance of accumulated hardware that can be unleashed once the software figures out how to use it has been called &amp;quot;computing overhang.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;MuehlhauserSalamon2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book|last=Muehlhauser|first=Luke|title=Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment|year=2012|publisher=Springer|chapter-url=http://intelligence.org/files/IE-EI.pdf|author2=Anna Salamon |editor=Amnon Eden |editor2=Johnny Søraker |editor3=James H. Moor |editor4=Eric Steinhart|chapter=Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carl Shulman和Anders Sandberg认为，算法改进可能是奇点的限制因素；虽然硬件效率趋于稳步提高，但软件创新更不具可预测性，可能会受到连续、累积的研究的限制。他们认为，智能爆炸在受软件限制的奇点情况中发生的可能性实际上比在受硬件限制的奇点更可能发生，因为在软件受限的情况下，一旦开发出人类水平的人工智能，它可以在非常快的硬件上连续运行，廉价硬件的丰富将使人工智能研究不那么受限制。&amp;lt;ref name=ShulmanSandberg2010&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Shulman|first=Carl|author2=Anders Sandberg |title=Implications of a Software-Limited Singularity|journal=ECAP10: VIII European Conference on Computing and Philosophy|year=2010|url=http://intelligence.org/files/SoftwareLimited.pdf|accessdate=17 May 2014|editor1-first=Klaus|editor1-last=Mainzer}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 一旦软件知道如何使用硬件，大量的硬件就可以被释放出来，这被称为“计算过剩”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;MuehlhauserSalamon2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book|last=Muehlhauser|first=Luke|title=Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment|year=2012|publisher=Springer|chapter-url=http://intelligence.org/files/IE-EI.pdf|author2=Anna Salamon |editor=Amnon Eden |editor2=Johnny Søraker |editor3=James H. Moor |editor4=Eric Steinhart|chapter=Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===危机===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some critics, like philosopher [[Hubert Dreyfus]], assert that computers or machines cannot achieve [[human intelligence]], while others, like physicist [[Stephen Hawking]], hold that the definition of intelligence is irrelevant if the net result is the same.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;dreyfus&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些批评者，如哲学家Hubert Dreyfus断言计算机或机器无法实现人类智能，而其他人，如物理学家史蒂芬·霍金，则认为如果最终结果是相同的，那么智力的定义其实无关紧要。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An early description of the idea was made in John Wood Campbell Jr.'s 1932 short story &amp;quot;The last evolution&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
早在1932年，约翰·W·坎贝尔的短篇小说《最后的进化》中就对这个想法进行了描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psychologist [[Steven Pinker]] stated in 2008:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
心理学家史蒂芬·平克在2008年指出：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|... There is not the slightest reason to believe in a coming singularity. The fact that you can visualize a future in your imagination is not evidence that it is likely or even possible. Look at domed cities, jet-pack commuting, underwater cities, mile-high buildings, and nuclear-powered automobiles—all staples of futuristic fantasies when I was a child that have never arrived. Sheer processing power is not a pixie dust that magically solves all your problems. ...&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
没有一点理由相信奇点即将到来。你可以想象一个未来并不能证明它是可能出现的。看看穹顶城市、喷气式飞行器通勤、水下城市、一英里高的建筑和核动力汽车：这些都是我小时候未来主义幻想的主要内容，然而它们都没有成真。纯粹的计算能力不是能神奇地解决所有问题的仙尘。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[University of California, Berkeley]], [[philosophy]] professor [[John Searle]] writes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[加州大学伯克利分校]，哲学教授约翰·塞尔写道：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{blockquote|[Computers] have, literally ..., no [[intelligence]], no [[motivation]], no [[autonomy]], and no agency.  We design them to behave as if they had certain sorts of [[psychology]], but there is no psychological reality to the corresponding processes or behavior. ...  [T]he machinery has no beliefs, desires, [or] motivations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[John R. Searle]], “What Your Computer Can’t Know”, ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', 9 October 2014, p. 54.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
毫不夸张地说，计算机没有智能，没有动机，没有自主，也没有智能体。我们设计他们，使他们的行为好像表示他们有某种心理，但其实没有对应这些过程或行为的心理现实……机器没有信仰、愿望或动机。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Martin Ford (author)|Martin Ford]] in ''The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thelightsinthetunnel&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; postulates a &amp;quot;technology paradox&amp;quot; in that before the singularity could occur most routine jobs in the economy would be automated, since this would require a level of technology inferior to that of the singularity. This would cause massive unemployment and plummeting consumer demand, which in turn would destroy the incentive to invest in the technologies that would be required to bring about the Singularity. Job displacement is increasingly no longer limited to work traditionally considered to be &amp;quot;routine.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Martin Ford在“隧道中的灯光：自动化、加速技术和未来经济 The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thelightsinthetunnel&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;中提出了一个“技术悖论”：在奇点出现之前，经济体中的大多数日常工作都将自动化，因为这所需的技术水平低于奇点。这将导致大规模的失业和消费者需求的骤降，这反过来又会破坏投资于实现奇点所需技术的动机。工作的替代越来越不再局限于那些传统上被认为是“例行公事”的工作。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Theodore Modis]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; and [[Jonathan Huebner]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological14&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; argue that the rate of technological innovation has not only ceased to rise, but is actually now declining. Evidence for this decline is that the rise in computer [[clock rate]]s is slowing, even while Moore's prediction of exponentially increasing circuit density continues to hold. This is due to excessive heat build-up from the chip, which cannot be dissipated quickly enough to prevent the chip from melting when operating at higher speeds. Advances in speed may be possible in the future by virtue of more power-efficient CPU designs and multi-cell processors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; While Kurzweil used Modis' resources, and Modis' work was around accelerating change, Modis distanced himself from Kurzweil's thesis of a &amp;quot;technological singularity&amp;quot;, claiming that it lacks scientific rigor.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Theodore Modis&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;和Jonathan Huebner&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological14&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 认为技术创新的速度不仅停止上升，而且现在实际上正在下降。这种下降的证据是计算机时钟速率的增长正在放缓，尽管摩尔关于电路密度指数增长的预测仍然成立。这是由于芯片产生过多的热量，当它们以较高的速度运行时，这些热量不能足够快地散去，可能导致芯片熔化。在未来，随着更节能的CPU设计和多单元处理器的发明，速度的提高可能实现。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;尽管 Kurzweil 利用了Modis的（工作成果）作为资源，同时 Modis 的工作围绕着加速变革，但 Modis 与 Kurzweil 的“技术奇点”理论保持距离，称其缺乏科学严谨性。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a detailed empirical accounting, ''The Progress of Computing'', [[William Nordhaus]] argued that, prior to 1940, computers followed the much slower growth of a traditional industrial economy, thus rejecting extrapolations of Moore's law to 19th-century computers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal | doi=10.1017/S0022050707000058|title = Two Centuries of Productivity Growth in Computing| journal=The Journal of Economic History| volume=67|pages = 128–159|year = 2007|last1 = Nordhaus|first1 = William D.| citeseerx=10.1.1.330.1871}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在一份详细的实证报告《计算的进步 The Progress of Computing》中，威廉·诺德豪斯 William Nordhaus 认为，在 1940 年之前，计算机遵循传统工业经济增长缓慢的趋势，因此拒绝了摩尔定律对19世纪计算机的推断。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal | doi=10.1017/S0022050707000058|title = Two Centuries of Productivity Growth in Computing| journal=The Journal of Economic History| volume=67|pages = 128–159|year = 2007|last1 = Nordhaus|first1 = William D.| citeseerx=10.1.1.330.1871}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a 2007 paper, Schmidhuber stated that the frequency of subjectively &amp;quot;notable events&amp;quot; appears to be approaching a 21st-century singularity, but cautioned readers to take such plots of subjective events with a grain of salt: perhaps differences in memory of recent and distant events could create an illusion of accelerating change where none exists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schmidhuber, Jürgen. &amp;quot;New millennium AI and the convergence of history.&amp;quot; Challenges for computational intelligence. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. 15–35.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在2007年的一篇论文中，Schmidhuber指出主观上“值得注意的事件”出现的频率似乎正在接近21世纪的奇点，但他提醒读者，对这些主观事件的情节要持保留态度：也许对近期和远期事件的记忆差异，可能会造成一种在根本不存在的情况下变化加速的错觉。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schmidhuber, Jürgen. &amp;quot;New millennium AI and the convergence of history.&amp;quot; Challenges for computational intelligence. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. 15–35.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paul Allen argued the opposite of accelerating returns, the complexity brake; the more progress science makes towards understanding intelligence, the more difficult it becomes to make additional progress. A study of the number of patents shows that human creativity does not show accelerating returns, but in fact, as suggested by Joseph Tainter in his The Collapse of Complex Societies, a law of diminishing returns. The number of patents per thousand peaked in the period from 1850 to 1900, and has been declining since.[60] The growth of complexity eventually becomes self-limiting, and leads to a widespread &amp;quot;general systems collapse&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
保罗·艾伦 Paul Allen 认为，与加速回报相反的是复杂性制动；科学在理解智力方面取得的进展越多，就越难取得更多的进展。一项对专利数量的研究表明，人类的创造力并没有表现出加速的回报。事实上，正如Joseph Tainter 在他的《复杂社会的崩溃 The Collapse of Complex Societies 》中所指出的那样，存在一个收益递减定律 a law of diminishing returns 的限制。每千人的专利的数量在1850年至1900年期间达到顶峰，此后一直在下降。复杂性的增长最终会自我限制，并导致广泛的“一般系统崩溃 general systems collapse”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jaron Lanier]] refutes the idea that the Singularity is inevitable. He states: &amp;quot;I do not think the technology is creating itself. It's not an autonomous process.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |author=Jaron Lanier |title=Who Owns the Future? |work=New York: Simon &amp;amp; Schuster |date=2013 |url=http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=JCB8D9LA&amp;amp;tocp=59}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He goes on to assert: &amp;quot;The reason to believe in human agency over technological determinism is that you can then have an economy where people earn their own way and invent their own lives. If you structure a society on ''not'' emphasizing individual human agency, it's the same thing operationally as denying people clout, dignity, and self-determination ... to embrace [the idea of the Singularity] would be a celebration of bad data and bad politics.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jaron Lanier驳斥了奇点不可避免的观点。他说：“我不认为这项技术是在创造自我。这不是一个自主的过程。”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |author=Jaron Lanier |title=Who Owns the Future? |work=New York: Simon &amp;amp; Schuster |date=2013 |url=http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=JCB8D9LA&amp;amp;tocp=59}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;他接着断言：“相信人的能动性而不是技术决定论的原因是，这样你就可以有一个经济体，人们在其中可以自己挣钱，创造自己的生活。如果你在不强调个人主观能动性的基础上构建社会，就等于在操作上否认人们的影响力、尊严和自决...接受 [奇点的想法] 将是对糟糕数据和糟糕政治的颂扬。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Economics|Economist]] [[Robert J. Gordon]], in ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'' (2016), points out that measured economic growth has slowed around 1970 and slowed even further since the [[financial crisis of 2007–2008]], and argues that the economic data show no trace of a coming Singularity as imagined by mathematician [[I.J. Good]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[William D. Nordhaus]], &amp;quot;Why Growth Will Fall&amp;quot; (a review of [[Robert J. Gordon]], ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'', Princeton University Press, 2016, {{ISBN|978-0691147727}}, 762 pp., $39.95), ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', vol. LXIII, no. 13 (August 18, 2016), p. 68.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
经济学家 Robert J.Gordon在《美国经济增长的兴衰：内战以来的美国生活水平 The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War》（2016）中指出，据测量，经济增长在1970年左右放缓，自2007-2008年金融危机以来甚至进一步放缓，并认为经济数据显示没有迹象表明数学家I.J.Good所设想的奇点将会到来。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[William D. Nordhaus]], &amp;quot;Why Growth Will Fall&amp;quot; (a review of [[Robert J. Gordon]], ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'', Princeton University Press, 2016, {{ISBN|978-0691147727}}, 762 pp., $39.95), ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', vol. LXIII, no. 13 (August 18, 2016), p. 68.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to general criticisms of the singularity concept, several critics have raised issues with Kurzweil's iconic chart. One line of criticism is that a [[Log-log plot|log-log]] chart of this nature is inherently biased toward a straight-line result. Others identify selection bias in the points that Kurzweil chooses to use. For example, biologist [[PZ Myers]] points out that many of the early evolutionary &amp;quot;events&amp;quot; were picked arbitrarily.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Kurzweil has rebutted this by charting evolutionary events from 15 neutral sources, and showing that they fit a straight line on [[:File:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|a log-log chart]]. ''[[The Economist]]'' mocked the concept with a graph extrapolating that the number of blades on a razor, which has increased over the years from one to as many as five, will increase ever-faster to infinity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
除了对奇点概念的一般性批评外，一些批评者还对库兹韦尔的标志性图表提出了质疑。一种批评是，这种性质的对数图像本质上就会存在倾向于直线的有偏差结果。其他人批评库兹韦尔在数据点的使用上存在选择偏差。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;例如，生物学家P. Z. Myers指出，许多早期的进化“事件”都是随意挑选的。库兹韦尔反驳了这一点，他绘制了15个中立来源的进化事件图，并表明它们都符合一条直线.《经济学人》用一张图表来嘲讽这个概念：一把剃须刀上的刀片数在过去几年里从一个增加到多达五个，并且它将以更快的速度增长到无穷大。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==潜在影响==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dramatic changes in the rate of economic growth have occurred in the past because of some technological advancement. Based on population growth, the economy doubled every 250,000 years from the [[Paleolithic]] era until the [[Neolithic Revolution]]. The new agricultural economy doubled every 900 years, a remarkable increase. In the current era, beginning with the Industrial Revolution, the world's economic output doubles every fifteen years, sixty times faster than during the agricultural era. If the rise of superhuman intelligence causes a similar revolution, argues Robin Hanson, one would expect the economy to double at least quarterly and possibly on a weekly basis.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url=http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/robotics-software/economics-of-the-singularity |title=Economics Of The Singularity |author=Robin Hanson |work=IEEE Spectrum Special Report: The Singularity }} &amp;amp; [http://hanson.gmu.edu/longgrow.pdf Long-Term Growth As A Sequence of Exponential Modes]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
过去由于一些技术进步，经济增长率发生了巨大变化。以人口增长为基础，从[[旧石器时代]]到[[新石器时代]]，经济每25万年翻一番。新农业经济每900年翻一番，增长显著。在当今时代，从工业革命开始，世界经济产出每15年翻一番，比农业时代快60倍。罗宾·汉森Robin Hanson认为，如果超人智能的兴起引发了类似的革命，人们会预期经济至少每季度翻一番，甚至可能每周翻一番。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===不确定性和风险===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Existential risk from artificial general intelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步|来自人工通用智能的存在风险}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;technological singularity&amp;quot; reflects the idea that such change may happen suddenly, and that it is difficult to predict how the resulting new world would operate.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|last=Yudkowsky |first=Eliezer |title=Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk |journal=Global Catastrophic Risks |editor-last=Bostrom |editor-first=Nick |editor2-last=Cirkovic |editor2-first=Milan |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |url=http://singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |bibcode=2008gcr..book..303Y |isbn=978-0-19-857050-9 |page=303 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080807132337/http://www.singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |archivedate=2008-08-07 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;theuncertainfuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; It is unclear whether an intelligence explosion resulting in a singularity would be beneficial or harmful, or even an [[Existential risk|existential threat]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Because AI is a major factor in singularity risk, a number of organizations pursue a technical theory of aligning AI goal-systems with human values, including the [[Future of Humanity Institute]], the [[Machine Intelligence Research Institute]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; the [[Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence]], and the [[Future of Life Institute]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“技术奇点”一词反映了这样一种想法&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|last=Yudkowsky |first=Eliezer |title=Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk |journal=Global Catastrophic Risks |editor-last=Bostrom |editor-first=Nick |editor2-last=Cirkovic |editor2-first=Milan |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |url=http://singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |bibcode=2008gcr..book..303Y |isbn=978-0-19-857050-9 |page=303 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080807132337/http://www.singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |archivedate=2008-08-07 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;theuncertainfuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; ：这种变化可能突然发生，而且很难预测由此产生的新世界将如何运作。目前尚不清楚导致奇点的智能爆炸是有益还是有害，甚至是一种存在威胁。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 由于人工智能是奇点风险的一个主要因素，许多组织追求一种将人工智能的目标系统与人类价值观相协调的技术理论。这些组织包括人类未来研究所 Future of Humanity Institute，机器智能研究所 The Machine Intelligence Research Institute， 人类兼容人工智能中心 &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;The Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence和未来生命研究所 The Future of Life Institute。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Physicist [[Stephen Hawking]] said in 2014 that &amp;quot;Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; Hawking believed that in the coming decades, AI could offer &amp;quot;incalculable benefits and risks&amp;quot; such as &amp;quot;technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; Hawking suggested that artificial intelligence should be taken more seriously and that more should be done to prepare for the singularity:&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-transcendence-looks-at-the-implications-of-artificial-intelligence--but-are-we-taking-ai-seriously-enough-9313474.html |title=Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of artificial intelligence - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'  |work=[[The Independent]] |author=Stephen Hawking |date=1 May 2014 |accessdate=May 5, 2014|author-link=Stephen Hawking }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
物理学家史蒂芬·霍金在2014年表示，“成功创造人工智能将是人类历史上最大的事件。不幸的是，这也可能是最后一次，除非我们学会如何规避风险。”&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt;  霍金认为，在未来几十年里，人工智能可能会带来“无法估量的利益和风险”，例如“技术超越金融市场的聪明程度，超越人类研究人员的创造力，超越人类领袖的操控力，开发我们甚至无法理解的武器”。霍金建议&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; ，人们应该更认真地对待人工智能，并做更多的工作来为奇点做准备：&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-transcendence-looks-at-the-implications-of-artificial-intelligence--but-are-we-taking-ai-seriously-enough-9313474.html |title=Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of artificial intelligence - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'  |work=[[The Independent]] |author=Stephen Hawking |date=1 May 2014 |accessdate=May 5, 2014|author-link=Stephen Hawking }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|So, facing possible futures of incalculable benefits and risks, the experts are surely doing everything possible to ensure the best outcome, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message saying, &amp;quot;We'll arrive in a few decades,&amp;quot; would we just reply, &amp;quot;OK, call us when you get here – we'll leave the lights on&amp;quot;? Probably not – but this is more or less what is happening with AI.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
所以，面对可能的收益和风险难以估量的未来，专家们肯定会尽一切可能确保最好的结果，对吗？错了。如果一个高级的外星文明给我们发了一条信息说，“我们几十年后就会到达”，我们会不会只回答，“好吧，你到了这里就打电话给我们——我们会开着灯的”？可能不会——但这或多或少就是人工智能正在发生的事情。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}} claims that there is no direct evolutionary motivation for an AI to be friendly to humans. Evolution has no inherent tendency to produce outcomes valued by humans, and there is little reason to expect an arbitrary optimisation process to promote an outcome desired by mankind, rather than inadvertently leading to an AI behaving in a way not intended by its creators.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom8&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nick Bostrom, [http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html &amp;quot;Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;], in ''Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making in Humans and in Artificial Intelligence'', Vol. 2, ed. I. Smit et al., Int. Institute of Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics, 2003, pp. 12–17&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]: [http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120611190606/http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf |date=2012-06-11 }}. Draft for a publication in ''Global Catastrophic Risk'' from August 31, 2006, retrieved July 18, 2011 (PDF file)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst9&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/06/11/the-stamp-collecting-device/ The Stamp Collecting Device, Nick Hay]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Anders Sandberg]] has also elaborated on this scenario, addressing various common counter-arguments.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;aleph&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2011/02/why_we_should_fear_the_paperclipper.html 'Why we should fear the Paperclipper'], 2011-02-14 entry of Sandberg's blog 'Andart'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; AI researcher [[Hugo de Garis]] suggests that artificial intelligences may simply eliminate the human race [[instrumental convergence|for access to scarce resources]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems10&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and humans would be powerless to stop them.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;forbes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;de Garis, Hugo. [https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/cosmist-terran-cyborgist-opinions-contributors-artificial-intelligence-09-hugo-de-garis.html &amp;quot;The Coming Artilect War&amp;quot;], Forbes.com, 22 June 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Alternatively, AIs developed under evolutionary pressure to promote their own survival could outcompete humanity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Berglas(2008) 声称, 没有直接的进化动机促使人工智能对人类友好。进化并不倾向于产生人类所重视的结果，也没有理由期望一个任意的优化过程会促进人类所期望的结果，而不是无意中导致人工智能以违背其创造者原有意图的方式行事。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom8&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nick Bostrom, [http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html &amp;quot;Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;], in ''Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making in Humans and in Artificial Intelligence'', Vol. 2, ed. I. Smit et al., Int. Institute of Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics, 2003, pp. 12–17&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]: [http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120611190606/http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf |date=2012-06-11 }}. Draft for a publication in ''Global Catastrophic Risk'' from August 31, 2006, retrieved July 18, 2011 (PDF file)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst9&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/06/11/the-stamp-collecting-device/ The Stamp Collecting Device, Nick Hay]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 安德斯·桑德伯格 Anders Sandberg 也也对这一情景进行了详细阐述，讨论了各种常见的反驳意见&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;aleph&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2011/02/why_we_should_fear_the_paperclipper.html 'Why we should fear the Paperclipper'], 2011-02-14 entry of Sandberg's blog 'Andart'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。人工智能研究员 Hugo de Garis&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems10&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  认为，人工智能可能会为了获取稀缺资源而直接消灭人类，并且人类将无力阻止它们。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;forbes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;de Garis, Hugo. [https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/cosmist-terran-cyborgist-opinions-contributors-artificial-intelligence-09-hugo-de-garis.html &amp;quot;The Coming Artilect War&amp;quot;], Forbes.com, 22 June 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 或者，在进化压力下为了促进自身生存而发展起来的人工智能可能会胜过人类。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bostrom (2002) discusses human extinction scenarios, and lists superintelligence as a possible cause:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bostrom(2002)讨论了人类灭绝的场景，并列举超级智能作为一个可能的原因:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person who asked the question.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the  matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person  who asked the question.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
当我们创造出第一个超级智能实体时，我们可能会犯错并给它一个导致人类毁灭的目标（假设它巨大的智力优势赋予它这样做的力量）。例如，我们可能会错误地将子目标提升为超级目标。我们告诉它去解决一个数学问题，然后它将太阳系中的所有物质变成一个巨大的计算装置，在这个过程中杀死了提出这个问题的人。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]], a significant problem in AI safety is that unfriendly artificial intelligence is likely to be much easier to create than friendly AI. While both require large advances in recursive optimisation process design, friendly AI also requires the ability to make goal structures invariant under self-improvement (or the AI could transform itself into something unfriendly) and a goal structure that aligns with human values and does not automatically destroy the human race. An unfriendly AI, on the other hand, can optimize for an arbitrary goal structure, which does not need to be invariant under self-modification.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst12&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html Coherent Extrapolated Volition, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, May 2004 ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100815055725/http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html |date=2010-08-15 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{harvtxt|Bill Hibbard|2014}} proposes an AI design that avoids several dangers including self-delusion,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JAGI2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| journal=Journal of Artificial General Intelligence| year=2012| volume=3| issue=1| title=Model-Based Utility Functions| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.| doi=10.2478/v10229-011-0013-5| page=1|arxiv = 1111.3934 |bibcode = 2012JAGI....3....1H | s2cid=8434596}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; unintended instrumental actions,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_56.pdf  Avoiding Unintended AI Behaviors.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle. [http://intelligence.org/2012/12/19/december-2012-newsletter/ This paper won the Machine Intelligence Research Institute's 2012 Turing Prize for the Best AGI Safety Paper].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and corruption of the reward generator.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; He also discusses social impacts of AI&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JET2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| url=http://jetpress.org/v17/hibbard.htm| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology| year=2008| volume=17| title=The Technology of Mind and a New Social Contract| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and testing AI.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12b&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_57.pdf  Decision Support for Safe AI Design|.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His 2001 book ''[[Super-Intelligent Machines]]'' advocates the need for public education about AI and public control over AI. It also proposed a simple design that was vulnerable to corruption of the reward generator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
按照[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]的观点，人工智能安全的一个重要问题是，不友好的人工智能可能比友好的人工智能更容易创建。虽然两者都需要递归优化过程的进步，但友好的人工智能还需要目标结构在自我改进过程中保持不变（否则人工智能可以将自己转变成不友好的东西），以及一个与人类价值观相一致且不会自动毁灭人类的目标结构。另一方面，一个不友好的人工智能可以针对任意的目标结构进行优化，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst12&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html Coherent Extrapolated Volition, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, May 2004 ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100815055725/http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html |date=2010-08-15 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 而目标结构不需要在自我改进过程中保持不变。Bill Hibbard (2014)提出了一种人工智能设计&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JAGI2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| journal=Journal of Artificial General Intelligence| year=2012| volume=3| issue=1| title=Model-Based Utility Functions| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.| doi=10.2478/v10229-011-0013-5| page=1|arxiv = 1111.3934 |bibcode = 2012JAGI....3....1H | s2cid=8434596}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ，可以避免包括自欺欺人&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_56.pdf  Avoiding Unintended AI Behaviors.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle. [http://intelligence.org/2012/12/19/december-2012-newsletter/ This paper won the Machine Intelligence Research Institute's 2012 Turing Prize for the Best AGI Safety Paper].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 、无意的工具性行为和奖励机制&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;的腐败等一些危险。他还讨论了人工智能&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JET2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| url=http://jetpress.org/v17/hibbard.htm| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology| year=2008| volume=17| title=The Technology of Mind and a New Social Contract| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;和人工智能测试的社会影响&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12b&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_57.pdf  Decision Support for Safe AI Design|.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。他在2001年出版的“超级智能机器Super-Intelligent Machines”一书中提倡对人工智能的公共教育和公众控制。该书还提出了一个简单的易受奖励机制的腐败影响的设计。It also proposed a simple design that was vulnerable to corruption of the reward generator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===社会生物进化的下一步===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Sociocultural evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{社会文化进化}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Major Evolutionary Transitions digital.jpg|thumb|upright=1.6|Schematic Timeline of Information and Replicators in the Biosphere: Gillings et al.'s &amp;quot;[[The Major Transitions in Evolution|major evolutionary transitions]]&amp;quot; in information processing.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Major_Evolutionary_Transitions_digital.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[档案：主要进化过渡数字.jpg|thumb |直立=1.6 |生物圈中信息和复制因子的示意时间线：Gillings等人在信息处理中的“[[进化中的主要转变|主要进化转变]]”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-99|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[99]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Biological vs. digital information.jpg|thumb|Amount of digital information worldwide (5{{e|21}} bytes) versus human genome information worldwide (10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;19&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; bytes) in 2014.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Biological_vs._digital_information.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[档案：生物vs。数字信息.jpg|2014年，全球数字信息总量（5{e | 21}字节）与全球人类基因组信息（10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;19&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;字节）的对比。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-99|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[99]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the technological singularity is usually seen as a sudden event, some scholars argue the current speed of change already fits this description.{{citation needed|date=April 2018}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然技术奇点通常被视为一个突发事件，但一些学者认为目前的变化速度已经符合这种描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, some argue that we are already in the midst of a [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|major evolutionary transition]] that merges technology, biology, and society. Digital technology has infiltrated the fabric of human society to a degree of indisputable and often life-sustaining dependence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
此外，有人认为，我们已经处在一个融合了技术、生物学和社会学的进化巨变major evolutionary transition之中。数字技术已经无可争辩地渗透到人类社会的结构中，而且生命的维持常常依赖数字技术。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2016 article in ''[[Trends in Ecology &amp;amp; Evolution]]'' argues that &amp;quot;humans already embrace fusions of biology and technology. We spend most of our waking time communicating through digitally mediated channels... we trust [[artificial intelligence]] with our lives through [[Anti-lock braking system|antilock braking in cars]] and [[autopilot]]s in planes... With one in three marriages in America beginning online, digital algorithms are also taking a role in human pair bonding and reproduction&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2016年发表在 生态学和进化进展 Trends in Ecology and Evolution 的一篇文章认为，“人类已经接受了生物和技术的融合。我们清醒时大部分时间都是通过数字媒介进行交流的……我们拿性命做担保信任汽车上的防抱死制动系统 Anti-lock braking system 和飞机上的自动巡航模式 autopilot……在美国，三分之一的婚姻都是在网络上开始的，数字算法也在人类配对和繁殖中也发挥了作用”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article further argues that from the perspective of the [[evolution]], several previous [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|Major Transitions in Evolution]] have transformed life through innovations in information storage and replication ([[RNA]], [[DNA]], [[multicellularity]], and [[culture]] and [[language]]). In the current stage of life's evolution, the carbon-based biosphere has generated a [[cognitive system]] (humans) capable of creating technology that will result in a comparable [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|evolutionary transition]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
文章进一步指出，从进化的角度来看，以前的几次[[进化]]巨变通过信息存储和复制方式（如RNA、DNA、多细胞性、文化和语言的出现）的创新来改变生命。在生命进化的当前阶段，以碳为基础的生物圈产生了一个认知系统（人类），能够创造技术，从而导致一个类似的进化变迁。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The digital information created by humans has reached a similar magnitude to biological information in the biosphere. Since the 1980s, the quantity of digital information stored has doubled about every 2.5 years, reaching about 5 [[zettabyte]]s in 2014 (5{{e|21}} bytes).{{Citation needed|date=April 2019}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
人类创造的数字信息已经达到了与生物圈中生物信息相似的规模。自20世纪80年代以来，存储的数字信息量大约每2.5年翻一番，2014年达到约5泽字节（5e21字节）。{{Citation needed|date=April 2019}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In biological terms, there are 7.2&amp;amp;nbsp;billion humans on the planet, each having a genome of 6.2&amp;amp;nbsp;billion nucleotides. Since one byte can encode four nucleotide pairs, the individual genomes of every human on the planet could be encoded by approximately 1{{e|19}} bytes. The digital realm stored 500 times more information than this in 2014 (see figure). The total amount of DNA contained in all of the cells on Earth is estimated to be about 5.3{{e|37}} base pairs, equivalent to 1.325{{e|37}} bytes of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在生物学方面，地球上有72亿人，每个人的基因组有62亿个核苷酸。由于一个字节可以编码四个核苷酸对，地球上每个人类的个体基因组可以编码大约1{e | 19}字节。2014年，数字领域存储的信息是这个数字的500倍（见图）。据估计，地球上所有细胞所含的DNA总量约为5.3{e | 37}碱基对，相当于1.325{e | 37}字节的信息。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If growth in digital storage continues at its current rate of 30–38% compound annual growth per year,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; it will rival the total information content contained in all of the DNA in all of the cells on Earth in about 110 years. This would represent a doubling of the amount of information stored in the biosphere across a total time period of just 150 years&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal |url=http://escholarship.org/uc/item/38f4b791 |doi=10.1016/j.tree.2015.12.013|pmid=26777788|title=Information in the Biosphere: Biological and Digital Worlds|journal=Trends in Ecology &amp;amp; Evolution|volume=31|issue=3|pages=180–189|year=2016|last1=Kemp|first1=D. J.|last2=Hilbert|first2=M.|last3=Gillings|first3=M. R.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如果数字存储以目前每年30-38%的复合年增长率继续增长，它将在大约110年内与地球上所有细胞中的所有DNA所包含的信息总量相抗衡。这将意味着在仅仅150年的时间里，生物圈中储存的信息量翻了一番”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===对人类社会的影响===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{further|Artificial intelligence in fiction}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{小说中的人工智能}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In February 2009, under the auspices of the [[Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence]] (AAAI), [[Eric Horvitz]] chaired a meeting of leading computer scientists, artificial intelligence researchers and roboticists at Asilomar in Pacific Grove, California. The goal was to discuss the potential impact of the hypothetical possibility that robots could become self-sufficient and able to make their own decisions. They discussed the extent to which computers and robots might be able to acquire [[autonomy]], and to what degree they could use such abilities to pose threats or hazards.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009年2月，在人工智能促进协会Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence(AAAI) 的主持下，Eric Horvitz在加利福尼亚州Pacific Grove 的 Asilomar 主持了一次由主要计算机科学家、人工智能研究人员和机器人学家参加的会议。其目的是讨论机器人能够自给自足并能够自己做决定的假设可能性的潜在影响。他们讨论了计算机和机器人能够在多大程度上获得自主性 autonomy，以及在多大程度上可以利用这些能力对人类构成威胁或危险。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some machines are programmed with various forms of semi-autonomy, including the ability to locate their own power sources and choose targets to attack with weapons. Also, some [[computer viruses]] can evade elimination and, according to scientists in attendance, could therefore be said to have reached a &amp;quot;cockroach&amp;quot; stage of machine intelligence. The conference attendees noted that self-awareness as depicted in science-fiction is probably unlikely, but that other potential hazards and pitfalls exist.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?_r=1&amp;amp;ref=todayspaper Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man] By JOHN MARKOFF, NY Times, July 26, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有些机器被编程成各种形式的半自主 semi-autonomy，包括定位自己的电源和选择武器攻击的目标等。此外，有些计算机病毒可以避免被消除，根据与会科学家的说法，可以说已经达到了机器智能的“蟑螂”阶段。与会者指出，科幻小说中描述的自我意识可能不太可能，但也存在其他潜在的危险和陷阱。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?_r=1&amp;amp;ref=todayspaper Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man] By JOHN MARKOFF, NY Times, July 26, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank S. Robinson predicts that once humans achieve a machine with the intelligence of a human, scientific and technological problems will be tackled and solved with brainpower far superior to that of humans. He notes that artificial systems are able to share data more directly than humans, and predicts that this would result in a global network of super-intelligence that would dwarf human capability.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |last=Robinson |first=Frank S. |title=The Human Future: Upgrade or Replacement? |magazine=[[The Humanist]] |date=27 June 2013 |url=https://thehumanist.com/magazine/july-august-2013/features/the-human-future-upgrade-or-replacement}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Robinson also discusses how vastly different the future would potentially look after such an intelligence explosion. One example of this is solar energy, where the Earth receives vastly more solar energy than humanity captures, so capturing more of that solar energy would hold vast promise for civilizational growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank S. Robinson 预言，一旦人类实现了具有人类智能的机器，科学技术问题将被远远优于人类的智力来解决。他指出，人工系统能够比人类更直接地共享数据，并预测这将导致一个全球的超级智能网络，使人类的能力相形见绌。Robinson还讨论了在这样一次智能爆炸之后，未来可能会有多大的不同。其中一个例子就是太阳能，地球接收到的太阳能远远多于人类捕获的太阳能，因此捕捉更多的太阳能将为文明发展带来巨大的希望。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==硬起飞与软起飞==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Recursive self-improvement.svg|thumb|upright=1.6|In this sample recursive self-improvement scenario, humans modifying an AI's architecture would be able to double its performance every three years through, for example, 30 generations before exhausting all feasible improvements (left). If instead the AI is smart enough to modify its own architecture as well as human researchers can, its time required to complete a redesign halves with each generation, and it progresses all 30 feasible generations in six years (right).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky-global-risk&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]. &amp;quot;Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk.&amp;quot; Global catastrophic risks (2008).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Recursive_self-improvement.svg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[文件：在这个示例递归自我改进场景中，修改人工智能体系结构的人可以每三年将其性能提高一倍，例如，30代人，然后用尽所有可行的改进（左）。相反，如果人工智能足够聪明，能够像人类研究人员那样修改自己的架构，那么每一代人完成一次重新设计所需的时间将减半，并且它在6年内将所有30代可行的代都推进（右图）。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky-global-risk&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]. &amp;quot;Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk.&amp;quot; Global catastrophic risks (2008).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a hard takeoff scenario, an AGI rapidly self-improves, &amp;quot;taking control&amp;quot; of the world (perhaps in a matter of hours), too quickly for significant human-initiated error correction or for a gradual tuning of the AGI's goals. In a soft takeoff scenario, AGI still becomes far more powerful than humanity, but at a human-like pace (perhaps on the order of decades), on a timescale where ongoing human interaction and correction can effectively steer the AGI's development.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bugaj, Stephan Vladimir, and Ben Goertzel. &amp;quot;Five ethical imperatives and their implications for human-AGI interaction.&amp;quot; Dynamical Psychology (2007).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sotala, Kaj, and Roman V. Yampolskiy. &amp;quot;Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a survey.&amp;quot; Physica Scripta 90.1 (2014): 018001.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在硬起飞的情况下，通用人工智能 AGI 迅速自我完善并“掌控”世界（也许在几个小时内）。速度太快，以致于无法进行重大的人为纠错或对 AGI 的目标进行逐步调整。在软起飞的情况下，虽然 AGI 仍然比人类强大得多，但却以一种类似人类的速度进步（也许是几十年的数量级），持续的人类互动和修正可以有效地引导AGI 的发展。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bugaj, Stephan Vladimir, and Ben Goertzel. &amp;quot;Five ethical imperatives and their implications for human-AGI interaction.&amp;quot; Dynamical Psychology (2007).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sotala, Kaj, and Roman V. Yampolskiy. &amp;quot;Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a survey.&amp;quot; Physica Scripta 90.1 (2014): 018001.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ramez Naam]] argues against a hard takeoff. He has pointed that we already see recursive self-improvement by superintelligences, such as corporations. [[Intel]], for example, has &amp;quot;the collective brainpower of tens of thousands of humans and probably millions of CPU cores to... design better CPUs!&amp;quot; However, this has not led to a hard takeoff; rather, it has led to a soft takeoff in the form of [[Moore's law]].&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Further&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=The Singularity Is Further Than It Appears|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/the-singularity-is-further-tha.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Naam further points out that the computational complexity of higher intelligence may be much greater than linear, such that &amp;quot;creating a mind of intelligence 2 is probably ''more'' than twice as hard as creating a mind of intelligence 1.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Ascend&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=Why AIs Won't Ascend in the Blink of an Eye - Some Math|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/why-ais-wont-ascend-in-blink-of-an-eye.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ramez Naam反对硬起飞。他指出，我们已经看到企业等超级智能体的递归式地自我完善。例如，Intel拥有“数万人的集体脑力，可能还有数百万个CPU核心……来设计更好的CPU！”然而，这并没有导致硬起飞；相反，它以摩尔定律的形式实现了软起飞&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Further&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=The Singularity Is Further Than It Appears|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/the-singularity-is-further-tha.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。Naam进一步指出，高等智能的计算复杂度可能比线性大得多，因此，“创建智能系统2的难度可能两倍于是创建智能系统1的两倍多。”&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Ascend&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=Why AIs Won't Ascend in the Blink of an Eye - Some Math|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/why-ais-wont-ascend-in-blink-of-an-eye.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[J. Storrs Hall]] believes that &amp;quot;many of the more commonly seen scenarios for overnight hard takeoff are circular – they seem to assume hyperhuman capabilities at the ''starting point'' of the self-improvement process&amp;quot; in order for an AI to be able to make the dramatic, domain-general improvements required for takeoff. Hall suggests that rather than recursively self-improving its hardware, software, and infrastructure all on its own, a fledgling AI would be better off specializing in one area where it was most effective and then buying the remaining components on the marketplace, because the quality of products on the marketplace continually improves, and the AI would have a hard time keeping up with the cutting-edge technology used by the rest of the world.&amp;lt;ref name=Hall2008&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Hall|first=J. Storrs|title=Engineering Utopia|journal=Artificial General Intelligence, 2008: Proceedings of the First AGI Conference|date=2008|pages=460–467|url=http://www.agiri.org/takeoff_hall.pdf|accessdate=16 May 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J.Storrs Hall认为，“许多常见的一夜之间出现的硬起飞场景都是循环论证——它们似乎在自我提升过程的起点上假设了超人类的能力”，以便人工智能能够实现起飞所需的戏剧性的、领域通用的改进。Hall认为，一个初出茅庐的人工智能与其靠自己不断地自我改进硬件、软件和基础设施，不如专注于一个它最有效的领域，然后在市场上购买剩余的组件，因为市场上产品的质量不断提高，人工智能将很难跟上世界其他地方使用的尖端技术。&amp;lt;ref name=Hall2008&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Hall|first=J. Storrs|title=Engineering Utopia|journal=Artificial General Intelligence, 2008: Proceedings of the First AGI Conference|date=2008|pages=460–467|url=http://www.agiri.org/takeoff_hall.pdf|accessdate=16 May 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ben Goertzel]] agrees with Hall's suggestion that a new human-level AI would do well to use its intelligence to accumulate wealth. The AI's talents might inspire companies and governments to disperse its software throughout society. Goertzel is skeptical of a hard five minute takeoff but speculates that a takeoff from human to superhuman level on the order of five years is reasonable. Goerzel refers to this scenario as a &amp;quot;semihard takeoff&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Goertzel2014&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Goertzel|first1=Ben|title=Superintelligence — Semi-hard Takeoff Scenarios|url=http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/09/26/superintelligence-semi-hard-takeoff-scenarios/|accessdate=25 October 2014|agency=h+ Magazine|date=26 Sep 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ben Goertzel 同意 Hall 的意见，即一种新的人类级别的人工智能将很好地利用其智能来积累财富。人工智能的天赋可能会激励公司和政府将其软件分散到整个社会。Goertzel 对5分钟的硬起飞持怀疑态度，但他推测从人类到超人的水平，以5年的速度起飞是合理的。Goerzel将这种情况称为“半硬起飞semihard takeoff”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Goertzel2014&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Goertzel|first1=Ben|title=Superintelligence — Semi-hard Takeoff Scenarios|url=http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/09/26/superintelligence-semi-hard-takeoff-scenarios/|accessdate=25 October 2014|agency=h+ Magazine|date=26 Sep 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Max More]] disagrees, arguing that if there were only a few superfast human-level AIs, that they would not radically change the world, as they would still depend on other people to get things done and would still have human cognitive constraints. Even if all superfast AIs worked on intelligence augmentation, it is unclear why they would do better in a discontinuous way than existing human cognitive scientists at producing super-human intelligence, although the rate of progress would increase. More further argues that a superintelligence would not transform the world overnight: a superintelligence would need to engage with existing, slow human systems to accomplish physical impacts on the world. &amp;quot;The need for collaboration, for organization, and for putting ideas into physical changes will ensure that all the old rules are not thrown out overnight or even within years.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=More&amp;gt;{{cite web|last1=More|first1=Max|title=Singularity Meets Economy|url=http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#more|accessdate=10 November 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Max More不同意这一观点，他认为，如果只有少数超高速的人类水平的人工智能，它们不会从根本上改变世界，因为它们仍将依赖人来完成任务，并且仍然会受到人类认知的限制。即使所有的超高速人工智能都致力于智能增强，但目前还不清楚为什么它们在产生超人类智能方面比现有的人类认知科学家做得更好，尽管进展速度会加快。更进一步指出，超级智能不会在一夜之间改变世界：超级智能需要与现有的、缓慢的人类系统进行接触，以完成对世界的物理影响。”合作、组织和将想法付诸实际变革的需要将确保所有旧规则不会在一夜之间甚至几年内被抛弃。”&amp;lt;ref name=More&amp;gt;{{cite web|last1=More|first1=Max|title=Singularity Meets Economy|url=http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#more|accessdate=10 November 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==永生==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his 2005 book, ''[[The Singularity is Near]]'', [[Ray Kurzweil|Kurzweil]] suggests that medical advances would allow people to protect their bodies from the effects of aging, making the [[Life extension|life expectancy limitless]]. Kurzweil argues that the technological advances in medicine would allow us to continuously repair and replace defective components in our bodies, prolonging life to an undetermined age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Singularity Is Near'', p.&amp;amp;nbsp;215.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Kurzweil further buttresses his argument by discussing current bio-engineering advances. Kurzweil suggests [[somatic gene therapy]]; after synthetic viruses with specific genetic information, the next step would be to apply this technology to gene therapy, replacing human DNA with synthesized genes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Singularity is Near'', p.&amp;amp;nbsp;216.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在Kurzweil 2005年出版的《奇点近了The Singularity is Near》一书中，他指出，医学的进步将使人们能够保护自己的身体免受衰老的影响，从而延长寿命。Kurzweil认为，医学的技术进步将使我们能够不断地修复和更换我们身体中有缺陷的部件，从而将寿命延长到某个他无法确定的年龄。Kurzweil通过讨论当前的生物工程进展进一步支持了他的论点。Kurzweil建议了体细胞基因疗法somatic gene therapy；在合成具有特定遗传信息的病毒之后，下一步则是把这项技术应用到基因治疗中，用合成的基因取代人类的DNA。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[K. Eric Drexler]], one of the founders of [[nanotechnology]], postulated cell repair devices, including ones operating within cells and utilizing as yet hypothetical [[biological machine]]s, in his 1986 book ''[[Engines of Creation]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[K.Eric Drexler]]，纳米技术nanotechnology的创始人之一，在他1986年的著作“创造的引擎Engines of Creation”中，假设了细胞修复设备，包括在细胞内运行并利用目前假设的[[生物机器]]的设备。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Richard Feynman]], it was his former graduate student and collaborator [[Albert Hibbs]] who originally suggested to him (circa 1959) the idea of a ''medical'' use for Feynman's theoretical micromachines. Hibbs suggested that certain repair machines might one day be reduced in size to the point that it would, in theory, be possible to (as Feynman put it) &amp;quot;[[Molecular machine#Biological|swallow the doctor]]&amp;quot;. The idea was incorporated into Feynman's 1959 essay ''[[There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom]].''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url = http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html|title = There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom|first = Richard P.|last = Feynman |author-link = Richard Feynman|date = December 1959|url-status = dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100211190050/http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html|archive-date = 2010-02-11}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
根据[[Richard Feynman]]，他过去的研究生和合作者[[Albert Hibbs]]最初向他建议（大约在1959年）费曼理论微型机械Feynman's theoretical micromachines的“医学”用途。Hibbs认为，有一天，理论上某些修理机器的尺寸可能会被尽可能地缩小（正如费曼所说的那样）“[[Molecular machine#Biological|swallow the doctor]]”。这个想法被收入了费曼1959年的文章“在底部有很多空间[There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beyond merely extending the operational life of the physical body, [[Jaron Lanier]] argues for a form of immortality called &amp;quot;Digital Ascension&amp;quot; that involves &amp;quot;people dying in the flesh and being uploaded into a computer and remaining conscious&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |title = You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto |last = Lanier |first = Jaron |author-link = Jaron Lanier |publisher = [[Alfred A. Knopf]] |year = 2010 |isbn = 978-0307269645 |location = New York, NY |page = [https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780307269645/page/26 26] |url-access = registration |url = https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780307269645 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
除了仅仅延长物质身体的运行寿命之外，[[Jaron Lanier]]还主张一种称为“数字提升Digital Ascension”的不朽形式，即“人在肉体层面死亡，意识被上传到电脑里并保持清醒”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==概念史==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A paper by Mahendra Prasad, published in ''[[AI Magazine]]'', asserts that the 18th-century mathematician [[Marquis de Condorcet]] was the first person to hypothesize and mathematically model an intelligence explosion and its effects on humanity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Prasad|first=Mahendra|year=2019|title=Nicolas de Condorcet and the First Intelligence Explosion Hypothesis|journal=AI Magazine|volume=40|issue=1|pages=29–33|doi=10.1609/aimag.v40i1.2855}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahendra Prasad在“[[人工智能杂志]]”上发表的一篇论文断言，18世纪的数学家[[Marquis de Condorcet]]是第一个对智能爆炸及其对人类影响进行假设和数学建模的人。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An early description of the idea was made in [[John Wood Campbell Jr.]]'s 1932 short story &amp;quot;The last evolution&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1932年[[约翰.伍德.坎贝尔]的短篇小说《最后的进化》（the last evolution）对这一想法作了早期的描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his 1958 obituary for [[John von Neumann]], Ulam recalled a conversation with von Neumann about the &amp;quot;ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=mathematical/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ulam在1958年为约翰·冯·诺依曼写的讣告中，回忆了与冯·诺依曼的一次对话：“技术的不断进步和人类生活方式的变化，这使我们似乎接近了种族历史上某些基本的奇点，超出了这些奇点，人类的事务就不能继续下去了。”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1965, Good wrote his essay postulating an &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; of recursive self-improvement of a machine intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1965年，古德写了一篇文章，假设机器智能的自我改进迭代是“智能爆炸”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981, [[Stanisław Lem]] published his [[science fiction]] novel ''[[Golem XIV]]''. It describes a military AI computer (Golem XIV) who obtains consciousness and starts to increase his own intelligence, moving towards personal technological singularity. Golem XIV was originally created to aid its builders in fighting wars, but as its intelligence advances to a much higher level than that of humans, it stops being interested in the military requirement because it finds them lacking internal logical consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1981年，[[Stanisław Lem]]出版了他的[[科幻小说]]小说“[[Golem XIV]]”。它描述了一台军用人工智能计算机（Golem XIV）获得了意识并开始增加自己的智能，朝着个体的技术奇点迈进。Golem XIV最初是为了帮助它的建造者打仗，但随着它的智力发展到比人类更高的水平，它不再对军事感兴趣，因为它发现它们缺乏内在的逻辑一致性。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1983, [[Vernor Vinge]] greatly popularized Good's intelligence explosion in a number of writings, first addressing the topic in print in the January 1983 issue of ''[[Omni (magazine)|Omni]]'' magazine. In this op-ed piece, Vinge seems to have been the first to use the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in a way that was specifically tied to the creation of intelligent machines:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google4&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1983年，[[Vernor Vinge]]在许多著作中极大地普及了Good的智能爆炸，他第一次在1983年1月出版的“[[Omni”杂志上提到了这一主题。在这篇评论文章中，Vinge似乎是第一个使用“奇点”一词的人，并将“奇点”的概念特别地与智能机器的创造进行联系：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|We will soon create intelligences greater than our own. When this happens, human history will have reached a kind of singularity, an intellectual transition as impenetrable as the knotted space-time at the center of a black hole, and the world will pass far beyond our understanding. This singularity, I believe, already haunts a number of science-fiction writers. It makes realistic extrapolation to an interstellar future impossible. To write a story set more than a century hence, one needs a nuclear war in between ... so that the world remains intelligible.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{我们很快就会创造出比我们自己更强大的智能。当这种情况发生时，人类历史将达到一种奇点，一种如同黑洞中心打结的时空一样难以逾越的知识转变，世界将远远超出我们的理解。我相信，这种奇点已经困扰了许多科幻作家。这使得对星际未来的现实推断变得不可能。要写一个多世纪以后的故事，科幻小说家需要一场核战争……这样世界就可以理解了。}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1985, in &amp;quot;The Time Scale of Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;, artificial intelligence researcher [[Ray Solomonoff]] articulated mathematically the related notion of what he called an &amp;quot;infinity point&amp;quot;: if a research community of human-level self-improving AIs take four years to double their own speed, then two years, then one year and so on, their capabilities increase infinitely in finite time.&amp;lt;ref name=chalmers /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;std&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1985年，在《人工智能的时间尺度The Time Scale of Artificial Intelligence》一书中，人工智能研究人员[[Ray Solomonoff]]以数学的方式阐述了他所说的“无限点”的相关概念：如果一个人类水平的能自我改进人工智能的研究社区需要四年时间使其速度加倍，那么两年，然后一年，依此类推，它们的能力在有限的时间内无限增长。&amp;lt;ref name=chalmers/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=“std”/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vinge's 1993 article &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; spread widely on the internet and helped to popularize the idea.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google5&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; This article contains the statement, &amp;quot;Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.&amp;quot; Vinge argues that science-fiction authors cannot write realistic post-singularity characters who surpass the human intellect, as the thoughts of such an intellect would be beyond the ability of humans to express.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vinge 1993年的文章《未来的技术奇点：如何在后人类时代生存The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era》在互联网上广为传播，普及了这一理念。“在三十年内，我们将拥有创造超人智慧的技术手段。不久之后，人类时代将结束。”Vinge认为，科幻小说作者无法写出超越人类智力的现实主义后奇点人物，因为这种智力的思想将超出人类的表达能力。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2000, [[Bill Joy]], a prominent technologist and a co-founder of [[Sun Microsystems]], voiced concern over the potential dangers of the singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2000年，著名的技术专家和 Sun Microsystems 的联合创始人 Bill Joy，表达了对奇点潜在危险的担忧。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2005, Kurzweil published ''[[The Singularity is Near]]''. Kurzweil's publicity campaign included an appearance on ''[[The Daily Show with Jon Stewart]]''.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2005年，库兹韦尔发表了《奇点临近 The Singularity is Near》。库兹韦尔的宣传活动包括参加“ Jon Stewart 的每日秀 The Daily Show with Jon Stewart”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2007, [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]] suggested that many of the varied definitions that have been assigned to &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; are mutually incompatible rather than mutually supporting.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sandberg, Anders. &amp;quot;An overview of models of technological singularity.&amp;quot; Roadmaps to AGI and the Future of AGI Workshop, Lugano, Switzerland, March. Vol. 8. 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, Kurzweil extrapolates current technological trajectories past the arrival of self-improving AI or superhuman intelligence, which Yudkowsky argues represents a tension with both I. J. Good's proposed discontinuous upswing in intelligence and Vinge's thesis on unpredictability.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2007年，Eliezer Yudkowsky指出，“奇点”被赋予的许多不同的定义是互不兼容而不是相互支持的&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sandberg, Anders. &amp;quot;An overview of models of technological singularity.&amp;quot; Roadmaps to AGI and the Future of AGI Workshop, Lugano, Switzerland, March. Vol. 8. 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;。例如，库兹韦尔推断了在自我提升的人工智能或超人智能到来之前的当前技术轨迹。Yudkowsky 认为，这与I.J.Good 提出的智能的不连续上升和 Vinge 关于不可预测性的论点存在矛盾。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2009, Kurzweil and [[X-Prize]] founder [[Peter Diamandis]] announced the establishment of [[Singularity University]], a nonaccredited private institute whose stated mission is &amp;quot;to educate, inspire and empower leaders to apply exponential technologies to address humanity's grand challenges.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Funded by [[Google]], [[Autodesk]], [[ePlanet Ventures]], and a group of [[High tech|technology industry]] leaders, Singularity University is based at [[NASA]]'s [[Ames Research Center]] in [[Mountain View, California|Mountain View]], [[California]]. The not-for-profit organization runs an annual ten-week graduate program during summer that covers ten different technology and allied tracks, and a series of executive programs throughout the year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009年，Kurzweil和X-Prize的创始人Peter Diamandis宣布成立奇点大学，这是一所未经认证的私立学院，其宣称的使命是“教育、激励和赋能领导者来使用指数技术应对人类的重大挑战&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 。”奇点大学由Google、Autodesk、ePlanet Ventures和一群高科技产业的领导团队资助，总部设在位于加州山景城的美国宇航局 NASA 的 艾姆斯研究中心 Ames Research Center。这家非营利组织在每年夏季举办为期十周的研究生课程，涵盖十种不同的技术和相关领域，并全年举办一系列高管课程。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==在政治中==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2007, the Joint Economic Committee of the [[United States Congress]] released a report about the future of nanotechnology. It predicts significant technological and political changes in the mid-term future, including possible technological singularity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vyp1AwAAQBAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA375|title=Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society|first=David H.|last=Guston|date=14 July 2010|publisher=SAGE Publications|isbn=978-1-4522-6617-6}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web | url=http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20120213_TheFutureisComingSoonerThanYouThink.pdf | title=Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think | publisher=Joint Economic Committee | date=March 2007}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2007/03/congress_and_th.html|title=Congress and the Singularity}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2007年，美国国会联合经济委员会 the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress 发布了一份关于纳米技术的未来的报告。它预测在中期的未来会发生诸多重大的技术和政治变化，包括可能的技术奇点。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vyp1AwAAQBAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA375|title=Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society|first=David H.|last=Guston|date=14 July 2010|publisher=SAGE Publications|isbn=978-1-4522-6617-6}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web | url=http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20120213_TheFutureisComingSoonerThanYouThink.pdf | title=Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think | publisher=Joint Economic Committee | date=March 2007}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2007/03/congress_and_th.html|title=Congress and the Singularity}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former President of the United States [[Barack Obama]] spoke about singularity in his interview to ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' in 2016:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.wired.com/2016/10/president-obama-mit-joi-ito-interview/|title=Barack Obama Talks AI, Robo Cars, and the Future of the World|first=Scott|last=Dadich|journal=Wired|date=12 October 2016}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2016年，美国前总统巴拉克·奥巴马 Barack Obama 在接受《连线》杂志采访时谈到了奇点:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.wired.com/2016/10/president-obama-mit-joi-ito-interview/|title=Barack Obama Talks AI, Robo Cars, and the Future of the World|first=Scott|last=Dadich|journal=Wired|date=12 October 2016}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|text=One thing that we haven't talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren't spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about &amp;quot;Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?&amp;quot;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that we haven't talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren't spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about &amp;quot;Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有一件事我们没有谈得太多，我还想回过去谈谈，那就是我们真的必须考虑对经济的影响。因为大多数人现在并没有花太多时间去担心奇点，而是在担心“好吧，我的工作会被机器取代吗？”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==参考文献==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20010527181244/http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Authors/Computing/Good-IJ/SCtFUM.html |archive-date = 2001-05-27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archive-url =  https://web.archive.org/web/20010527181244/http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/authors/computing/good-ij/sctfum.html  | archive-date = 2001-05-27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Portal| Technology}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Accelerating change}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| series = Advances in Computers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
系列 = 计算机的进步&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial consciousness}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| isbn = 9780120121069| title = Advances in Computers Volume 6&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9780120121069&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial intelligence arms race}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl = 10919/89424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl = 10919/89424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial intelligence in fiction}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Brain simulation}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Brain–computer interface}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Emerging technologies}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Fermi paradox}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Some Skepticism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些怀疑论者&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Flynn effect}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Robin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一名: 罗宾&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Futures studies}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Global brain}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{sectionlink|Human intelligence|Improving intelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year = 1998&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1998年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Mind uploading}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Neuroenhancement}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| accessdate = 2009-06-19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009-06-19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Outline of transhumanism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20090828023928/http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年3月24日 | archiveurl =  https://web.archive.org/web/20090828023928/http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Robot learning}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archivedate = 2009-08-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archivedate = 2009-08-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Singularitarianism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological determinism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological revolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first=Anthony&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一名: 安东尼&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological unemployment}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last=Berglas&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Berglas&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title=Artificial Intelligence will Kill our Grandchildren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
人工智能会杀死我们的孙子&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year=2008&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2008年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TODO: end here&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Citations引用 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://berglas.org/Articles/AIKillGrandchildren/AIKillGrandchildren.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://berglas.org/articles/aikillgrandchildren/aikillgrandchildren.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Reflist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2008-06-13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2008-06-13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|refs =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url = http://www.technologyreview.com/view/425733/paul-allen-the-singularity-isnt-near |title= Paul Allen: The Singularity Isn't Near |access-date=2015-04-12 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Nick&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一 = 尼克&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation | first=Bill | last=Joy | author-link=Bill Joy | title=Why the future doesn't need us | journal=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired Magazine]] | volume=8 | date= April 2000 | issue=4 |url = https://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html | access-date=2007-08-07 | isbn=978-0-670-03249-5 | publisher=Viking Adult }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Bostrom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
博斯特罗姆&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Nick Bostrom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
作者: 尼克 · 博斯特罗姆&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php |title=Singularly Silly Singularity |access-date=2009-04-13 |first1=PZ |last1=Myers |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090228161422/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php |archive-date=2009-02-28 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title=Existential Risks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
存在风险&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
进化与技术杂志&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil.htm Modis, Theodore. ''The Singularity Myth''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121030072409/http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil.htm |date=2012-10-30 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year=2002&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2002年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| volume=9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| volume = 9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Anders Sandberg|Sandberg, Anders]]. [http://agi-conf.org/2010/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/agi10singmodels2.pdf An overview of models of technological singularity]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date=2007-08-07&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2007-08-07&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3854/global-catastrophic-risks-report.pdf|title=GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS SURVEY (2008) Technical Report 2008/1 Published by Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University. Anders Sandberg and Nick Bostrom|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110516021945/http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3854/global-catastrophic-risks-report.pdf|archivedate=2011-05-16}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Krazit, Tom. [http://news.cnet.com/2100-1006_3-6119618.html Intel pledges 80 cores in five years], ''CNET News'', 26 September 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Bill&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 第一 = 比尔&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;dreyfus&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Harvnb|Dreyfus|Dreyfus|2000|p=xiv}}: 'The truth is that human intelligence can never be replaced with machine intelligence simply because we are not ourselves &amp;quot;thinking machines&amp;quot; in the sense in which that term is commonly understood.' {{Harvtxt|Hawking|1998}}: 'Some people say that computers can never show true intelligence whatever that may be. But it seems to me that if very complicated chemical molecules can operate in humans to make them intelligent then equally complicated electronic circuits can also make computers act in an intelligent way. And if they are intelligent they can presumably design computers that have even greater complexity and intelligence.'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Bill Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 作者链接 = Bill Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Ethical Artificial Intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Ethical Artificial Intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{IMDb title|847969|Episode dated 23 August 2006}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| date = 5 November 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 日期 = 2014年11月5日&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| eprint=1411.1373&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1411.1373&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, ''[[The Age of Spiritual Machines]]'', Viking; 1999,  {{ISBN|978-0-14-028202-3}}. pp. [https://books.google.com/books?id=ldAGcyh0bkUC&amp;amp;pg=PA630 30, 32]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| class = cs.AI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年10月12日 | class = cs.AI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| ref=harv&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= harv&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Theodore Modis, [http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/TedWEB.htm Forecasting the Growth of Complexity and Change], ''Technological Forecasting &amp;amp; Social Change'', 69, No 4, 2002 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120615054939/http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/TedWEB.htm |date=June 15, 2012 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dooling, Richard. ''[[Rapture for the Geeks|Rapture for the Geeks: When AI Outsmarts IQ]]'' (2008), [https://books.google.com/books?id=VbBRsv1lxsUC&amp;amp;lpg=PP1&amp;amp;pg=PA88 p. 88]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dooling, Richard. ''[[Rapture for the Geeks|Rapture for the Geeks: When AI Outsmarts IQ]]'' (2008), [https://books.google.com/books?id=VbBRsv1lxsUC&amp;amp;lpg=PP1&amp;amp;pg=PA89 p. 89]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/nano/singularity-nanotech-or-ai |title=h+ Magazine &amp;amp;#124; Covering technological, scientific, and cultural trends that are changing human beings in fundamental ways |publisher=Hplusmagazine.com |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/whos-who-in-the-singularity |title=Who's Who In The Singularity – IEEE Spectrum |publisher=Spectrum.ieee.org |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1958-64-03/S0002-9904-1958-10189-5/S0002-9904-1958-10189-5.pdf | last=Ulam|first=Stanislaw |title=Tribute to John von Neumann|publisher=Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society|volume=64, #3, part 2|date=May 1958|page=5}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |title=More blades good |author=Anonymous |newspaper=The Economist |date=18 March 2006 |url=http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5624861 |location=London |page=85 |volume=378  |issue=8469 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html |title=Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards |website=nickbostrom.com }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news |url = https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html |newspaper = The New York Times | first=John | last=Markoff | title=Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced by Cheaper Software | date=2011-03-04}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near, pp. 135–136. Penguin Group, 2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, ''The Singularity is Near'', Penguin Group, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near, p. 9. Penguin Group, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Eschatology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 末世论&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Futures studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 未来研究&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singularityu.org/ Singularity University] at its official website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Philosophy of artificial intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
范畴: 人工智能哲学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Existential risk from artificial general intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 来自人工一般智能的世界末日&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;This page was moved from [[wikipedia:en:Technological singularity]]. Its edit history can be viewed at [[技术奇点/edithistory]]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:待整理页面]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Alchemist</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E5%A5%87%E7%82%B9&amp;diff=25834</id>
		<title>技术奇点</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E5%A5%87%E7%82%B9&amp;diff=25834"/>
		<updated>2021-08-15T06:04:19Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Alchemist：&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;此词条暂由水流心不竞、嘉树初译，徐培审校，带来阅读不便，请见谅。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Redirect|The Singularity||Singularity (disambiguation)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Redirect |奇点| |奇点（释疑)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{short description|Hypothetical point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{简介}技术增长变得不可控制和不可逆转的假设时间点}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The '''technological singularity'''—also, simply, '''the singularity'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cadwalladr, Carole (2014). &amp;quot;[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/22/robots-google-ray-kurzweil-terminator-singularity-artificial-intelligence Are the robots about to rise? Google's new director of engineering thinks so…]&amp;quot; ''The Guardian''. Guardian News and Media Limited.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;—is a [[hypothetical]] point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web |title=Collection of sources defining &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; |url=http://www.singularitysymposium.com/definition-of-singularity.html |website=singularitysymposium.com |accessdate=17 April 2019}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book |author1=Eden, Amnon H. |author2=Moor, James H. |title=Singularity hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment |date=2012 |publisher=Springer |location=Dordrecht |isbn=9783642325601 |pages=1–2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to the most popular version of the singularity hypothesis, called [[Technological singularity#Intelligence explosion|intelligence explosion]], an upgradable [[intelligent agent]] will eventually enter a &amp;quot;runaway reaction&amp;quot; of self-improvement cycles, each new and more intelligent generation appearing more and more rapidly, causing an &amp;quot;explosion&amp;quot; in intelligence and resulting in a powerful [[superintelligence]] that qualitatively far surpasses all [[human intelligence]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;技术奇点 Technological singularity&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;——简称 奇点 Singularity &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cadwalladr, Carole (2014). &amp;quot;[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/22/robots-google-ray-kurzweil-terminator-singularity-artificial-intelligence Are the robots about to rise? Google's new director of engineering thinks so…]&amp;quot; ''The Guardian''. Guardian News and Media Limited.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;是一个假设的时间点。在该时间点上，技术的增长变得不可控制和不可逆转，从而导致人类文明发生无法预见的变化。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web |title=Collection of sources defining &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; |url=http://www.singularitysymposium.com/definition-of-singularity.html |website=singularitysymposium.com |accessdate=17 April 2019}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book |author1=Eden, Amnon H. |author2=Moor, James H. |title=Singularity hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment |date=2012 |publisher=Springer |location=Dordrecht |isbn=9783642325601 |pages=1–2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;根据奇点假说（也被称为智能爆炸 intelligence explosion）最流行的版本：一个可升级的智能体终将进入一种自我完善循环的“&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;失控反应 runaway reaction&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”。每个新的、更智能的世代将出现得越来越快，导致智能的“爆炸”，并产生一种在实质上远超所有人类智能的超级智能。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first use of the concept of a &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in the technological context was [[John von Neumann]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Technological Singularity'' by Murray Shanahan, (MIT Press, 2015), page 233&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Stanislaw Ulam]] reports a discussion with von Neumann &amp;quot;centered on the [[Accelerating change|accelerating progress]] of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential [[Wiktionary:singularity|singularity]] in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Subsequent authors have echoed this viewpoint.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;chalmers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Chalmers|first=David|date=2010|title=The singularity: a philosophical analysis|url=|journal=Journal of Consciousness Studies|volume=17|issue=9–10|pages=7–65|via=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一次在科技领域使用“奇点”这一概念的人是冯·诺依曼 John von Neumann&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Technological Singularity'' by Murray Shanahan, (MIT Press, 2015), page 233&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;。Stanislaw Ulam 报告了一次与冯·诺依曼的讨论。“围绕技术的加速进步和人类生活模式的改变，这让我们看到了人类历史上一些本质上的奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; 一旦超越了这些奇点，我们所熟知的人类事务就将无法继续下去了”。后来的作者也赞同这一观点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;chalmers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Chalmers|first=David|date=2010|title=The singularity: a philosophical analysis|url=|journal=Journal of Consciousness Studies|volume=17|issue=9–10|pages=7–65|via=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. J. Good]]'s &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; model predicts that a future superintelligence will trigger a singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Vinge, Vernor. [http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;], in ''Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace'', G. A. Landis, ed., NASA Publication CP-10129, pp. 11–22, 1993.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I. J.古德的“智能爆炸”模型预测未来的超级智能将触发一个奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Vinge, Vernor. [http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;], in ''Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace'', G. A. Landis, ed., NASA Publication CP-10129, pp. 11–22, 1993.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The concept and the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; were popularized by [[Vernor Vinge]] in his 1993 essay ''The Coming Technological Singularity'', in which he wrote that it would signal the end of the human era, as the new superintelligence would continue to upgrade itself and would advance technologically at an incomprehensible rate. He wrote that he would be surprised if it occurred before 2005 or after 2030.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“奇点”的概念和术语是由 Vernor Vinge 在他1993年的文章《即将到来的技术奇点 The Coming Technological Singularity》中得到推广的。他在文中写道，这将标志着人类时代的终结，因为新的超级智能将持续自我升级，并以不可思议的速度在技术上进步。他写道，如果奇点发生在2005年之前或2030年之后，他会感到惊讶。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Public figures such as [[Stephen Hawking]] and [[Elon Musk]] have expressed concern that full [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) could result in human extinction.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Sparkes|first1=Matthew|title=Top scientists call for caution over artificial intelligence|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11342200/Top-scientists-call-for-caution-over-artificial-intelligence.html|accessdate=24 April 2015|work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph (UK)]]|date=13 January 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540|title=Hawking: AI could end human race|date=2 December 2014|publisher=BBC|accessdate=11 November 2017}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The consequences of the singularity and its potential benefit or harm to the human race have been intensely debated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
斯蒂芬·霍金 Stephen Hawking 和埃隆·马斯克 Elon Musk 等公众人物对完全人工智能（AI）可能导致人类灭绝表示担忧。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Sparkes|first1=Matthew|title=Top scientists call for caution over artificial intelligence|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11342200/Top-scientists-call-for-caution-over-artificial-intelligence.html|accessdate=24 April 2015|work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph (UK)]]|date=13 January 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540|title=Hawking: AI could end human race|date=2 December 2014|publisher=BBC|accessdate=11 November 2017}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;奇点的后果及其对人类的潜在利益或伤害一直存在激烈的争论。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Four polls of AI researchers, conducted in 2012 and 2013 by [[Nick Bostrom]] and [[Vincent C. Müller]], suggested a median probability estimate of 50% that [[artificial general intelligence]] (AGI) would be developed by 2040–2050.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;newyorker&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Khatchadourian|first1=Raffi|title=The Doomsday Invention|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=The New Yorker|date=16 November 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Müller, V. C., &amp;amp; Bostrom, N. (2016). &amp;quot;Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion&amp;quot;. In V. C. Müller (ed): ''Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence'' (pp. 555–572). Springer, Berlin. http://philpapers.org/rec/MLLFPI&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年到2013年期间，Nick Bostrom 和 Vincent c. Müller 对人工智能研究人员进行了四次调查。结果显示，通用人工智能(artificial general intelligence, AGI)在2040年至2050年被成功开发出来的概率估计的中位数为50%。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;newyorker&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Khatchadourian|first1=Raffi|title=The Doomsday Invention|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=The New Yorker|date=16 November 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Müller, V. C., &amp;amp; Bostrom, N. (2016). &amp;quot;Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion&amp;quot;. In V. C. Müller (ed): ''Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence'' (pp. 555–572). Springer, Berlin. http://philpapers.org/rec/MLLFPI&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==背景==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although technological progress has been accelerating, it has been limited by the basic intelligence of the human brain, which has not, according to [[Paul R. Ehrlich]], changed significantly for millennia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Paul Ehrlich June 2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ehrlich, Paul. [http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/ The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, with the increasing power of computers and other technologies, it might eventually be possible to build a machine that is significantly more intelligent than humans.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;businessweek&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm Superbrains born of silicon will change everything.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801074729/http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm |date=August 1, 2010 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然技术进步一直在加速，但它一直受到人脑基本智力的限制，而根据 Paul R.Ehrlich 的说法，人类大脑的基本智力在几千年来并没有发生显著变化。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Paul Ehrlich June 2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ehrlich, Paul. [http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/ The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;然而，随着计算机和其他技术的日益强大，人类最终有可能制造出一台比人类智能得多的机器&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;businessweek&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm Superbrains born of silicon will change everything.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801074729/http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm |date=August 1, 2010 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a superhuman intelligence were to be invented—either through the amplification of human intelligence or through artificial intelligence—it would bring to bear greater problem-solving and inventive skills than current humans are capable of. Such an AI is referred to as Seed AI because if an AI were created with engineering capabilities that matched or surpassed those of its human creators, it would have the potential to autonomously improve its own software and hardware or design an even more capable machine. This more capable machine could then go on to design a machine of yet greater capability. These iterations of recursive self-improvement could accelerate, potentially allowing enormous qualitative change before any upper limits imposed by the laws of physics or theoretical computation set in. It is speculated that over many iterations, such an AI would far surpass human cognitive abilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如果一种超人类智能被发明出来。无论是通过人类智能的放大还是通过人工智能，它将带来比现在的人类更强的问题解决和发明创造能力。这种人工智能被称为&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;种子人工智能 Seed AI&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;。因为如果人工智能的工程能力能够与它的人类创造者相匹敌或超越，那么它就有潜力自主改进自己的软件和硬件，或者设计出更强大的机器。这台能力更强的机器可以继续设计一台能力更强的机器。这种自我递归式改进的迭代可以加速，以至于在物理定律或理论计算设定的任何上限之前产生巨大的质变。据推测，经过多次迭代，这样的人工智能将远远超过人类的认知能力。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==智能爆炸==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligence explosion is a possible outcome of humanity building [[artificial general intelligence]] (AGI). AGI would be capable of recursive self-improvement, leading to the rapid emergence of [[Superintelligence|artificial superintelligence]] (ASI), the limits of which are unknown, shortly after technological singularity is achieved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能爆炸是构建&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;通用人工智能 artificial general intelligence (AGI)&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 的可能结果。在技术奇点实现后不久，AGI 将能够进行递归式的自我迭代，从而导致&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;人工超级智能 artificial superintelligence (ASI)&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 的迅速出现，但其局限性尚不清楚。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. J. Good]] speculated in 1965 that artificial general intelligence might bring about an intelligence explosion. He speculated on the effects of superhuman machines, should they ever be invented:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1965年，I.J.Good 曾推测通用人工智能可能会带来智能爆炸。他对&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;超人类机器 superhuman machines &amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;及其影响进行了推测，如果他们真的被发明出来的话：&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an ‘intelligence explosion,’ and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{让我们把超智能机器定义为一种机器，它可以进行远超无论多么聪明的一个人的所有智力活动。由于机器的设计是一种智力活动，那么一台超智能机器可以设计出更好的机器；那么毫无疑问会出现“智能爆炸”，人类的智能将远远落后。因此，第一台超智能机器是人类所需要的最后一项发明，当然，假设机器足够温顺并能够告诉我们如何控制它们的话。}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good's scenario runs as follows: as computers increase in power, it becomes possible for people to build a machine that is more intelligent than humanity; this superhuman intelligence possesses greater problem-solving and inventive skills than current humans are capable of. This superintelligent machine then designs an even more capable machine, or re-writes its own software to become even more intelligent; this (even more capable) machine then goes on to design a machine of yet greater capability, and so on. These iterations of recursive self-improvement accelerate, allowing enormous qualitative change before any upper limits imposed by the laws of physics or theoretical computation set in.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
古德的设想如下：随着计算机能力的增加，人们有可能制造出一台比人类更智能的机器；这种超人的智能拥有比现在人类更强大的问题解决和发明创造的能力。这台超级智能机器随后设计一台功能更强大的机器，或者重写自己的软件来变得更加智能；这台（甚至更强大的）机器接着继续设计功能更强大的机器，以此类推。这些递归式的自我完善的迭代加速，允许在物理定律或理论计算设定的任何上限之内发生巨大的质变。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==其他表现形式==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===超级智能的出现===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Superintelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{超级智能}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A superintelligence, hyperintelligence, or superhuman intelligence is a hypothetical [[intelligent agent|agent]] that possesses intelligence far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human minds. &amp;quot;Superintelligence&amp;quot; may also refer to the form or degree of intelligence possessed by such an agent. [[John von Neumann]], [[Vernor Vinge]] and [[Ray Kurzweil]] define the concept in terms of the technological creation of super intelligence. They argue that it is difficult or impossible for present-day humans to predict what human beings' lives would be like in a post-singularity world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
超级智能、超智能或超人智能是一种假想的智能体。它拥有的智能远远超过最聪明、最有天赋的人类大脑的智能。“超级智能”也可以指这种智能体所拥有的智能的形式或程度。John von Neumann，Vernor Vinge和Ray Kurzweil 从技术创造超级智能的角度定义了这个概念。他们认为，现在的人类很难或不可能预测人类在后奇点世界的生活会是什么样子&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Technology forecasters and researchers disagree about if or when human intelligence is likely to be surpassed. Some argue that advances in [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) will probably result in general reasoning systems that lack human cognitive limitations. Others believe that humans will evolve or directly modify their biology so as to achieve radically greater intelligence. A number of [[futures studies]] scenarios combine elements from both of these possibilities, suggesting that humans are likely to [[brain–computer interface|interface with computers]], or [[mind uploading|upload their minds to computers]], in a way that enables substantial intelligence amplification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
技术预言家和研究人员对人类智能是否或何时可能被超越存在分歧。一些人认为，人工智能（AI）的进步可能会产生没有人类认知局限的一般推理系统。另一些人则认为，人类将进化或直接改变自己的生物性，从而从根本上实现更高的智能。许多未来研究的场景结合了这两种可能的元素，认为人类很可能会与计算机交互，或以将他们的意识上传到计算机的方式实现大量的智能增益。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===非人工智能奇点===&lt;br /&gt;
Some writers use &amp;quot;the singularity&amp;quot; in a broader way to refer to any radical changes in our society brought about by new technologies such as [[molecular nanotechnology]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; although Vinge and other writers specifically state that without superintelligence, such changes would not qualify as a true singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些作家writers更宽泛地使用“奇点”的概念，用来指代任何我们社会中由新技术带来的剧烈变化，如分子纳米技术，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 尽管Vinge和其他作家明确指出，如果没有超级智能，这些改变就不能算作真正的奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===速度超智能===&lt;br /&gt;
A speed superintelligence describes an AI that can do everything that a human can do, where the only difference is that the machine runs faster.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1007/978-3-662-54033-6_2 |year=2017 |publisher=Springer Berlin Heidelberg |pages=11–23 |author=Kaj Sotala and Roman Yampolskiy |title=The Technological Singularity |chapter=Risks of the Journey to the Singularity |series=The Frontiers Collection |isbn=978-3-662-54031-2 |conference=The Frontiers Collection }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, with a million-fold increase in the speed of information processing relative to that of humans, a subjective year would pass in 30 physical seconds.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Such a difference in information processing speed could drive the singularity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1002/9781118922590.ch16 |year=2016 |publisher=John Wiley \&amp;amp; Sons, Inc |pages=171–224 |author=David J. Chalmers |title=Science Fiction and Philosophy |chapter=The Singularity |isbn=9781118922590 |conference=Science Fiction and Philosophy }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
速度超级智能描述了一个人工智能，它可以做任何人类能做的事情，唯一的区别是这个机器运行得更快.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1007/978-3-662-54033-6_2 |year=2017 |publisher=Springer Berlin Heidelberg |pages=11–23 |author=Kaj Sotala and Roman Yampolskiy |title=The Technological Singularity |chapter=Risks of the Journey to the Singularity |series=The Frontiers Collection |isbn=978-3-662-54031-2 |conference=The Frontiers Collection }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。例如，与人类相比，它信息处理的速度提高了一百万倍，一个主观年将在30个物理秒内过去。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;这种在信息处理上的差异可能会导致奇点。.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1002/9781118922590.ch16 |year=2016 |publisher=John Wiley \&amp;amp; Sons, Inc |pages=171–224 |author=David J. Chalmers |title=Science Fiction and Philosophy |chapter=The Singularity |isbn=9781118922590 |conference=Science Fiction and Philosophy }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==合理性==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many prominent technologists and academics dispute the plausibility of a technological singularity, including [[Paul Allen]], [[Jeff Hawkins]], [[John Henry Holland|John Holland]], [[Jaron Lanier]], and [[Gordon Moore]], whose [[Moore's law|law]] is often cited in support of the concept.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
许多著名的技术专家和学者都对技术奇点的合理性提出质疑，包括Paul Allen、Jeff Hawkins、 John Holland、Jaron Lanier和Gordon Moore，他的摩尔定律经常被引用来支持这一概念。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most proposed methods for creating superhuman or [[transhuman]] minds fall into one of two categories: intelligence amplification of human brains and artificial intelligence. The speculated ways to produce intelligence augmentation are many, and include [[bioengineering]], [[genetic engineering]], [[nootropic]] drugs, AI assistants, direct [[brain–computer interface]]s and [[mind uploading]]. Because multiple paths to an intelligence explosion are being explored, it makes a singularity more likely; for a singularity to not occur they would all have to fail.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity |title=What is the Singularity? &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
大多数创造超人或跨人类头脑的方法分为两类：人脑的智能增强和人工智能。据推测，智能增强的方法很多，包括生物工程、基因工程、益智药物、AI 助手、直接脑机接口和思维上传。因为人们正在探索通向智能爆炸的多种途径，这使得奇点出现的可能更大；奇点不发生，所有这些都必将失败。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity |title=What is the Singularity? &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robin Hanson]] expressed skepticism of human intelligence augmentation, writing that once the &amp;quot;low-hanging fruit&amp;quot; of easy methods for increasing human intelligence have been exhausted, further improvements will become increasingly difficult to find.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/vc.html#hanson |title=Some Skepticism |date=1998 |first=Robin |last=Hanson |author-link=Robin Hanson |accessdate=April 8, 2020}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Despite all of the speculated ways for amplifying human intelligence, non-human artificial intelligence (specifically seed AI) is the most popular option among the hypotheses that would advance the singularity.{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Robin Hanson 对人类智能增强表示怀疑，他写道，一旦提高人类智力的“唾手可得的”简单方法用尽，进一步的改进将变得越来越难。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/vc.html#hanson |title=Some Skepticism |date=1998 |first=Robin |last=Hanson |author-link=Robin Hanson |accessdate=April 8, 2020}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;尽管有各种提高人类智能的方法，但非人类人工智能(特别是种子人工智能)仍是所有能推进奇点的假说中最受欢迎的一个。{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether or not an intelligence explosion occurs depends on three factors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Chalmers John Locke Lecture, 10 May, Exam Schools, Oxford, [http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/news/2010/david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available Presenting a philosophical analysis of the possibility of a technological singularity or &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; resulting from recursively self-improving AI] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115205558/http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/news/2010/david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available |date=2013-01-15 }}.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The first accelerating factor is the new intelligence enhancements made possible by each previous improvement. Contrariwise, as the intelligences become more advanced, further advances will become more and more complicated, possibly overcoming the advantage of increased intelligence. Each improvement should beget at least one more improvement, on average, for movement towards singularity to continue. Finally, the laws of physics will eventually prevent any further improvements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能爆炸是否发生取决于三个因素。第一个加速因素是以前的每一次改进都使新的智能增强成为可能。相反，随着智能的进步，进一步的发展将变得越来越复杂，可能会抵消智力增长的优势。平均而言，每一次改进都应该至少带来一次改进，以便继续朝着奇点的方向发展。最后，物理定律最终会阻止任何进一步的改进。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are two logically independent, but mutually reinforcing, causes of intelligence improvements: increases in the speed of computation, and improvements to the [[algorithm]]s used.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;consc.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, David J. Chalmers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The former is predicted by [[Moore's law|Moore's Law]] and the forecasted improvements in hardware,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;itrs&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |title=ITRS |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929173755/http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |archivedate=2011-09-29 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and is comparatively similar to previous technological advances. But there are some AI researchers{{who|date=March 2017}} who believe software is more important than hardware.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|url=https://blog.chronicled.com/why-software-is-more-important-than-hardware-right-now-6a4b58feaa7c|title=Why Software Is More Important Than Hardware Right Now|last=Kulkarni|first=Ajit|date=2017-12-12|website=Chronicled|access-date=2019-02-23}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能改进有两个逻辑上独立但又相互加强的原因：计算速度的提高和使用的算法的改进。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;consc.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, David J. Chalmers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;前者由摩尔定律和硬件方面的预测改进进行预测，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;itrs&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |title=ITRS |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929173755/http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |archivedate=2011-09-29 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;与以前的技术进步比较相似。但也有一些人工智能研究人员认为软件比硬件更重要&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|url=https://blog.chronicled.com/why-software-is-more-important-than-hardware-right-now-6a4b58feaa7c|title=Why Software Is More Important Than Hardware Right Now|last=Kulkarni|first=Ajit|date=2017-12-12|website=Chronicled|access-date=2019-02-23}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2017 email survey of authors with publications at the 2015 [[Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems|NeurIPS]] and [[International Conference on Machine Learning|ICML]] machine learning conferences asked  about the chance of an intelligence explosion. Of the respondents, 12% said it was &amp;quot;quite likely&amp;quot;, 17% said it was &amp;quot;likely&amp;quot;, 21% said it was &amp;quot;about even&amp;quot;, 24% said it was &amp;quot;unlikely&amp;quot; and 26% said it was &amp;quot;quite unlikely&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2017年，一项对2015年 NeurIPS 和 ICML 机器学习会议上发表论文的作者的电子邮件调查询问了智能爆炸的可能性。在受访者中，12% 的人认为“很有可能” ，17% 的人认为“有可能” ，21% 的人认为“可能性中等” ，24% 的人认为“不太可能” ，26% 的人认为“非常不可能”。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===速度改进 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both for human and artificial intelligence, hardware improvements increase the rate of future hardware improvements. Simply put,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arstechnica&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Moore's Law]] suggests that if the first doubling of speed took 18 months, the second would take 18 subjective months; or 9 external months, whereafter, four months, two months, and so on towards a speed singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html &amp;quot;Staring into the Singularity&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An upper limit on speed may eventually be reached, although it is unclear how high this would be.  Jeff Hawkins has stated that a self-improving computer system would inevitably run into upper limits on computing power: &amp;quot;in the end there are limits to how big and fast computers can run. We would end up in the same place; we'd just get there a bit faster. There would be no singularity.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hawkins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
无论对于人类智能还是人工智能，硬件改进都会提高未来硬件改进的速度。简单地说，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arstechnica&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;Moore's Law认为，如果第一次速度翻倍需要18个月，第二次则需要18个主观月；或者9个外部月，之后，4个月、2个月，以此类推，走向速度奇点&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html &amp;quot;Staring into the Singularity&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 速度的上限最终可能会达到，尽管还不清楚这会有多高。杰夫·霍金斯（Jeff Hawkins）曾表示，一个自我完善的计算机系统不可避免地会遇到计算能力的上限：“最终，计算机的运行速度和速度都是有限的。我们最终会在同一个地方；我们只会更快到达那里。不会有奇点。”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hawkins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is difficult to directly compare [[silicon]]-based hardware with [[neuron]]s. But {{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}} notes that computer [[speech recognition]] is approaching human capabilities, and that this capability seems to require 0.01% of the volume of the brain. This analogy suggests that modern computer hardware is within a few orders of magnitude of being as powerful as the human brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
很难直接将基于硅的硬件与神经元相比较。但是{Harvtxt| Berglas|2008}指出计算机语音识别正在接近人类的能力，而且这种能力似乎需要0.01%的脑容量。这个类比表明，现代计算机硬件与人脑一样强大，只差几个数量级。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====指数增长====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Martin Ford in The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
马丁 · 福特Martin Ford的《隧道中的灯光: 自动化，加速技术和未来经济The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future》&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:PPTMooresLawai.jpg|thumb|Ray Kurzweil writes that, due to [[paradigm shift]]s, a trend of exponential growth extends [[Moore's law]] from [[integrated circuits]] to earlier [[transistor]]s, [[vacuum tube]]s, [[relay]]s, and [[electromechanics|electromechanical]] computers. He predicts that the exponential growth will continue, and that in a few decades the computing power of all computers will exceed that of (&amp;quot;unenhanced&amp;quot;) human brains, with superhuman [[artificial intelligence]] appearing around the same time.|链接=Special:FilePath/PPTMooresLawai.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[图片：PPTMooresLawai.jpg|thumb | Ray Kurzweil写道，由于[[范式转换]]s，指数增长的趋势将[[摩尔定律]]从[[集成电路]]扩展到早期的[[晶体管]]、[[真空管]]、[[继电器]]和[[机电机械]]计算机。他预测，这种指数增长将继续下去，在几十年内，所有计算机的计算能力将超过（“未增强的”）人脑，同时出现超人[[人工智能]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Moore's Law over 120 Years.png|thumb|left|An updated version of Moore's law over 120 Years (based on [[Ray Kurzweil|Kurzweil's]] [[c:File:PPTMooresLawai.jpg|graph]]). The 7 most recent data points are all [[Nvidia GPUs|NVIDIA GPUs]].|链接=Special:FilePath/Moore's_Law_over_120_Years.png]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[资料图：摩尔超过120的定律年.png|拇指|左|摩尔定律120年的更新版本（基于[[Ray Kurzweil | Kurzweil's]][[c:文件：PPTMooresLawai.jpg|图形]]）。最近的7个数据点都是[[Nvidia GPU | Nvidia GPU]].]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exponential growth in computing technology suggested by Moore's law is commonly cited as a reason to expect a singularity in the relatively near future, and a number of authors have proposed generalizations of Moore's law. Computer scientist and futurist [[Hans Moravec]] proposed in a 1998 book&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&amp;amp;pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that the exponential growth curve could be extended back through earlier computing technologies prior to the [[integrated circuit]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
摩尔定律所建议的计算技术的指数增长通常被认为是在相对不远的将来出现奇点的一个理由，许多作者已经提出了摩尔定律的推广。计算机科学家和未来主义者Hans Moravec在1998年的一本书中提到&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&amp;amp;pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;指数型增长曲线可以沿着集成电路之前的早期计算技术进行延伸。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ray Kurzweil]] postulates a [[law of accelerating returns]] in which the speed of technological change (and more generally, all evolutionary processes&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;) increases exponentially, generalizing Moore's law in the same manner as Moravec's proposal, and also including material technology (especially as applied to [[nanotechnology]]), [[Medical Technology|medical technology]] and others.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity2&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Between 1986 and 2007, machines' application-specific capacity to compute information per capita roughly doubled every 14 months; the per capita capacity of the world's general-purpose computers has doubled every 18 months; the global telecommunication capacity per capita doubled every 34 months; and the world's storage capacity per capita doubled every 40 months.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 &amp;quot;The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information&amp;quot;], Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), [[Science (journal)|Science]], 332(6025), 60–65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; On the other hand, it has been argued that the global acceleration pattern having the 21st century singularity as its parameter should be characterized as [[Hyperbolic growth|hyperbolic]] rather than exponential.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8 ''The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures. A Big History Perspective''] (Springer, 2020)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ray Kurzweil]]假设了一个[[加速回报定律]]，其中技术变革的速度（更广泛地说，所有进化过程&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;）急剧增长。从1986年到2007年，摩尔定律以与莫拉维克提案相同的方式呈指数增长，并包括材料技术（尤其是应用于[[纳米技术]]）、[[医疗技术|医疗技术]]和其他技术，计算机计算人均信息的特定应用能力大约每14个月翻一番；世界通用计算机的人均容量每18个月翻一番；全球人均电信容量每34个月翻一番；世界人均存储容量每40个月翻一番。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 &amp;quot;The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information&amp;quot;], Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), [[Science (journal)|Science]], 332(6025), 60–65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 另一方面，有人认为，以21世纪奇点为参数的全球加速度模式应该被描述为[[双曲线增长|双曲]]而不是指数型&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8 ''The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures. A Big History Perspective''] (Springer, 2020)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil reserves the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; for a rapid increase in artificial intelligence (as opposed to other technologies), writing for example that &amp;quot;The Singularity will allow us to transcend these limitations of our biological bodies and brains ... There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity3&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; He also defines his predicted date of the singularity (2045) in terms of when he expects computer-based intelligences to significantly exceed the sum total of human brainpower, writing that advances in computing before that date &amp;quot;will not represent the Singularity&amp;quot; because they do &amp;quot;not yet correspond to a profound expansion of our intelligence.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;transformation&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
库兹韦尔将“奇点”一词用于描述人工智能(相对于其他技术)的快速增长，例如他写道: “奇点将允许我们超越生物体和大脑的局限……后奇点时代，人类与机器之间将不再有区别”。库兹韦尔相信奇点将在大约2045年之前出现，那时基于计算机的智能将明显超越人类脑力的总和，在这个日期之前计算机技术的进步“并不代表奇点”，因为它们“还不符合智慧的深刻扩展”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====加速变革====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Main|Accelerating change}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Main |加速变革}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|thumb|According to Kurzweil, his [[logarithmic scale|logarithmic graph]] of 15 lists of [[paradigm shift]]s for key [[human history|historic]] events shows an [[exponential growth|exponential]] trend|链接=Special:FilePath/ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[图片：ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|thumb |根据Kurzweil的说法，他对关键的[[人类历史|历史]]事件的15个[[范式转移]]列表的[[对数标度|对数图]]显示了[[指数增长|指数]]趋势]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some singularity proponents argue its inevitability through extrapolation of past trends, especially those pertaining to shortening gaps between improvements to technology. In one of the first uses of the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in the context of technological progress, [[Stanislaw Ulam]] tells of a conversation with [[John von Neumann]] about accelerating change: &lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.&amp;lt;ref name=mathematical/&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些奇点论的支持者认为，通过对过去趋势的推断，特别是那些缩减技术进步的差距有关的趋势，奇点是不可避免的。技术进步的背景下，较早使用“奇点”一词时，Stanislaw Ulam讲述了与冯·诺伊曼关于加速变革的一次谈话：&lt;br /&gt;
一次围绕不断加速的技术进步和生活方式变化的对话，它使得人类历史上出现了一些基本的奇点，超过了这些奇点，人类的事务，如我们所知，将无法继续下去。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil claims that technological progress follows a pattern of&lt;br /&gt;
exponential growth, following what he calls the &amp;quot;law of&lt;br /&gt;
accelerating returns&amp;quot;. Whenever technology approaches a barrier,&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil writes, new technologies will surmount it. He predicts&lt;br /&gt;
paradigm shifts will become increasingly common, leading to&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;technological change so rapid and profound it represents a&lt;br /&gt;
rupture in the fabric of human history&amp;quot;.[43] Kurzweil believes that&lt;br /&gt;
the singularity will occur by approximately 2045.[38] His&lt;br /&gt;
predictions differ from Vinge's in that he predicts a gradual&lt;br /&gt;
ascent to the singularity, rather than Vinge's rapidly self�improving superhuman intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
库兹韦尔声称，技术进步遵循[[指数增长]的模式，遵循他所称的“加速返回定律law of accelerating returns”。库兹韦尔写道，每当一项技术遇到障碍时，新技术就会出来克服这个障碍。他预测范式转变将变得越来越普遍，导致“技术变革非常迅速和深刻，以至于它代表着人类历史结构的一个断裂”。库兹韦尔相信奇点将在2045年之前出现。他和Vinge预测的不同点在于他预测的是一个逐渐上升到奇点的过程，而Vinge预测了一个快速自我更新的超人类智能。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oft-cited dangers include those commonly associated with molecular nanotechnology and genetic engineering. These threats are major issues for both singularity advocates and critics, and were the subject of Bill Joy's Wired magazine article &amp;quot;Why the future doesn't need us&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
经常被引用的危险包括那些与分子纳米技术和基因工程有关的技术。这些威胁是奇点论的倡导者和批评者面临的主要议题，也是比尔 · 乔伊《连线 Wired》杂志上所发表文章《为什么未来不需要我们Why the future doesn't need us》的主题。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===算法改进 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some intelligence technologies, like &amp;quot;seed AI&amp;quot;,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Yampolskiy, Roman V 2015&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceA&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; may also have the potential to not just make themselves faster, but also more efficient, by modifying their [[source code]]. These improvements would make further improvements possible, which would make further improvements possible, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
一些智能技术，比如“种子人工智能”，通过修改自己的源代码，可能使自己不仅更快，而且更高效。这些改进将使进一步的改进成为可能，以此类推。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mechanism for a recursively self-improving set of algorithms differs from an increase in raw computation speed in two ways. First, it does not require external influence: machines designing faster hardware would still require humans to create the improved hardware, or to program factories appropriately.{{citation needed|date=July 2017}} An AI rewriting its own source code could do so while contained in an [[AI box]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
递归自我改进算法集的机制在两个方面不同于原始计算速度的提高。首先，它不需要外部影响：设计更快的硬件的机器仍然需要人类来创造改进的硬件，或者对工厂进行适当的编程。AI可以既身处一个AI盒 AI box里面，又同时改进自己的 源代码。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second, as with [[Vernor Vinge]]’s conception of the singularity, it is much harder to predict the outcome. While speed increases seem to be only a quantitative difference from human intelligence, actual algorithm improvements would be qualitatively different. [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]] compares it to the changes that human intelligence brought: humans changed the world thousands of times more rapidly than evolution had done, and in totally different ways. Similarly, the evolution of life was a massive departure and acceleration from the previous geological rates of change, and improved intelligence could cause change to be as different again.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|author=Eliezer S. Yudkowsky |url=http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/power |title=Power of Intelligence |publisher=Yudkowsky |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第二，和Vernor Vinge关于奇点的概念一样，对结果的预测要困难得多。虽然速度的提高似乎与人类的智能只是数量上的区别，但实际的算法改进在质量上是不同的。Eliezer Yudkowsky将其与人类智能带来的变化相比较：人类改变世界的速度比进化速度快数千倍，而且方式完全不同。同样地，生命的进化与以前的地质变化又有着巨大的不同和加速，而智能的提高可能会使变化再次变得不同。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|author=Eliezer S. Yudkowsky |url=http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/power |title=Power of Intelligence |publisher=Yudkowsky |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are substantial dangers associated with an intelligence explosion singularity originating from a recursively self-improving set of algorithms. First, the goal structure of the AI might not be invariant under self-improvement, potentially causing the AI to optimise for something other than what was originally intended.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008 ]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;kurzweilai&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.kurzweilai.net/artificial-general-intelligence-now-is-the-time |title=Artificial General Intelligence: Now Is the Time |publisher=KurzweilAI |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Secondly, AIs could compete for the same scarce resources mankind uses to survive.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/10/05/paper-on-the-nature-of-self-improving-artificial-intelligence/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence.&amp;quot; Self-Aware Systems. 21 Jan. 2008. Web. 07 Jan. 2010.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|last1=Barrat|first1=James|title=Our Final Invention|year=2013|publisher=St. Martin's Press|location=New York|isbn=978-0312622374|pages=78–98|edition=First|chapter=6, &amp;quot;Four Basic Drives&amp;quot;|title-link=Our Final Invention}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
由递归自我改进的算法集合引起的智能爆炸存在着巨大的危险。首先，人工智能的目标结构在自我完善的情况下可能不是一成不变的，这可能会导致人工智能对原本计划之外的东西进行优化。第二，人工智能可以与人类竞争赖以生存的稀缺资源。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While not actively malicious, there is no reason to think that AIs would actively promote human goals unless they could be programmed as such, and if not, might use the resources currently used to support mankind to promote its own goals, causing human extinction.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;kurzweilai.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.kurzweilai.net/max-more-and-ray-kurzweil-on-the-singularity-2 |title=Max More and Ray Kurzweil on the Singularity |publisher=KurzweilAI |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceB&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/riskintro/index.html |title=Concise Summary &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.nickbostrom.com/fut/evolution.html Bostrom, Nick, The Future of Human Evolution, Death and Anti-Death: Two Hundred Years After Kant, Fifty Years After Turing, ed. Charles Tandy, pp. 339–371, 2004, Ria University Press.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然不是恶意的，但没有理由认为人工智能会积极促进人类目标的实现，除非这些目标可以被编程，否则，它们就可能利用目前用于支持人类的资源来促进自己的目标，从而导致人类灭绝。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Carl Shulman]] and [[Anders Sandberg]] suggest that algorithm improvements may be the limiting factor for a singularity; while hardware efficiency tends to improve at a steady pace, software innovations are more unpredictable and may be bottlenecked by serial, cumulative research. They suggest that in the case of a software-limited singularity, intelligence explosion would actually become more likely than with a hardware-limited singularity, because in the software-limited case, once human-level AI is developed, it could run serially on very fast hardware, and the abundance of cheap hardware would make AI research less constrained.&amp;lt;ref name=ShulmanSandberg2010&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Shulman|first=Carl|author2=Anders Sandberg |title=Implications of a Software-Limited Singularity|journal=ECAP10: VIII European Conference on Computing and Philosophy|year=2010|url=http://intelligence.org/files/SoftwareLimited.pdf|accessdate=17 May 2014|editor1-first=Klaus|editor1-last=Mainzer}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An abundance of accumulated hardware that can be unleashed once the software figures out how to use it has been called &amp;quot;computing overhang.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;MuehlhauserSalamon2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book|last=Muehlhauser|first=Luke|title=Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment|year=2012|publisher=Springer|chapter-url=http://intelligence.org/files/IE-EI.pdf|author2=Anna Salamon |editor=Amnon Eden |editor2=Johnny Søraker |editor3=James H. Moor |editor4=Eric Steinhart|chapter=Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carl Shulman和Anders Sandberg认为，算法改进可能是奇点的限制因素；虽然硬件效率趋于稳步提高，但软件创新更不具可预测性，可能会受到连续、累积的研究的限制。他们认为，智能爆炸在受软件限制的奇点情况中发生的可能性实际上比在受硬件限制的奇点更可能发生，因为在软件受限的情况下，一旦开发出人类水平的人工智能，它可以在非常快的硬件上连续运行，廉价硬件的丰富将使人工智能研究不那么受限制。&amp;lt;ref name=ShulmanSandberg2010&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Shulman|first=Carl|author2=Anders Sandberg |title=Implications of a Software-Limited Singularity|journal=ECAP10: VIII European Conference on Computing and Philosophy|year=2010|url=http://intelligence.org/files/SoftwareLimited.pdf|accessdate=17 May 2014|editor1-first=Klaus|editor1-last=Mainzer}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 一旦软件知道如何使用硬件，大量的硬件就可以被释放出来，这被称为“计算过剩”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;MuehlhauserSalamon2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book|last=Muehlhauser|first=Luke|title=Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment|year=2012|publisher=Springer|chapter-url=http://intelligence.org/files/IE-EI.pdf|author2=Anna Salamon |editor=Amnon Eden |editor2=Johnny Søraker |editor3=James H. Moor |editor4=Eric Steinhart|chapter=Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===危机===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some critics, like philosopher [[Hubert Dreyfus]], assert that computers or machines cannot achieve [[human intelligence]], while others, like physicist [[Stephen Hawking]], hold that the definition of intelligence is irrelevant if the net result is the same.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;dreyfus&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些批评者，如哲学家Hubert Dreyfus断言计算机或机器无法实现人类智能，而其他人，如物理学家史蒂芬·霍金，则认为如果最终结果是相同的，那么智力的定义其实无关紧要。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An early description of the idea was made in John Wood Campbell Jr.'s 1932 short story &amp;quot;The last evolution&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
早在1932年，约翰·W·坎贝尔的短篇小说《最后的进化》中就对这个想法进行了描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psychologist [[Steven Pinker]] stated in 2008:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
心理学家史蒂芬·平克在2008年指出：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|... There is not the slightest reason to believe in a coming singularity. The fact that you can visualize a future in your imagination is not evidence that it is likely or even possible. Look at domed cities, jet-pack commuting, underwater cities, mile-high buildings, and nuclear-powered automobiles—all staples of futuristic fantasies when I was a child that have never arrived. Sheer processing power is not a pixie dust that magically solves all your problems. ...&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
没有一点理由相信奇点即将到来。你可以想象一个未来并不能证明它是可能出现的。看看穹顶城市、喷气式飞行器通勤、水下城市、一英里高的建筑和核动力汽车：这些都是我小时候未来主义幻想的主要内容，然而它们都没有成真。纯粹的计算能力不是能神奇地解决所有问题的仙尘。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[University of California, Berkeley]], [[philosophy]] professor [[John Searle]] writes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[加州大学伯克利分校]，哲学教授约翰·塞尔写道：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{blockquote|[Computers] have, literally ..., no [[intelligence]], no [[motivation]], no [[autonomy]], and no agency.  We design them to behave as if they had certain sorts of [[psychology]], but there is no psychological reality to the corresponding processes or behavior. ...  [T]he machinery has no beliefs, desires, [or] motivations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[John R. Searle]], “What Your Computer Can’t Know”, ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', 9 October 2014, p. 54.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
毫不夸张地说，计算机没有智能，没有动机，没有自主，也没有智能体。我们设计他们，使他们的行为好像表示他们有某种心理，但其实没有对应这些过程或行为的心理现实……机器没有信仰、愿望或动机。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Martin Ford (author)|Martin Ford]] in ''The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thelightsinthetunnel&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; postulates a &amp;quot;technology paradox&amp;quot; in that before the singularity could occur most routine jobs in the economy would be automated, since this would require a level of technology inferior to that of the singularity. This would cause massive unemployment and plummeting consumer demand, which in turn would destroy the incentive to invest in the technologies that would be required to bring about the Singularity. Job displacement is increasingly no longer limited to work traditionally considered to be &amp;quot;routine.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Martin Ford在“隧道中的灯光：自动化、加速技术和未来经济 The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thelightsinthetunnel&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;中提出了一个“技术悖论”：在奇点出现之前，经济体中的大多数日常工作都将自动化，因为这所需的技术水平低于奇点。这将导致大规模的失业和消费者需求的骤降，这反过来又会破坏投资于实现奇点所需技术的动机。工作的替代越来越不再局限于那些传统上被认为是“例行公事”的工作。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Theodore Modis]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; and [[Jonathan Huebner]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological14&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; argue that the rate of technological innovation has not only ceased to rise, but is actually now declining. Evidence for this decline is that the rise in computer [[clock rate]]s is slowing, even while Moore's prediction of exponentially increasing circuit density continues to hold. This is due to excessive heat build-up from the chip, which cannot be dissipated quickly enough to prevent the chip from melting when operating at higher speeds. Advances in speed may be possible in the future by virtue of more power-efficient CPU designs and multi-cell processors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; While Kurzweil used Modis' resources, and Modis' work was around accelerating change, Modis distanced himself from Kurzweil's thesis of a &amp;quot;technological singularity&amp;quot;, claiming that it lacks scientific rigor.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Theodore Modis&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;和Jonathan Huebner&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological14&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 认为技术创新的速度不仅停止上升，而且现在实际上正在下降。这种下降的证据是计算机时钟速率的增长正在放缓，尽管摩尔关于电路密度指数增长的预测仍然成立。这是由于芯片产生过多的热量，当它们以较高的速度运行时，这些热量不能足够快地散去，可能导致芯片熔化。在未来，随着更节能的CPU设计和多单元处理器的发明，速度的提高可能实现。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;尽管 Kurzweil 利用了Modis的（工作成果）作为资源，同时 Modis 的工作围绕着加速变革，但 Modis 与 Kurzweil 的“技术奇点”理论保持距离，称其缺乏科学严谨性。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a detailed empirical accounting, ''The Progress of Computing'', [[William Nordhaus]] argued that, prior to 1940, computers followed the much slower growth of a traditional industrial economy, thus rejecting extrapolations of Moore's law to 19th-century computers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal | doi=10.1017/S0022050707000058|title = Two Centuries of Productivity Growth in Computing| journal=The Journal of Economic History| volume=67|pages = 128–159|year = 2007|last1 = Nordhaus|first1 = William D.| citeseerx=10.1.1.330.1871}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在一份详细的实证报告《计算的进步 The Progress of Computing》中，威廉·诺德豪斯 William Nordhaus 认为，在 1940 年之前，计算机遵循传统工业经济增长缓慢的趋势，因此拒绝了摩尔定律对19世纪计算机的推断。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal | doi=10.1017/S0022050707000058|title = Two Centuries of Productivity Growth in Computing| journal=The Journal of Economic History| volume=67|pages = 128–159|year = 2007|last1 = Nordhaus|first1 = William D.| citeseerx=10.1.1.330.1871}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a 2007 paper, Schmidhuber stated that the frequency of subjectively &amp;quot;notable events&amp;quot; appears to be approaching a 21st-century singularity, but cautioned readers to take such plots of subjective events with a grain of salt: perhaps differences in memory of recent and distant events could create an illusion of accelerating change where none exists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schmidhuber, Jürgen. &amp;quot;New millennium AI and the convergence of history.&amp;quot; Challenges for computational intelligence. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. 15–35.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在2007年的一篇论文中，Schmidhuber指出主观上“值得注意的事件”出现的频率似乎正在接近21世纪的奇点，但他提醒读者，对这些主观事件的情节要持保留态度：也许对近期和远期事件的记忆差异，可能会造成一种在根本不存在的情况下变化加速的错觉。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schmidhuber, Jürgen. &amp;quot;New millennium AI and the convergence of history.&amp;quot; Challenges for computational intelligence. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. 15–35.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paul Allen argued the opposite of accelerating returns, the complexity brake; the more progress science makes towards understanding intelligence, the more difficult it becomes to make additional progress. A study of the number of patents shows that human creativity does not show accelerating returns, but in fact, as suggested by Joseph Tainter in his The Collapse of Complex Societies, a law of diminishing returns. The number of patents per thousand peaked in the period from 1850 to 1900, and has been declining since.[60] The growth of complexity eventually becomes self-limiting, and leads to a widespread &amp;quot;general systems collapse&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
保罗·艾伦 Paul Allen 认为，与加速回报相反的是复杂性制动；科学在理解智力方面取得的进展越多，就越难取得更多的进展。一项对专利数量的研究表明，人类的创造力并没有表现出加速的回报。事实上，正如Joseph Tainter 在他的《复杂社会的崩溃 The Collapse of Complex Societies 》中所指出的那样，存在一个收益递减定律 a law of diminishing returns 的限制。每千人的专利的数量在1850年至1900年期间达到顶峰，此后一直在下降。复杂性的增长最终会自我限制，并导致广泛的“一般系统崩溃 general systems collapse”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jaron Lanier]] refutes the idea that the Singularity is inevitable. He states: &amp;quot;I do not think the technology is creating itself. It's not an autonomous process.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |author=Jaron Lanier |title=Who Owns the Future? |work=New York: Simon &amp;amp; Schuster |date=2013 |url=http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=JCB8D9LA&amp;amp;tocp=59}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He goes on to assert: &amp;quot;The reason to believe in human agency over technological determinism is that you can then have an economy where people earn their own way and invent their own lives. If you structure a society on ''not'' emphasizing individual human agency, it's the same thing operationally as denying people clout, dignity, and self-determination ... to embrace [the idea of the Singularity] would be a celebration of bad data and bad politics.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jaron Lanier驳斥了奇点不可避免的观点。他说：“我不认为这项技术是在创造自我。这不是一个自主的过程。”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |author=Jaron Lanier |title=Who Owns the Future? |work=New York: Simon &amp;amp; Schuster |date=2013 |url=http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=JCB8D9LA&amp;amp;tocp=59}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;他接着断言：“相信人的能动性而不是技术决定论的原因是，这样你就可以有一个经济体，人们在其中可以自己挣钱，创造自己的生活。如果你在不强调个人主观能动性的基础上构建社会，就等于在操作上否认人们的影响力、尊严和自决...接受 [奇点的想法] 将是对糟糕数据和糟糕政治的颂扬。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Economics|Economist]] [[Robert J. Gordon]], in ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'' (2016), points out that measured economic growth has slowed around 1970 and slowed even further since the [[financial crisis of 2007–2008]], and argues that the economic data show no trace of a coming Singularity as imagined by mathematician [[I.J. Good]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[William D. Nordhaus]], &amp;quot;Why Growth Will Fall&amp;quot; (a review of [[Robert J. Gordon]], ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'', Princeton University Press, 2016, {{ISBN|978-0691147727}}, 762 pp., $39.95), ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', vol. LXIII, no. 13 (August 18, 2016), p. 68.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
经济学家 Robert J.Gordon在《美国经济增长的兴衰：内战以来的美国生活水平 The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War》（2016）中指出，据测量，经济增长在1970年左右放缓，自2007-2008年金融危机以来甚至进一步放缓，并认为经济数据显示没有迹象表明数学家I.J.Good所设想的奇点将会到来。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[William D. Nordhaus]], &amp;quot;Why Growth Will Fall&amp;quot; (a review of [[Robert J. Gordon]], ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'', Princeton University Press, 2016, {{ISBN|978-0691147727}}, 762 pp., $39.95), ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', vol. LXIII, no. 13 (August 18, 2016), p. 68.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to general criticisms of the singularity concept, several critics have raised issues with Kurzweil's iconic chart. One line of criticism is that a [[Log-log plot|log-log]] chart of this nature is inherently biased toward a straight-line result. Others identify selection bias in the points that Kurzweil chooses to use. For example, biologist [[PZ Myers]] points out that many of the early evolutionary &amp;quot;events&amp;quot; were picked arbitrarily.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Kurzweil has rebutted this by charting evolutionary events from 15 neutral sources, and showing that they fit a straight line on [[:File:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|a log-log chart]]. ''[[The Economist]]'' mocked the concept with a graph extrapolating that the number of blades on a razor, which has increased over the years from one to as many as five, will increase ever-faster to infinity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
除了对奇点概念的一般性批评外，一些批评者还对库兹韦尔的标志性图表提出了质疑。一种批评是，这种性质的对数图像本质上就会存在倾向于直线的有偏差结果。其他人批评库兹韦尔在数据点的使用上存在选择偏差。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;例如，生物学家P. Z. Myers指出，许多早期的进化“事件”都是随意挑选的。库兹韦尔反驳了这一点，他绘制了15个中立来源的进化事件图，并表明它们都符合一条直线.《经济学人》用一张图表来嘲讽这个概念：一把剃须刀上的刀片数在过去几年里从一个增加到多达五个，并且它将以更快的速度增长到无穷大。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==潜在影响==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dramatic changes in the rate of economic growth have occurred in the past because of some technological advancement. Based on population growth, the economy doubled every 250,000 years from the [[Paleolithic]] era until the [[Neolithic Revolution]]. The new agricultural economy doubled every 900 years, a remarkable increase. In the current era, beginning with the Industrial Revolution, the world's economic output doubles every fifteen years, sixty times faster than during the agricultural era. If the rise of superhuman intelligence causes a similar revolution, argues Robin Hanson, one would expect the economy to double at least quarterly and possibly on a weekly basis.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url=http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/robotics-software/economics-of-the-singularity |title=Economics Of The Singularity |author=Robin Hanson |work=IEEE Spectrum Special Report: The Singularity }} &amp;amp; [http://hanson.gmu.edu/longgrow.pdf Long-Term Growth As A Sequence of Exponential Modes]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
过去由于一些技术进步，经济增长率发生了巨大变化。以人口增长为基础，从[[旧石器时代]]到[[新石器时代]]，经济每25万年翻一番。新农业经济每900年翻一番，增长显著。在当今时代，从工业革命开始，世界经济产出每15年翻一番，比农业时代快60倍。罗宾·汉森Robin Hanson认为，如果超人智能的兴起引发了类似的革命，人们会预期经济至少每季度翻一番，甚至可能每周翻一番。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===不确定性和风险===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Existential risk from artificial general intelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步|来自人工通用智能的存在风险}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;technological singularity&amp;quot; reflects the idea that such change may happen suddenly, and that it is difficult to predict how the resulting new world would operate.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|last=Yudkowsky |first=Eliezer |title=Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk |journal=Global Catastrophic Risks |editor-last=Bostrom |editor-first=Nick |editor2-last=Cirkovic |editor2-first=Milan |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |url=http://singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |bibcode=2008gcr..book..303Y |isbn=978-0-19-857050-9 |page=303 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080807132337/http://www.singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |archivedate=2008-08-07 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;theuncertainfuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; It is unclear whether an intelligence explosion resulting in a singularity would be beneficial or harmful, or even an [[Existential risk|existential threat]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Because AI is a major factor in singularity risk, a number of organizations pursue a technical theory of aligning AI goal-systems with human values, including the [[Future of Humanity Institute]], the [[Machine Intelligence Research Institute]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; the [[Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence]], and the [[Future of Life Institute]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“技术奇点”一词反映了这样一种想法&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|last=Yudkowsky |first=Eliezer |title=Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk |journal=Global Catastrophic Risks |editor-last=Bostrom |editor-first=Nick |editor2-last=Cirkovic |editor2-first=Milan |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |url=http://singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |bibcode=2008gcr..book..303Y |isbn=978-0-19-857050-9 |page=303 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080807132337/http://www.singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |archivedate=2008-08-07 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;theuncertainfuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; ：这种变化可能突然发生，而且很难预测由此产生的新世界将如何运作。目前尚不清楚导致奇点的智能爆炸是有益还是有害，甚至是一种存在威胁。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 由于人工智能是奇点风险的一个主要因素，许多组织追求一种将人工智能的目标系统与人类价值观相协调的技术理论。这些组织包括人类未来研究所 Future of Humanity Institute，机器智能研究所 The Machine Intelligence Research Institute， 人类兼容人工智能中心 &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;The Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence和未来生命研究所 The Future of Life Institute。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Physicist [[Stephen Hawking]] said in 2014 that &amp;quot;Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; Hawking believed that in the coming decades, AI could offer &amp;quot;incalculable benefits and risks&amp;quot; such as &amp;quot;technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; Hawking suggested that artificial intelligence should be taken more seriously and that more should be done to prepare for the singularity:&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-transcendence-looks-at-the-implications-of-artificial-intelligence--but-are-we-taking-ai-seriously-enough-9313474.html |title=Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of artificial intelligence - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'  |work=[[The Independent]] |author=Stephen Hawking |date=1 May 2014 |accessdate=May 5, 2014|author-link=Stephen Hawking }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
物理学家史蒂芬·霍金在2014年表示，“成功创造人工智能将是人类历史上最大的事件。不幸的是，这也可能是最后一次，除非我们学会如何规避风险。”&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt;  霍金认为，在未来几十年里，人工智能可能会带来“无法估量的利益和风险”，例如“技术超越金融市场的聪明程度，超越人类研究人员的创造力，超越人类领袖的操控力，开发我们甚至无法理解的武器”。霍金建议&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; ，人们应该更认真地对待人工智能，并做更多的工作来为奇点做准备：&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-transcendence-looks-at-the-implications-of-artificial-intelligence--but-are-we-taking-ai-seriously-enough-9313474.html |title=Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of artificial intelligence - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'  |work=[[The Independent]] |author=Stephen Hawking |date=1 May 2014 |accessdate=May 5, 2014|author-link=Stephen Hawking }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|So, facing possible futures of incalculable benefits and risks, the experts are surely doing everything possible to ensure the best outcome, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message saying, &amp;quot;We'll arrive in a few decades,&amp;quot; would we just reply, &amp;quot;OK, call us when you get here – we'll leave the lights on&amp;quot;? Probably not – but this is more or less what is happening with AI.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
所以，面对可能的收益和风险难以估量的未来，专家们肯定会尽一切可能确保最好的结果，对吗？错了。如果一个高级的外星文明给我们发了一条信息说，“我们几十年后就会到达”，我们会不会只回答，“好吧，你到了这里就打电话给我们——我们会开着灯的”？可能不会——但这或多或少就是人工智能正在发生的事情。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}} claims that there is no direct evolutionary motivation for an AI to be friendly to humans. Evolution has no inherent tendency to produce outcomes valued by humans, and there is little reason to expect an arbitrary optimisation process to promote an outcome desired by mankind, rather than inadvertently leading to an AI behaving in a way not intended by its creators.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom8&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nick Bostrom, [http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html &amp;quot;Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;], in ''Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making in Humans and in Artificial Intelligence'', Vol. 2, ed. I. Smit et al., Int. Institute of Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics, 2003, pp. 12–17&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]: [http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120611190606/http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf |date=2012-06-11 }}. Draft for a publication in ''Global Catastrophic Risk'' from August 31, 2006, retrieved July 18, 2011 (PDF file)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst9&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/06/11/the-stamp-collecting-device/ The Stamp Collecting Device, Nick Hay]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Anders Sandberg]] has also elaborated on this scenario, addressing various common counter-arguments.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;aleph&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2011/02/why_we_should_fear_the_paperclipper.html 'Why we should fear the Paperclipper'], 2011-02-14 entry of Sandberg's blog 'Andart'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; AI researcher [[Hugo de Garis]] suggests that artificial intelligences may simply eliminate the human race [[instrumental convergence|for access to scarce resources]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems10&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and humans would be powerless to stop them.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;forbes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;de Garis, Hugo. [https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/cosmist-terran-cyborgist-opinions-contributors-artificial-intelligence-09-hugo-de-garis.html &amp;quot;The Coming Artilect War&amp;quot;], Forbes.com, 22 June 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Alternatively, AIs developed under evolutionary pressure to promote their own survival could outcompete humanity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Berglas(2008) 声称, 没有直接的进化动机促使人工智能对人类友好。进化并不倾向于产生人类所重视的结果，也没有理由期望一个任意的优化过程会促进人类所期望的结果，而不是无意中导致人工智能以违背其创造者原有意图的方式行事。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom8&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nick Bostrom, [http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html &amp;quot;Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;], in ''Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making in Humans and in Artificial Intelligence'', Vol. 2, ed. I. Smit et al., Int. Institute of Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics, 2003, pp. 12–17&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]: [http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120611190606/http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf |date=2012-06-11 }}. Draft for a publication in ''Global Catastrophic Risk'' from August 31, 2006, retrieved July 18, 2011 (PDF file)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst9&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/06/11/the-stamp-collecting-device/ The Stamp Collecting Device, Nick Hay]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 安德斯·桑德伯格 Anders Sandberg 也也对这一情景进行了详细阐述，讨论了各种常见的反驳意见&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;aleph&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2011/02/why_we_should_fear_the_paperclipper.html 'Why we should fear the Paperclipper'], 2011-02-14 entry of Sandberg's blog 'Andart'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。人工智能研究员 Hugo de Garis&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems10&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  认为，人工智能可能会为了获取稀缺资源而直接消灭人类，并且人类将无力阻止它们。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;forbes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;de Garis, Hugo. [https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/cosmist-terran-cyborgist-opinions-contributors-artificial-intelligence-09-hugo-de-garis.html &amp;quot;The Coming Artilect War&amp;quot;], Forbes.com, 22 June 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 或者，在进化压力下为了促进自身生存而发展起来的人工智能可能会胜过人类。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bostrom (2002) discusses human extinction scenarios, and lists superintelligence as a possible cause:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bostrom(2002)讨论了人类灭绝的场景，并列举超级智能作为一个可能的原因:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person who asked the question.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the  matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person  who asked the question.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
当我们创造出第一个超级智能实体时，我们可能会犯错并给它一个导致人类毁灭的目标（假设它巨大的智力优势赋予它这样做的力量）。例如，我们可能会错误地将子目标提升为超级目标。我们告诉它去解决一个数学问题，然后它将太阳系中的所有物质变成一个巨大的计算装置，在这个过程中杀死了提出这个问题的人。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]], a significant problem in AI safety is that unfriendly artificial intelligence is likely to be much easier to create than friendly AI. While both require large advances in recursive optimisation process design, friendly AI also requires the ability to make goal structures invariant under self-improvement (or the AI could transform itself into something unfriendly) and a goal structure that aligns with human values and does not automatically destroy the human race. An unfriendly AI, on the other hand, can optimize for an arbitrary goal structure, which does not need to be invariant under self-modification.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst12&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html Coherent Extrapolated Volition, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, May 2004 ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100815055725/http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html |date=2010-08-15 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{harvtxt|Bill Hibbard|2014}} proposes an AI design that avoids several dangers including self-delusion,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JAGI2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| journal=Journal of Artificial General Intelligence| year=2012| volume=3| issue=1| title=Model-Based Utility Functions| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.| doi=10.2478/v10229-011-0013-5| page=1|arxiv = 1111.3934 |bibcode = 2012JAGI....3....1H | s2cid=8434596}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; unintended instrumental actions,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_56.pdf  Avoiding Unintended AI Behaviors.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle. [http://intelligence.org/2012/12/19/december-2012-newsletter/ This paper won the Machine Intelligence Research Institute's 2012 Turing Prize for the Best AGI Safety Paper].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and corruption of the reward generator.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; He also discusses social impacts of AI&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JET2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| url=http://jetpress.org/v17/hibbard.htm| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology| year=2008| volume=17| title=The Technology of Mind and a New Social Contract| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and testing AI.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12b&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_57.pdf  Decision Support for Safe AI Design|.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His 2001 book ''[[Super-Intelligent Machines]]'' advocates the need for public education about AI and public control over AI. It also proposed a simple design that was vulnerable to corruption of the reward generator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
按照[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]的观点，人工智能安全的一个重要问题是，不友好的人工智能可能比友好的人工智能更容易创建。虽然两者都需要递归优化过程的进步，但友好的人工智能还需要目标结构在自我改进过程中保持不变（否则人工智能可以将自己转变成不友好的东西），以及一个与人类价值观相一致且不会自动毁灭人类的目标结构。另一方面，一个不友好的人工智能可以针对任意的目标结构进行优化，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst12&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html Coherent Extrapolated Volition, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, May 2004 ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100815055725/http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html |date=2010-08-15 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 而目标结构不需要在自我改进过程中保持不变。Bill Hibbard (2014)提出了一种人工智能设计&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JAGI2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| journal=Journal of Artificial General Intelligence| year=2012| volume=3| issue=1| title=Model-Based Utility Functions| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.| doi=10.2478/v10229-011-0013-5| page=1|arxiv = 1111.3934 |bibcode = 2012JAGI....3....1H | s2cid=8434596}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ，可以避免包括自欺欺人&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_56.pdf  Avoiding Unintended AI Behaviors.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle. [http://intelligence.org/2012/12/19/december-2012-newsletter/ This paper won the Machine Intelligence Research Institute's 2012 Turing Prize for the Best AGI Safety Paper].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 、无意的工具性行为和奖励机制&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;的腐败等一些危险。他还讨论了人工智能&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JET2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| url=http://jetpress.org/v17/hibbard.htm| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology| year=2008| volume=17| title=The Technology of Mind and a New Social Contract| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;和人工智能测试的社会影响&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12b&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_57.pdf  Decision Support for Safe AI Design|.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。他在2001年出版的“超级智能机器Super-Intelligent Machines”一书中提倡对人工智能的公共教育和公众控制。该书还提出了一个简单的易受奖励机制的腐败影响的设计。It also proposed a simple design that was vulnerable to corruption of the reward generator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===社会生物进化的下一步===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Sociocultural evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{社会文化进化}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Major Evolutionary Transitions digital.jpg|thumb|upright=1.6|Schematic Timeline of Information and Replicators in the Biosphere: Gillings et al.'s &amp;quot;[[The Major Transitions in Evolution|major evolutionary transitions]]&amp;quot; in information processing.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Major_Evolutionary_Transitions_digital.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[档案：主要进化过渡数字.jpg|thumb |直立=1.6 |生物圈中信息和复制因子的示意时间线：Gillings等人在信息处理中的“[[进化中的主要转变|主要进化转变]]”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-99|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[99]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Biological vs. digital information.jpg|thumb|Amount of digital information worldwide (5{{e|21}} bytes) versus human genome information worldwide (10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;19&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; bytes) in 2014.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Biological_vs._digital_information.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[档案：生物vs。数字信息.jpg|2014年，全球数字信息总量（5{e | 21}字节）与全球人类基因组信息（10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;19&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;字节）的对比。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-99|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[99]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the technological singularity is usually seen as a sudden event, some scholars argue the current speed of change already fits this description.{{citation needed|date=April 2018}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然技术奇点通常被视为一个突发事件，但一些学者认为目前的变化速度已经符合这种描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, some argue that we are already in the midst of a [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|major evolutionary transition]] that merges technology, biology, and society. Digital technology has infiltrated the fabric of human society to a degree of indisputable and often life-sustaining dependence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
此外，有人认为，我们已经处在一个融合了技术、生物学和社会学的进化巨变major evolutionary transition之中。数字技术已经无可争辩地渗透到人类社会的结构中，而且生命的维持常常依赖数字技术。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2016 article in ''[[Trends in Ecology &amp;amp; Evolution]]'' argues that &amp;quot;humans already embrace fusions of biology and technology. We spend most of our waking time communicating through digitally mediated channels... we trust [[artificial intelligence]] with our lives through [[Anti-lock braking system|antilock braking in cars]] and [[autopilot]]s in planes... With one in three marriages in America beginning online, digital algorithms are also taking a role in human pair bonding and reproduction&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2016年发表在 生态学和进化进展 Trends in Ecology and Evolution 的一篇文章认为，“人类已经接受了生物和技术的融合。我们清醒时大部分时间都是通过数字媒介进行交流的……我们拿性命做担保信任汽车上的防抱死制动系统 Anti-lock braking system 和飞机上的自动巡航模式 autopilot……在美国，三分之一的婚姻都是在网络上开始的，数字算法也在人类配对和繁殖中也发挥了作用”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article further argues that from the perspective of the [[evolution]], several previous [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|Major Transitions in Evolution]] have transformed life through innovations in information storage and replication ([[RNA]], [[DNA]], [[multicellularity]], and [[culture]] and [[language]]). In the current stage of life's evolution, the carbon-based biosphere has generated a [[cognitive system]] (humans) capable of creating technology that will result in a comparable [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|evolutionary transition]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
文章进一步指出，从进化的角度来看，以前的几次[[进化]]巨变通过信息存储和复制方式（如RNA、DNA、多细胞性、文化和语言的出现）的创新来改变生命。在生命进化的当前阶段，以碳为基础的生物圈产生了一个认知系统（人类），能够创造技术，从而导致一个类似的进化变迁。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The digital information created by humans has reached a similar magnitude to biological information in the biosphere. Since the 1980s, the quantity of digital information stored has doubled about every 2.5 years, reaching about 5 [[zettabyte]]s in 2014 (5{{e|21}} bytes).{{Citation needed|date=April 2019}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
人类创造的数字信息已经达到了与生物圈中生物信息相似的规模。自20世纪80年代以来，存储的数字信息量大约每2.5年翻一番，2014年达到约5泽字节（5e21字节）。{{Citation needed|date=April 2019}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In biological terms, there are 7.2&amp;amp;nbsp;billion humans on the planet, each having a genome of 6.2&amp;amp;nbsp;billion nucleotides. Since one byte can encode four nucleotide pairs, the individual genomes of every human on the planet could be encoded by approximately 1{{e|19}} bytes. The digital realm stored 500 times more information than this in 2014 (see figure). The total amount of DNA contained in all of the cells on Earth is estimated to be about 5.3{{e|37}} base pairs, equivalent to 1.325{{e|37}} bytes of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在生物学方面，地球上有72亿人，每个人的基因组有62亿个核苷酸。由于一个字节可以编码四个核苷酸对，地球上每个人类的个体基因组可以编码大约1{e | 19}字节。2014年，数字领域存储的信息是这个数字的500倍（见图）。据估计，地球上所有细胞所含的DNA总量约为5.3{e | 37}碱基对，相当于1.325{e | 37}字节的信息。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If growth in digital storage continues at its current rate of 30–38% compound annual growth per year,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; it will rival the total information content contained in all of the DNA in all of the cells on Earth in about 110 years. This would represent a doubling of the amount of information stored in the biosphere across a total time period of just 150 years&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal |url=http://escholarship.org/uc/item/38f4b791 |doi=10.1016/j.tree.2015.12.013|pmid=26777788|title=Information in the Biosphere: Biological and Digital Worlds|journal=Trends in Ecology &amp;amp; Evolution|volume=31|issue=3|pages=180–189|year=2016|last1=Kemp|first1=D. J.|last2=Hilbert|first2=M.|last3=Gillings|first3=M. R.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如果数字存储以目前每年30-38%的复合年增长率继续增长，它将在大约110年内与地球上所有细胞中的所有DNA所包含的信息总量相抗衡。这将意味着在仅仅150年的时间里，生物圈中储存的信息量翻了一番”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===对人类社会的影响===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{further|Artificial intelligence in fiction}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{小说中的人工智能}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In February 2009, under the auspices of the [[Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence]] (AAAI), [[Eric Horvitz]] chaired a meeting of leading computer scientists, artificial intelligence researchers and roboticists at Asilomar in Pacific Grove, California. The goal was to discuss the potential impact of the hypothetical possibility that robots could become self-sufficient and able to make their own decisions. They discussed the extent to which computers and robots might be able to acquire [[autonomy]], and to what degree they could use such abilities to pose threats or hazards.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009年2月，在人工智能促进协会Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence(AAAI) 的主持下，Eric Horvitz在加利福尼亚州Pacific Grove 的 Asilomar 主持了一次由主要计算机科学家、人工智能研究人员和机器人学家参加的会议。其目的是讨论机器人能够自给自足并能够自己做决定的假设可能性的潜在影响。他们讨论了计算机和机器人能够在多大程度上获得自主性 autonomy，以及在多大程度上可以利用这些能力对人类构成威胁或危险。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some machines are programmed with various forms of semi-autonomy, including the ability to locate their own power sources and choose targets to attack with weapons. Also, some [[computer viruses]] can evade elimination and, according to scientists in attendance, could therefore be said to have reached a &amp;quot;cockroach&amp;quot; stage of machine intelligence. The conference attendees noted that self-awareness as depicted in science-fiction is probably unlikely, but that other potential hazards and pitfalls exist.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?_r=1&amp;amp;ref=todayspaper Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man] By JOHN MARKOFF, NY Times, July 26, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有些机器被编程成各种形式的半自主 semi-autonomy，包括定位自己的电源和选择武器攻击的目标等。此外，有些计算机病毒可以避免被消除，根据与会科学家的说法，可以说已经达到了机器智能的“蟑螂”阶段。与会者指出，科幻小说中描述的自我意识可能不太可能，但也存在其他潜在的危险和陷阱。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?_r=1&amp;amp;ref=todayspaper Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man] By JOHN MARKOFF, NY Times, July 26, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank S. Robinson predicts that once humans achieve a machine with the intelligence of a human, scientific and technological problems will be tackled and solved with brainpower far superior to that of humans. He notes that artificial systems are able to share data more directly than humans, and predicts that this would result in a global network of super-intelligence that would dwarf human capability.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |last=Robinson |first=Frank S. |title=The Human Future: Upgrade or Replacement? |magazine=[[The Humanist]] |date=27 June 2013 |url=https://thehumanist.com/magazine/july-august-2013/features/the-human-future-upgrade-or-replacement}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Robinson also discusses how vastly different the future would potentially look after such an intelligence explosion. One example of this is solar energy, where the Earth receives vastly more solar energy than humanity captures, so capturing more of that solar energy would hold vast promise for civilizational growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank S. Robinson 预言，一旦人类实现了具有人类智能的机器，科学技术问题将被远远优于人类的智力来解决。他指出，人工系统能够比人类更直接地共享数据，并预测这将导致一个全球的超级智能网络，使人类的能力相形见绌。Robinson还讨论了在这样一次智能爆炸之后，未来可能会有多大的不同。其中一个例子就是太阳能，地球接收到的太阳能远远多于人类捕获的太阳能，因此捕捉更多的太阳能将为文明发展带来巨大的希望。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==硬起飞与软起飞==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Recursive self-improvement.svg|thumb|upright=1.6|In this sample recursive self-improvement scenario, humans modifying an AI's architecture would be able to double its performance every three years through, for example, 30 generations before exhausting all feasible improvements (left). If instead the AI is smart enough to modify its own architecture as well as human researchers can, its time required to complete a redesign halves with each generation, and it progresses all 30 feasible generations in six years (right).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky-global-risk&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]. &amp;quot;Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk.&amp;quot; Global catastrophic risks (2008).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Recursive_self-improvement.svg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[文件：在这个示例递归自我改进场景中，修改人工智能体系结构的人可以每三年将其性能提高一倍，例如，30代人，然后用尽所有可行的改进（左）。相反，如果人工智能足够聪明，能够像人类研究人员那样修改自己的架构，那么每一代人完成一次重新设计所需的时间将减半，并且它在6年内将所有30代可行的代都推进（右图）。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky-global-risk&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]. &amp;quot;Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk.&amp;quot; Global catastrophic risks (2008).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a hard takeoff scenario, an AGI rapidly self-improves, &amp;quot;taking control&amp;quot; of the world (perhaps in a matter of hours), too quickly for significant human-initiated error correction or for a gradual tuning of the AGI's goals. In a soft takeoff scenario, AGI still becomes far more powerful than humanity, but at a human-like pace (perhaps on the order of decades), on a timescale where ongoing human interaction and correction can effectively steer the AGI's development.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bugaj, Stephan Vladimir, and Ben Goertzel. &amp;quot;Five ethical imperatives and their implications for human-AGI interaction.&amp;quot; Dynamical Psychology (2007).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sotala, Kaj, and Roman V. Yampolskiy. &amp;quot;Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a survey.&amp;quot; Physica Scripta 90.1 (2014): 018001.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在硬起飞的情况下，通用人工智能 AGI 迅速自我完善并“掌控”世界（也许在几个小时内）。速度太快，以致于无法进行重大的人为纠错或对 AGI 的目标进行逐步调整。在软起飞的情况下，虽然 AGI 仍然比人类强大得多，但却以一种类似人类的速度进步（也许是几十年的数量级），持续的人类互动和修正可以有效地引导AGI 的发展。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bugaj, Stephan Vladimir, and Ben Goertzel. &amp;quot;Five ethical imperatives and their implications for human-AGI interaction.&amp;quot; Dynamical Psychology (2007).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sotala, Kaj, and Roman V. Yampolskiy. &amp;quot;Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a survey.&amp;quot; Physica Scripta 90.1 (2014): 018001.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ramez Naam]] argues against a hard takeoff. He has pointed that we already see recursive self-improvement by superintelligences, such as corporations. [[Intel]], for example, has &amp;quot;the collective brainpower of tens of thousands of humans and probably millions of CPU cores to... design better CPUs!&amp;quot; However, this has not led to a hard takeoff; rather, it has led to a soft takeoff in the form of [[Moore's law]].&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Further&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=The Singularity Is Further Than It Appears|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/the-singularity-is-further-tha.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Naam further points out that the computational complexity of higher intelligence may be much greater than linear, such that &amp;quot;creating a mind of intelligence 2 is probably ''more'' than twice as hard as creating a mind of intelligence 1.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Ascend&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=Why AIs Won't Ascend in the Blink of an Eye - Some Math|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/why-ais-wont-ascend-in-blink-of-an-eye.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ramez Naam反对硬起飞。他指出，我们已经看到企业等超级智能体的递归式地自我完善。例如，Intel拥有“数万人的集体脑力，可能还有数百万个CPU核心……来设计更好的CPU！”然而，这并没有导致硬起飞；相反，它以摩尔定律的形式实现了软起飞&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Further&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=The Singularity Is Further Than It Appears|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/the-singularity-is-further-tha.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。Naam进一步指出，高等智能的计算复杂度可能比线性大得多，因此，“创建智能系统2的难度可能两倍于是创建智能系统1的两倍多。”&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Ascend&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=Why AIs Won't Ascend in the Blink of an Eye - Some Math|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/why-ais-wont-ascend-in-blink-of-an-eye.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[J. Storrs Hall]] believes that &amp;quot;many of the more commonly seen scenarios for overnight hard takeoff are circular – they seem to assume hyperhuman capabilities at the ''starting point'' of the self-improvement process&amp;quot; in order for an AI to be able to make the dramatic, domain-general improvements required for takeoff. Hall suggests that rather than recursively self-improving its hardware, software, and infrastructure all on its own, a fledgling AI would be better off specializing in one area where it was most effective and then buying the remaining components on the marketplace, because the quality of products on the marketplace continually improves, and the AI would have a hard time keeping up with the cutting-edge technology used by the rest of the world.&amp;lt;ref name=Hall2008&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Hall|first=J. Storrs|title=Engineering Utopia|journal=Artificial General Intelligence, 2008: Proceedings of the First AGI Conference|date=2008|pages=460–467|url=http://www.agiri.org/takeoff_hall.pdf|accessdate=16 May 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J.Storrs Hall认为，“许多常见的一夜之间出现的硬起飞场景都是循环论证——它们似乎在自我提升过程的起点上假设了超人类的能力”，以便人工智能能够实现起飞所需的戏剧性的、领域通用的改进。Hall认为，一个初出茅庐的人工智能与其靠自己不断地自我改进硬件、软件和基础设施，不如专注于一个它最有效的领域，然后在市场上购买剩余的组件，因为市场上产品的质量不断提高，人工智能将很难跟上世界其他地方使用的尖端技术。&amp;lt;ref name=Hall2008&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Hall|first=J. Storrs|title=Engineering Utopia|journal=Artificial General Intelligence, 2008: Proceedings of the First AGI Conference|date=2008|pages=460–467|url=http://www.agiri.org/takeoff_hall.pdf|accessdate=16 May 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ben Goertzel]] agrees with Hall's suggestion that a new human-level AI would do well to use its intelligence to accumulate wealth. The AI's talents might inspire companies and governments to disperse its software throughout society. Goertzel is skeptical of a hard five minute takeoff but speculates that a takeoff from human to superhuman level on the order of five years is reasonable. Goerzel refers to this scenario as a &amp;quot;semihard takeoff&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Goertzel2014&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Goertzel|first1=Ben|title=Superintelligence — Semi-hard Takeoff Scenarios|url=http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/09/26/superintelligence-semi-hard-takeoff-scenarios/|accessdate=25 October 2014|agency=h+ Magazine|date=26 Sep 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ben Goertzel 同意 Hall 的意见，即一种新的人类级别的人工智能将很好地利用其智能来积累财富。人工智能的天赋可能会激励公司和政府将其软件分散到整个社会。Goertzel 对5分钟的硬起飞持怀疑态度，但他推测从人类到超人的水平，以5年的速度起飞是合理的。Goerzel将这种情况称为“半硬起飞semihard takeoff”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Goertzel2014&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Goertzel|first1=Ben|title=Superintelligence — Semi-hard Takeoff Scenarios|url=http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/09/26/superintelligence-semi-hard-takeoff-scenarios/|accessdate=25 October 2014|agency=h+ Magazine|date=26 Sep 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Max More]] disagrees, arguing that if there were only a few superfast human-level AIs, that they would not radically change the world, as they would still depend on other people to get things done and would still have human cognitive constraints. Even if all superfast AIs worked on intelligence augmentation, it is unclear why they would do better in a discontinuous way than existing human cognitive scientists at producing super-human intelligence, although the rate of progress would increase. More further argues that a superintelligence would not transform the world overnight: a superintelligence would need to engage with existing, slow human systems to accomplish physical impacts on the world. &amp;quot;The need for collaboration, for organization, and for putting ideas into physical changes will ensure that all the old rules are not thrown out overnight or even within years.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=More&amp;gt;{{cite web|last1=More|first1=Max|title=Singularity Meets Economy|url=http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#more|accessdate=10 November 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Max More不同意这一观点，他认为，如果只有少数超高速的人类水平的人工智能，它们不会从根本上改变世界，因为它们仍将依赖人来完成任务，并且仍然会受到人类认知的限制。即使所有的超高速人工智能都致力于智能增强，但目前还不清楚为什么它们在产生超人类智能方面比现有的人类认知科学家做得更好，尽管进展速度会加快。更进一步指出，超级智能不会在一夜之间改变世界：超级智能需要与现有的、缓慢的人类系统进行接触，以完成对世界的物理影响。”合作、组织和将想法付诸实际变革的需要将确保所有旧规则不会在一夜之间甚至几年内被抛弃。”&amp;lt;ref name=More&amp;gt;{{cite web|last1=More|first1=Max|title=Singularity Meets Economy|url=http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#more|accessdate=10 November 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==永生==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his 2005 book, ''[[The Singularity is Near]]'', [[Ray Kurzweil|Kurzweil]] suggests that medical advances would allow people to protect their bodies from the effects of aging, making the [[Life extension|life expectancy limitless]]. Kurzweil argues that the technological advances in medicine would allow us to continuously repair and replace defective components in our bodies, prolonging life to an undetermined age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Singularity Is Near'', p.&amp;amp;nbsp;215.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Kurzweil further buttresses his argument by discussing current bio-engineering advances. Kurzweil suggests [[somatic gene therapy]]; after synthetic viruses with specific genetic information, the next step would be to apply this technology to gene therapy, replacing human DNA with synthesized genes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Singularity is Near'', p.&amp;amp;nbsp;216.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在Kurzweil 2005年出版的《奇点近了The Singularity is Near》一书中，他指出，医学的进步将使人们能够保护自己的身体免受衰老的影响，从而延长寿命。Kurzweil认为，医学的技术进步将使我们能够不断地修复和更换我们身体中有缺陷的部件，从而将寿命延长到某个他无法确定的年龄。Kurzweil通过讨论当前的生物工程进展进一步支持了他的论点。Kurzweil建议了体细胞基因疗法somatic gene therapy；在合成具有特定遗传信息的病毒之后，下一步则是把这项技术应用到基因治疗中，用合成的基因取代人类的DNA。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[K. Eric Drexler]], one of the founders of [[nanotechnology]], postulated cell repair devices, including ones operating within cells and utilizing as yet hypothetical [[biological machine]]s, in his 1986 book ''[[Engines of Creation]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[K.Eric Drexler]]，纳米技术nanotechnology的创始人之一，在他1986年的著作“创造的引擎Engines of Creation”中，假设了细胞修复设备，包括在细胞内运行并利用目前假设的[[生物机器]]的设备。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Richard Feynman]], it was his former graduate student and collaborator [[Albert Hibbs]] who originally suggested to him (circa 1959) the idea of a ''medical'' use for Feynman's theoretical micromachines. Hibbs suggested that certain repair machines might one day be reduced in size to the point that it would, in theory, be possible to (as Feynman put it) &amp;quot;[[Molecular machine#Biological|swallow the doctor]]&amp;quot;. The idea was incorporated into Feynman's 1959 essay ''[[There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom]].''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url = http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html|title = There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom|first = Richard P.|last = Feynman |author-link = Richard Feynman|date = December 1959|url-status = dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100211190050/http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html|archive-date = 2010-02-11}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
根据[[Richard Feynman]]，他过去的研究生和合作者[[Albert Hibbs]]最初向他建议（大约在1959年）费曼理论微型机械Feynman's theoretical micromachines的“医学”用途。Hibbs认为，有一天，理论上某些修理机器的尺寸可能会被尽可能地缩小（正如费曼所说的那样）“[[Molecular machine#Biological|swallow the doctor]]”。这个想法被收入了费曼1959年的文章“在底部有很多空间[There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beyond merely extending the operational life of the physical body, [[Jaron Lanier]] argues for a form of immortality called &amp;quot;Digital Ascension&amp;quot; that involves &amp;quot;people dying in the flesh and being uploaded into a computer and remaining conscious&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |title = You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto |last = Lanier |first = Jaron |author-link = Jaron Lanier |publisher = [[Alfred A. Knopf]] |year = 2010 |isbn = 978-0307269645 |location = New York, NY |page = [https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780307269645/page/26 26] |url-access = registration |url = https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780307269645 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
除了仅仅延长物质身体的运行寿命之外，[[Jaron Lanier]]还主张一种称为“数字提升Digital Ascension”的不朽形式，即“人在肉体层面死亡，意识被上传到电脑里并保持清醒”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==概念史==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A paper by Mahendra Prasad, published in ''[[AI Magazine]]'', asserts that the 18th-century mathematician [[Marquis de Condorcet]] was the first person to hypothesize and mathematically model an intelligence explosion and its effects on humanity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Prasad|first=Mahendra|year=2019|title=Nicolas de Condorcet and the First Intelligence Explosion Hypothesis|journal=AI Magazine|volume=40|issue=1|pages=29–33|doi=10.1609/aimag.v40i1.2855}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahendra Prasad在“[[人工智能杂志]]”上发表的一篇论文断言，18世纪的数学家[[Marquis de Condorcet]]是第一个对智能爆炸及其对人类影响进行假设和数学建模的人。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An early description of the idea was made in [[John Wood Campbell Jr.]]'s 1932 short story &amp;quot;The last evolution&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1932年[[约翰.伍德.坎贝尔]的短篇小说《最后的进化》（the last evolution）对这一想法作了早期的描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his 1958 obituary for [[John von Neumann]], Ulam recalled a conversation with von Neumann about the &amp;quot;ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=mathematical/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ulam在1958年为约翰·冯·诺依曼写的讣告中，回忆了与冯·诺依曼的一次对话：“技术的不断进步和人类生活方式的变化，这使我们似乎接近了种族历史上某些基本的奇点，超出了这些奇点，人类的事务就不能继续下去了。”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1965, Good wrote his essay postulating an &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; of recursive self-improvement of a machine intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1965年，古德写了一篇文章，假设机器智能的自我改进迭代是“智能爆炸”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981, [[Stanisław Lem]] published his [[science fiction]] novel ''[[Golem XIV]]''. It describes a military AI computer (Golem XIV) who obtains consciousness and starts to increase his own intelligence, moving towards personal technological singularity. Golem XIV was originally created to aid its builders in fighting wars, but as its intelligence advances to a much higher level than that of humans, it stops being interested in the military requirement because it finds them lacking internal logical consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1981年，[[Stanisław Lem]]出版了他的[[科幻小说]]小说“[[Golem XIV]]”。它描述了一台军用人工智能计算机（Golem XIV）获得了意识并开始增加自己的智能，朝着个体的技术奇点迈进。Golem XIV最初是为了帮助它的建造者打仗，但随着它的智力发展到比人类更高的水平，它不再对军事感兴趣，因为它发现它们缺乏内在的逻辑一致性。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1983, [[Vernor Vinge]] greatly popularized Good's intelligence explosion in a number of writings, first addressing the topic in print in the January 1983 issue of ''[[Omni (magazine)|Omni]]'' magazine. In this op-ed piece, Vinge seems to have been the first to use the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in a way that was specifically tied to the creation of intelligent machines:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google4&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1983年，[[Vernor Vinge]]在许多著作中极大地普及了Good的智能爆炸，他第一次在1983年1月出版的“[[Omni”杂志上提到了这一主题。在这篇评论文章中，Vinge似乎是第一个使用“奇点”一词的人，并将“奇点”的概念特别地与智能机器的创造进行联系：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|We will soon create intelligences greater than our own. When this happens, human history will have reached a kind of singularity, an intellectual transition as impenetrable as the knotted space-time at the center of a black hole, and the world will pass far beyond our understanding. This singularity, I believe, already haunts a number of science-fiction writers. It makes realistic extrapolation to an interstellar future impossible. To write a story set more than a century hence, one needs a nuclear war in between ... so that the world remains intelligible.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{我们很快就会创造出比我们自己更强大的智能。当这种情况发生时，人类历史将达到一种奇点，一种如同黑洞中心打结的时空一样难以逾越的知识转变，世界将远远超出我们的理解。我相信，这种奇点已经困扰了许多科幻作家。这使得对星际未来的现实推断变得不可能。要写一个多世纪以后的故事，科幻小说家需要一场核战争……这样世界就可以理解了。}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1985, in &amp;quot;The Time Scale of Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;, artificial intelligence researcher [[Ray Solomonoff]] articulated mathematically the related notion of what he called an &amp;quot;infinity point&amp;quot;: if a research community of human-level self-improving AIs take four years to double their own speed, then two years, then one year and so on, their capabilities increase infinitely in finite time.&amp;lt;ref name=chalmers /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;std&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1985年，在《人工智能的时间尺度The Time Scale of Artificial Intelligence》一书中，人工智能研究人员[[Ray Solomonoff]]以数学的方式阐述了他所说的“无限点”的相关概念：如果一个人类水平的能自我改进人工智能的研究社区需要四年时间使其速度加倍，那么两年，然后一年，依此类推，它们的能力在有限的时间内无限增长。&amp;lt;ref name=chalmers/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=“std”/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vinge's 1993 article &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; spread widely on the internet and helped to popularize the idea.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google5&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; This article contains the statement, &amp;quot;Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.&amp;quot; Vinge argues that science-fiction authors cannot write realistic post-singularity characters who surpass the human intellect, as the thoughts of such an intellect would be beyond the ability of humans to express.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vinge 1993年的文章《未来的技术奇点：如何在后人类时代生存The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era》在互联网上广为传播，普及了这一理念。“在三十年内，我们将拥有创造超人智慧的技术手段。不久之后，人类时代将结束。”Vinge认为，科幻小说作者无法写出超越人类智力的现实主义后奇点人物，因为这种智力的思想将超出人类的表达能力。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2000, [[Bill Joy]], a prominent technologist and a co-founder of [[Sun Microsystems]], voiced concern over the potential dangers of the singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2000年，著名的技术专家和 Sun Microsystems 的联合创始人 Bill Joy，表达了对奇点潜在危险的担忧。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2005, Kurzweil published ''[[The Singularity is Near]]''. Kurzweil's publicity campaign included an appearance on ''[[The Daily Show with Jon Stewart]]''.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2005年，库兹韦尔发表了《奇点临近 The Singularity is Near》。库兹韦尔的宣传活动包括参加“ Jon Stewart 的每日秀 The Daily Show with Jon Stewart”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2007, [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]] suggested that many of the varied definitions that have been assigned to &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; are mutually incompatible rather than mutually supporting.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sandberg, Anders. &amp;quot;An overview of models of technological singularity.&amp;quot; Roadmaps to AGI and the Future of AGI Workshop, Lugano, Switzerland, March. Vol. 8. 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, Kurzweil extrapolates current technological trajectories past the arrival of self-improving AI or superhuman intelligence, which Yudkowsky argues represents a tension with both I. J. Good's proposed discontinuous upswing in intelligence and Vinge's thesis on unpredictability.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2007年，Eliezer Yudkowsky指出，“奇点”被赋予的许多不同的定义是互不兼容而不是相互支持的&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sandberg, Anders. &amp;quot;An overview of models of technological singularity.&amp;quot; Roadmaps to AGI and the Future of AGI Workshop, Lugano, Switzerland, March. Vol. 8. 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;。例如，库兹韦尔推断了在自我提升的人工智能或超人智能到来之前的当前技术轨迹。Yudkowsky 认为，这与I.J.Good 提出的智能的不连续上升和 Vinge 关于不可预测性的论点存在矛盾。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2009, Kurzweil and [[X-Prize]] founder [[Peter Diamandis]] announced the establishment of [[Singularity University]], a nonaccredited private institute whose stated mission is &amp;quot;to educate, inspire and empower leaders to apply exponential technologies to address humanity's grand challenges.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Funded by [[Google]], [[Autodesk]], [[ePlanet Ventures]], and a group of [[High tech|technology industry]] leaders, Singularity University is based at [[NASA]]'s [[Ames Research Center]] in [[Mountain View, California|Mountain View]], [[California]]. The not-for-profit organization runs an annual ten-week graduate program during summer that covers ten different technology and allied tracks, and a series of executive programs throughout the year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009年，Kurzweil和X-Prize的创始人Peter Diamandis宣布成立奇点大学，这是一所未经认证的私立学院，其宣称的使命是“教育、激励和赋能领导者来使用指数技术应对人类的重大挑战&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 。”奇点大学由Google、Autodesk、ePlanet Ventures和一群高科技产业的领导团队资助，总部设在位于加州山景城的美国宇航局 NASA 的 艾姆斯研究中心 Ames Research Center。这家非营利组织在每年夏季举办为期十周的研究生课程，涵盖十种不同的技术和相关领域，并全年举办一系列高管课程。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==在政治中==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2007, the Joint Economic Committee of the [[United States Congress]] released a report about the future of nanotechnology. It predicts significant technological and political changes in the mid-term future, including possible technological singularity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vyp1AwAAQBAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA375|title=Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society|first=David H.|last=Guston|date=14 July 2010|publisher=SAGE Publications|isbn=978-1-4522-6617-6}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web | url=http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20120213_TheFutureisComingSoonerThanYouThink.pdf | title=Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think | publisher=Joint Economic Committee | date=March 2007}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2007/03/congress_and_th.html|title=Congress and the Singularity}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2007年，美国国会联合经济委员会 the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress 发布了一份关于纳米技术的未来的报告。它预测在中期的未来会发生诸多重大的技术和政治变化，包括可能的技术奇点。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vyp1AwAAQBAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA375|title=Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society|first=David H.|last=Guston|date=14 July 2010|publisher=SAGE Publications|isbn=978-1-4522-6617-6}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web | url=http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20120213_TheFutureisComingSoonerThanYouThink.pdf | title=Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think | publisher=Joint Economic Committee | date=March 2007}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2007/03/congress_and_th.html|title=Congress and the Singularity}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former President of the United States [[Barack Obama]] spoke about singularity in his interview to ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' in 2016:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.wired.com/2016/10/president-obama-mit-joi-ito-interview/|title=Barack Obama Talks AI, Robo Cars, and the Future of the World|first=Scott|last=Dadich|journal=Wired|date=12 October 2016}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2016年，美国前总统巴拉克·奥巴马 Barack Obama 在接受《连线》杂志采访时谈到了奇点:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.wired.com/2016/10/president-obama-mit-joi-ito-interview/|title=Barack Obama Talks AI, Robo Cars, and the Future of the World|first=Scott|last=Dadich|journal=Wired|date=12 October 2016}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|text=One thing that we haven't talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren't spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about &amp;quot;Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?&amp;quot;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that we haven't talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren't spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about &amp;quot;Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有一件事我们没有谈得太多，我还想回过去谈谈，那就是我们真的必须考虑对经济的影响。因为大多数人现在并没有花太多时间去担心奇点，而是在担心“好吧，我的工作会被机器取代吗？”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==参考文献==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20010527181244/http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Authors/Computing/Good-IJ/SCtFUM.html |archive-date = 2001-05-27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archive-url =  https://web.archive.org/web/20010527181244/http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/authors/computing/good-ij/sctfum.html  | archive-date = 2001-05-27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Portal| Technology}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Accelerating change}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| series = Advances in Computers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
系列 = 计算机的进步&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial consciousness}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| isbn = 9780120121069| title = Advances in Computers Volume 6&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9780120121069&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial intelligence arms race}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl = 10919/89424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl = 10919/89424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial intelligence in fiction}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Brain simulation}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Brain–computer interface}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Emerging technologies}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Fermi paradox}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Some Skepticism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些怀疑论者&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Flynn effect}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Robin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一名: 罗宾&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Futures studies}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Global brain}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{sectionlink|Human intelligence|Improving intelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year = 1998&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1998年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Mind uploading}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Neuroenhancement}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| accessdate = 2009-06-19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009-06-19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Outline of transhumanism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20090828023928/http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年3月24日 | archiveurl =  https://web.archive.org/web/20090828023928/http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Robot learning}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archivedate = 2009-08-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archivedate = 2009-08-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Singularitarianism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological determinism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological revolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first=Anthony&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一名: 安东尼&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological unemployment}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last=Berglas&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Berglas&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title=Artificial Intelligence will Kill our Grandchildren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
人工智能会杀死我们的孙子&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year=2008&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2008年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TODO: end here&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Citations引用 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://berglas.org/Articles/AIKillGrandchildren/AIKillGrandchildren.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://berglas.org/articles/aikillgrandchildren/aikillgrandchildren.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Reflist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2008-06-13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2008-06-13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|refs =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url = http://www.technologyreview.com/view/425733/paul-allen-the-singularity-isnt-near |title= Paul Allen: The Singularity Isn't Near |access-date=2015-04-12 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Nick&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一 = 尼克&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation | first=Bill | last=Joy | author-link=Bill Joy | title=Why the future doesn't need us | journal=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired Magazine]] | volume=8 | date= April 2000 | issue=4 |url = https://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html | access-date=2007-08-07 | isbn=978-0-670-03249-5 | publisher=Viking Adult }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Bostrom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
博斯特罗姆&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Nick Bostrom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
作者: 尼克 · 博斯特罗姆&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php |title=Singularly Silly Singularity |access-date=2009-04-13 |first1=PZ |last1=Myers |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090228161422/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php |archive-date=2009-02-28 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title=Existential Risks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
存在风险&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
进化与技术杂志&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil.htm Modis, Theodore. ''The Singularity Myth''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121030072409/http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil.htm |date=2012-10-30 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year=2002&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2002年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| volume=9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| volume = 9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Anders Sandberg|Sandberg, Anders]]. [http://agi-conf.org/2010/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/agi10singmodels2.pdf An overview of models of technological singularity]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date=2007-08-07&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2007-08-07&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3854/global-catastrophic-risks-report.pdf|title=GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS SURVEY (2008) Technical Report 2008/1 Published by Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University. Anders Sandberg and Nick Bostrom|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110516021945/http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3854/global-catastrophic-risks-report.pdf|archivedate=2011-05-16}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Krazit, Tom. [http://news.cnet.com/2100-1006_3-6119618.html Intel pledges 80 cores in five years], ''CNET News'', 26 September 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Bill&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 第一 = 比尔&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;dreyfus&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Harvnb|Dreyfus|Dreyfus|2000|p=xiv}}: 'The truth is that human intelligence can never be replaced with machine intelligence simply because we are not ourselves &amp;quot;thinking machines&amp;quot; in the sense in which that term is commonly understood.' {{Harvtxt|Hawking|1998}}: 'Some people say that computers can never show true intelligence whatever that may be. But it seems to me that if very complicated chemical molecules can operate in humans to make them intelligent then equally complicated electronic circuits can also make computers act in an intelligent way. And if they are intelligent they can presumably design computers that have even greater complexity and intelligence.'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Bill Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 作者链接 = Bill Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Ethical Artificial Intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Ethical Artificial Intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{IMDb title|847969|Episode dated 23 August 2006}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| date = 5 November 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 日期 = 2014年11月5日&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| eprint=1411.1373&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1411.1373&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, ''[[The Age of Spiritual Machines]]'', Viking; 1999,  {{ISBN|978-0-14-028202-3}}. pp. [https://books.google.com/books?id=ldAGcyh0bkUC&amp;amp;pg=PA630 30, 32]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| class = cs.AI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年10月12日 | class = cs.AI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| ref=harv&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= harv&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Theodore Modis, [http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/TedWEB.htm Forecasting the Growth of Complexity and Change], ''Technological Forecasting &amp;amp; Social Change'', 69, No 4, 2002 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120615054939/http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/TedWEB.htm |date=June 15, 2012 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dooling, Richard. ''[[Rapture for the Geeks|Rapture for the Geeks: When AI Outsmarts IQ]]'' (2008), [https://books.google.com/books?id=VbBRsv1lxsUC&amp;amp;lpg=PP1&amp;amp;pg=PA88 p. 88]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dooling, Richard. ''[[Rapture for the Geeks|Rapture for the Geeks: When AI Outsmarts IQ]]'' (2008), [https://books.google.com/books?id=VbBRsv1lxsUC&amp;amp;lpg=PP1&amp;amp;pg=PA89 p. 89]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/nano/singularity-nanotech-or-ai |title=h+ Magazine &amp;amp;#124; Covering technological, scientific, and cultural trends that are changing human beings in fundamental ways |publisher=Hplusmagazine.com |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/whos-who-in-the-singularity |title=Who's Who In The Singularity – IEEE Spectrum |publisher=Spectrum.ieee.org |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1958-64-03/S0002-9904-1958-10189-5/S0002-9904-1958-10189-5.pdf | last=Ulam|first=Stanislaw |title=Tribute to John von Neumann|publisher=Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society|volume=64, #3, part 2|date=May 1958|page=5}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |title=More blades good |author=Anonymous |newspaper=The Economist |date=18 March 2006 |url=http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5624861 |location=London |page=85 |volume=378  |issue=8469 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html |title=Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards |website=nickbostrom.com }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news |url = https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html |newspaper = The New York Times | first=John | last=Markoff | title=Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced by Cheaper Software | date=2011-03-04}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near, pp. 135–136. Penguin Group, 2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, ''The Singularity is Near'', Penguin Group, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near, p. 9. Penguin Group, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Eschatology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 末世论&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Futures studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 未来研究&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singularityu.org/ Singularity University] at its official website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Philosophy of artificial intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
范畴: 人工智能哲学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Existential risk from artificial general intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 来自人工一般智能的世界末日&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;This page was moved from [[wikipedia:en:Technological singularity]]. Its edit history can be viewed at [[技术奇点/edithistory]]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:待整理页面]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Alchemist</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E5%A5%87%E7%82%B9&amp;diff=25833</id>
		<title>技术奇点</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E5%A5%87%E7%82%B9&amp;diff=25833"/>
		<updated>2021-08-15T05:57:12Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Alchemist：&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;此词条暂由水流心不竞、嘉树初译，徐培审校，带来阅读不便，请见谅。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Redirect|The Singularity||Singularity (disambiguation)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Redirect |奇点| |奇点（释疑)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{short description|Hypothetical point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{简介}技术增长变得不可控制和不可逆转的假设时间点}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The '''technological singularity'''—also, simply, '''the singularity'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cadwalladr, Carole (2014). &amp;quot;[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/22/robots-google-ray-kurzweil-terminator-singularity-artificial-intelligence Are the robots about to rise? Google's new director of engineering thinks so…]&amp;quot; ''The Guardian''. Guardian News and Media Limited.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;—is a [[hypothetical]] point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web |title=Collection of sources defining &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; |url=http://www.singularitysymposium.com/definition-of-singularity.html |website=singularitysymposium.com |accessdate=17 April 2019}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book |author1=Eden, Amnon H. |author2=Moor, James H. |title=Singularity hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment |date=2012 |publisher=Springer |location=Dordrecht |isbn=9783642325601 |pages=1–2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to the most popular version of the singularity hypothesis, called [[Technological singularity#Intelligence explosion|intelligence explosion]], an upgradable [[intelligent agent]] will eventually enter a &amp;quot;runaway reaction&amp;quot; of self-improvement cycles, each new and more intelligent generation appearing more and more rapidly, causing an &amp;quot;explosion&amp;quot; in intelligence and resulting in a powerful [[superintelligence]] that qualitatively far surpasses all [[human intelligence]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;技术奇点 Technological singularity&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;——简称 奇点 Singularity &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cadwalladr, Carole (2014). &amp;quot;[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/22/robots-google-ray-kurzweil-terminator-singularity-artificial-intelligence Are the robots about to rise? Google's new director of engineering thinks so…]&amp;quot; ''The Guardian''. Guardian News and Media Limited.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;是一个假设的时间点。在该时间点上，技术的增长变得不可控制和不可逆转，从而导致人类文明发生无法预见的变化。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web |title=Collection of sources defining &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; |url=http://www.singularitysymposium.com/definition-of-singularity.html |website=singularitysymposium.com |accessdate=17 April 2019}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book |author1=Eden, Amnon H. |author2=Moor, James H. |title=Singularity hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment |date=2012 |publisher=Springer |location=Dordrecht |isbn=9783642325601 |pages=1–2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;根据奇点假说（也被称为智能爆炸 intelligence explosion）最流行的版本：一个可升级的智能体终将进入一种自我完善循环的“&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;失控反应 runaway reaction&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”。每个新的、更智能的世代将出现得越来越快，导致智能的“爆炸”，并产生一种在实质上远超所有人类智能的超级智能。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first use of the concept of a &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in the technological context was [[John von Neumann]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Technological Singularity'' by Murray Shanahan, (MIT Press, 2015), page 233&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Stanislaw Ulam]] reports a discussion with von Neumann &amp;quot;centered on the [[Accelerating change|accelerating progress]] of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential [[Wiktionary:singularity|singularity]] in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Subsequent authors have echoed this viewpoint.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;chalmers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Chalmers|first=David|date=2010|title=The singularity: a philosophical analysis|url=|journal=Journal of Consciousness Studies|volume=17|issue=9–10|pages=7–65|via=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一次在科技领域使用“奇点”这一概念的人是冯·诺依曼 John von Neumann&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Technological Singularity'' by Murray Shanahan, (MIT Press, 2015), page 233&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;。Stanislaw Ulam 报告了一次与冯·诺依曼的讨论。“围绕技术的加速进步和人类生活模式的改变，这让我们看到了人类历史上一些本质上的奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; 一旦超越了这些奇点，我们所熟知的人类事务就将无法继续下去了”。后来的作者也赞同这一观点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;chalmers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Chalmers|first=David|date=2010|title=The singularity: a philosophical analysis|url=|journal=Journal of Consciousness Studies|volume=17|issue=9–10|pages=7–65|via=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. J. Good]]'s &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; model predicts that a future superintelligence will trigger a singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Vinge, Vernor. [http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;], in ''Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace'', G. A. Landis, ed., NASA Publication CP-10129, pp. 11–22, 1993.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I. J.古德的“智能爆炸”模型预测未来的超级智能将触发一个奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Vinge, Vernor. [http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;], in ''Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace'', G. A. Landis, ed., NASA Publication CP-10129, pp. 11–22, 1993.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The concept and the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; were popularized by [[Vernor Vinge]] in his 1993 essay ''The Coming Technological Singularity'', in which he wrote that it would signal the end of the human era, as the new superintelligence would continue to upgrade itself and would advance technologically at an incomprehensible rate. He wrote that he would be surprised if it occurred before 2005 or after 2030.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“奇点”的概念和术语是由 Vernor Vinge 在他1993年的文章《即将到来的技术奇点 The Coming Technological Singularity》中得到推广的。他在文中写道，这将标志着人类时代的终结，因为新的超级智能将持续自我升级，并以不可思议的速度在技术上进步。他写道，如果奇点发生在2005年之前或2030年之后，他会感到惊讶。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Public figures such as [[Stephen Hawking]] and [[Elon Musk]] have expressed concern that full [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) could result in human extinction.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Sparkes|first1=Matthew|title=Top scientists call for caution over artificial intelligence|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11342200/Top-scientists-call-for-caution-over-artificial-intelligence.html|accessdate=24 April 2015|work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph (UK)]]|date=13 January 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540|title=Hawking: AI could end human race|date=2 December 2014|publisher=BBC|accessdate=11 November 2017}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The consequences of the singularity and its potential benefit or harm to the human race have been intensely debated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
斯蒂芬·霍金 Stephen Hawking 和埃隆·马斯克 Elon Musk 等公众人物对完全人工智能（AI）可能导致人类灭绝表示担忧。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Sparkes|first1=Matthew|title=Top scientists call for caution over artificial intelligence|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11342200/Top-scientists-call-for-caution-over-artificial-intelligence.html|accessdate=24 April 2015|work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph (UK)]]|date=13 January 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540|title=Hawking: AI could end human race|date=2 December 2014|publisher=BBC|accessdate=11 November 2017}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;奇点的后果及其对人类的潜在利益或伤害一直存在激烈的争论。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Four polls of AI researchers, conducted in 2012 and 2013 by [[Nick Bostrom]] and [[Vincent C. Müller]], suggested a median probability estimate of 50% that [[artificial general intelligence]] (AGI) would be developed by 2040–2050.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;newyorker&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Khatchadourian|first1=Raffi|title=The Doomsday Invention|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=The New Yorker|date=16 November 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Müller, V. C., &amp;amp; Bostrom, N. (2016). &amp;quot;Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion&amp;quot;. In V. C. Müller (ed): ''Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence'' (pp. 555–572). Springer, Berlin. http://philpapers.org/rec/MLLFPI&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年到2013年，Nick Bostrom 和 Vincent c. Müller 对人工智能研究人员进行了四次调查。结果显示，通用人工智能(artificial general intelligence, AGI)在2040年至2050年被成功开发出来的概率估计的中位数为50%。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;newyorker&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Khatchadourian|first1=Raffi|title=The Doomsday Invention|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=The New Yorker|date=16 November 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Müller, V. C., &amp;amp; Bostrom, N. (2016). &amp;quot;Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion&amp;quot;. In V. C. Müller (ed): ''Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence'' (pp. 555–572). Springer, Berlin. http://philpapers.org/rec/MLLFPI&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==背景==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although technological progress has been accelerating, it has been limited by the basic intelligence of the human brain, which has not, according to [[Paul R. Ehrlich]], changed significantly for millennia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Paul Ehrlich June 2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ehrlich, Paul. [http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/ The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, with the increasing power of computers and other technologies, it might eventually be possible to build a machine that is significantly more intelligent than humans.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;businessweek&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm Superbrains born of silicon will change everything.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801074729/http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm |date=August 1, 2010 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然技术进步一直在加速，但它一直受到人脑基本智力的限制，而根据Paul R.Ehrlich的说法，人类大脑的基本智力在几千年来并没有发生显著变化。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Paul Ehrlich June 2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ehrlich, Paul. [http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/ The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;然而，随着计算机和其他技术的日益强大，人类最终有可能制造出一台比人类智能得多的机器&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;businessweek&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm Superbrains born of silicon will change everything.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801074729/http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm |date=August 1, 2010 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a superhuman intelligence were to be invented—either through the amplification of human intelligence or through artificial intelligence—it would bring to bear greater problem-solving and inventive skills than current humans are capable of. Such an AI is referred to as Seed AI because if an AI were created with engineering capabilities that matched or surpassed those of its human creators, it would have the potential to autonomously improve its own software and hardware or design an even more capable machine. This more capable machine could then go on to design a machine of yet greater capability. These iterations of recursive self-improvement could accelerate, potentially allowing enormous qualitative change before any upper limits imposed by the laws of physics or theoretical computation set in. It is speculated that over many iterations, such an AI would far surpass human cognitive abilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如果一种超人类智能被发明出来。无论是通过人类智能的放大还是通过人工智能，它将带来比现在的人类更强的问题解决和发明创造能力。这种人工智能被称为种子人工智能 Seed AI。因为如果人工智能的工程能力能够与它的人类创造者相匹敌或超越，那么它就有潜力自主改进自己的软件和硬件，或者设计出更强大的机器。这台能力更强的机器可以继续设计一台能力更强的机器。这种自我递归改进的迭代可以加速，在物理定律或理论计算设定的任何上限之前，可能会发生巨大的质变。据推测，经过多次迭代，这样的人工智能将远远超过人类的认知能力。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==智能爆炸==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligence explosion is a possible outcome of humanity building [[artificial general intelligence]] (AGI). AGI would be capable of recursive self-improvement, leading to the rapid emergence of [[Superintelligence|artificial superintelligence]] (ASI), the limits of which are unknown, shortly after technological singularity is achieved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能爆炸是构建通用人工智能 artificial general intelligence (AGI) 的可能结果。在技术奇点实现后不久，AGI 将能够进行递归式的自我迭代，从而导致人工超级智能 artificial superintelligence (ASI) 的迅速出现，但其局限性尚不清楚。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. J. Good]] speculated in 1965 that artificial general intelligence might bring about an intelligence explosion. He speculated on the effects of superhuman machines, should they ever be invented:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1965年，I.J.Good 曾推测人工通用智能可能会带来智能爆炸。他对超人类及其的影响进行了推测，如果他们真的被发明出来的话：&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an ‘intelligence explosion,’ and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{让我们把超智能机器定义为一种机器，它可以进行远超无论多么聪明的一个人的所有智力活动。由于机器的设计是一种智力活动，那么一台超智能机器可以设计出更好的机器；那么毫无疑问会出现“智能爆炸”，人类的智能将远远落后。因此，第一台超智能机器是人类所需要的最后一项发明，当然，假设机器足够温顺并能够告诉我们如何控制它们的话。}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good's scenario runs as follows: as computers increase in power, it becomes possible for people to build a machine that is more intelligent than humanity; this superhuman intelligence possesses greater problem-solving and inventive skills than current humans are capable of. This superintelligent machine then designs an even more capable machine, or re-writes its own software to become even more intelligent; this (even more capable) machine then goes on to design a machine of yet greater capability, and so on. These iterations of recursive self-improvement accelerate, allowing enormous qualitative change before any upper limits imposed by the laws of physics or theoretical computation set in.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
古德的设想如下：随着计算机能力的增加，人们有可能制造出一台比人类更智能的机器；这种超人的智能拥有比现在人类更强大的问题解决和发明创造的能力。这台超级智能机器随后设计一台功能更强大的机器，或者重写自己的软件来变得更加智能；这台（甚至更强大的）机器接着继续设计功能更强大的机器，以此类推。这些递归式的自我完善的迭代加速，允许在物理定律或理论计算设定的任何上限之内发生巨大的质变。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==其他表现形式==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===超级智能的出现===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Superintelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{超级智能}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A superintelligence, hyperintelligence, or superhuman intelligence is a hypothetical [[intelligent agent|agent]] that possesses intelligence far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human minds. &amp;quot;Superintelligence&amp;quot; may also refer to the form or degree of intelligence possessed by such an agent. [[John von Neumann]], [[Vernor Vinge]] and [[Ray Kurzweil]] define the concept in terms of the technological creation of super intelligence. They argue that it is difficult or impossible for present-day humans to predict what human beings' lives would be like in a post-singularity world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
超级智能、超智能或超人智能是一种假想的智能体。它拥有的智能远远超过最聪明、最有天赋的人类大脑的智能。“超级智能”也可以指这种智能体所拥有的智能的形式或程度。John von Neumann，Vernor Vinge和Ray Kurzweil 从技术创造超级智能的角度定义了这个概念。他们认为，现在的人类很难或不可能预测人类在后奇点世界的生活会是什么样子&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Technology forecasters and researchers disagree about if or when human intelligence is likely to be surpassed. Some argue that advances in [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) will probably result in general reasoning systems that lack human cognitive limitations. Others believe that humans will evolve or directly modify their biology so as to achieve radically greater intelligence. A number of [[futures studies]] scenarios combine elements from both of these possibilities, suggesting that humans are likely to [[brain–computer interface|interface with computers]], or [[mind uploading|upload their minds to computers]], in a way that enables substantial intelligence amplification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
技术预言家和研究人员对人类智能是否或何时可能被超越存在分歧。一些人认为，人工智能（AI）的进步可能会产生没有人类认知局限的一般推理系统。另一些人则认为，人类将进化或直接改变自己的生物性，从而从根本上实现更高的智能。许多未来研究的场景结合了这两种可能的元素，认为人类很可能会与计算机交互，或以将他们的意识上传到计算机的方式实现大量的智能增益。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===非人工智能奇点===&lt;br /&gt;
Some writers use &amp;quot;the singularity&amp;quot; in a broader way to refer to any radical changes in our society brought about by new technologies such as [[molecular nanotechnology]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; although Vinge and other writers specifically state that without superintelligence, such changes would not qualify as a true singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些作家writers更宽泛地使用“奇点”的概念，用来指代任何我们社会中由新技术带来的剧烈变化，如分子纳米技术，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 尽管Vinge和其他作家明确指出，如果没有超级智能，这些改变就不能算作真正的奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===速度超智能===&lt;br /&gt;
A speed superintelligence describes an AI that can do everything that a human can do, where the only difference is that the machine runs faster.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1007/978-3-662-54033-6_2 |year=2017 |publisher=Springer Berlin Heidelberg |pages=11–23 |author=Kaj Sotala and Roman Yampolskiy |title=The Technological Singularity |chapter=Risks of the Journey to the Singularity |series=The Frontiers Collection |isbn=978-3-662-54031-2 |conference=The Frontiers Collection }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, with a million-fold increase in the speed of information processing relative to that of humans, a subjective year would pass in 30 physical seconds.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Such a difference in information processing speed could drive the singularity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1002/9781118922590.ch16 |year=2016 |publisher=John Wiley \&amp;amp; Sons, Inc |pages=171–224 |author=David J. Chalmers |title=Science Fiction and Philosophy |chapter=The Singularity |isbn=9781118922590 |conference=Science Fiction and Philosophy }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
速度超级智能描述了一个人工智能，它可以做任何人类能做的事情，唯一的区别是这个机器运行得更快.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1007/978-3-662-54033-6_2 |year=2017 |publisher=Springer Berlin Heidelberg |pages=11–23 |author=Kaj Sotala and Roman Yampolskiy |title=The Technological Singularity |chapter=Risks of the Journey to the Singularity |series=The Frontiers Collection |isbn=978-3-662-54031-2 |conference=The Frontiers Collection }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。例如，与人类相比，它信息处理的速度提高了一百万倍，一个主观年将在30个物理秒内过去。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;这种在信息处理上的差异可能会导致奇点。.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1002/9781118922590.ch16 |year=2016 |publisher=John Wiley \&amp;amp; Sons, Inc |pages=171–224 |author=David J. Chalmers |title=Science Fiction and Philosophy |chapter=The Singularity |isbn=9781118922590 |conference=Science Fiction and Philosophy }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==合理性==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many prominent technologists and academics dispute the plausibility of a technological singularity, including [[Paul Allen]], [[Jeff Hawkins]], [[John Henry Holland|John Holland]], [[Jaron Lanier]], and [[Gordon Moore]], whose [[Moore's law|law]] is often cited in support of the concept.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
许多著名的技术专家和学者都对技术奇点的合理性提出质疑，包括Paul Allen、Jeff Hawkins、 John Holland、Jaron Lanier和Gordon Moore，他的摩尔定律经常被引用来支持这一概念。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most proposed methods for creating superhuman or [[transhuman]] minds fall into one of two categories: intelligence amplification of human brains and artificial intelligence. The speculated ways to produce intelligence augmentation are many, and include [[bioengineering]], [[genetic engineering]], [[nootropic]] drugs, AI assistants, direct [[brain–computer interface]]s and [[mind uploading]]. Because multiple paths to an intelligence explosion are being explored, it makes a singularity more likely; for a singularity to not occur they would all have to fail.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity |title=What is the Singularity? &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
大多数创造超人或跨人类头脑的方法分为两类：人脑的智能增强和人工智能。据推测，智能增强的方法很多，包括生物工程、基因工程、益智药物、AI 助手、直接脑机接口和思维上传。因为人们正在探索通向智能爆炸的多种途径，这使得奇点出现的可能更大；奇点不发生，所有这些都必将失败。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity |title=What is the Singularity? &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robin Hanson]] expressed skepticism of human intelligence augmentation, writing that once the &amp;quot;low-hanging fruit&amp;quot; of easy methods for increasing human intelligence have been exhausted, further improvements will become increasingly difficult to find.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/vc.html#hanson |title=Some Skepticism |date=1998 |first=Robin |last=Hanson |author-link=Robin Hanson |accessdate=April 8, 2020}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Despite all of the speculated ways for amplifying human intelligence, non-human artificial intelligence (specifically seed AI) is the most popular option among the hypotheses that would advance the singularity.{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Robin Hanson 对人类智能增强表示怀疑，他写道，一旦提高人类智力的“唾手可得的”简单方法用尽，进一步的改进将变得越来越难。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/vc.html#hanson |title=Some Skepticism |date=1998 |first=Robin |last=Hanson |author-link=Robin Hanson |accessdate=April 8, 2020}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;尽管有各种提高人类智能的方法，但非人类人工智能(特别是种子人工智能)仍是所有能推进奇点的假说中最受欢迎的一个。{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether or not an intelligence explosion occurs depends on three factors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Chalmers John Locke Lecture, 10 May, Exam Schools, Oxford, [http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/news/2010/david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available Presenting a philosophical analysis of the possibility of a technological singularity or &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; resulting from recursively self-improving AI] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115205558/http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/news/2010/david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available |date=2013-01-15 }}.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The first accelerating factor is the new intelligence enhancements made possible by each previous improvement. Contrariwise, as the intelligences become more advanced, further advances will become more and more complicated, possibly overcoming the advantage of increased intelligence. Each improvement should beget at least one more improvement, on average, for movement towards singularity to continue. Finally, the laws of physics will eventually prevent any further improvements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能爆炸是否发生取决于三个因素。第一个加速因素是以前的每一次改进都使新的智能增强成为可能。相反，随着智能的进步，进一步的发展将变得越来越复杂，可能会抵消智力增长的优势。平均而言，每一次改进都应该至少带来一次改进，以便继续朝着奇点的方向发展。最后，物理定律最终会阻止任何进一步的改进。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are two logically independent, but mutually reinforcing, causes of intelligence improvements: increases in the speed of computation, and improvements to the [[algorithm]]s used.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;consc.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, David J. Chalmers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The former is predicted by [[Moore's law|Moore's Law]] and the forecasted improvements in hardware,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;itrs&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |title=ITRS |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929173755/http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |archivedate=2011-09-29 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and is comparatively similar to previous technological advances. But there are some AI researchers{{who|date=March 2017}} who believe software is more important than hardware.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|url=https://blog.chronicled.com/why-software-is-more-important-than-hardware-right-now-6a4b58feaa7c|title=Why Software Is More Important Than Hardware Right Now|last=Kulkarni|first=Ajit|date=2017-12-12|website=Chronicled|access-date=2019-02-23}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能改进有两个逻辑上独立但又相互加强的原因：计算速度的提高和使用的算法的改进。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;consc.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, David J. Chalmers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;前者由摩尔定律和硬件方面的预测改进进行预测，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;itrs&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |title=ITRS |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929173755/http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |archivedate=2011-09-29 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;与以前的技术进步比较相似。但也有一些人工智能研究人员认为软件比硬件更重要&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|url=https://blog.chronicled.com/why-software-is-more-important-than-hardware-right-now-6a4b58feaa7c|title=Why Software Is More Important Than Hardware Right Now|last=Kulkarni|first=Ajit|date=2017-12-12|website=Chronicled|access-date=2019-02-23}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2017 email survey of authors with publications at the 2015 [[Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems|NeurIPS]] and [[International Conference on Machine Learning|ICML]] machine learning conferences asked  about the chance of an intelligence explosion. Of the respondents, 12% said it was &amp;quot;quite likely&amp;quot;, 17% said it was &amp;quot;likely&amp;quot;, 21% said it was &amp;quot;about even&amp;quot;, 24% said it was &amp;quot;unlikely&amp;quot; and 26% said it was &amp;quot;quite unlikely&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2017年，一项对2015年 NeurIPS 和 ICML 机器学习会议上发表论文的作者的电子邮件调查询问了智能爆炸的可能性。在受访者中，12% 的人认为“很有可能” ，17% 的人认为“有可能” ，21% 的人认为“可能性中等” ，24% 的人认为“不太可能” ，26% 的人认为“非常不可能”。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===速度改进 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both for human and artificial intelligence, hardware improvements increase the rate of future hardware improvements. Simply put,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arstechnica&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Moore's Law]] suggests that if the first doubling of speed took 18 months, the second would take 18 subjective months; or 9 external months, whereafter, four months, two months, and so on towards a speed singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html &amp;quot;Staring into the Singularity&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An upper limit on speed may eventually be reached, although it is unclear how high this would be.  Jeff Hawkins has stated that a self-improving computer system would inevitably run into upper limits on computing power: &amp;quot;in the end there are limits to how big and fast computers can run. We would end up in the same place; we'd just get there a bit faster. There would be no singularity.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hawkins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
无论对于人类智能还是人工智能，硬件改进都会提高未来硬件改进的速度。简单地说，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arstechnica&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;Moore's Law认为，如果第一次速度翻倍需要18个月，第二次则需要18个主观月；或者9个外部月，之后，4个月、2个月，以此类推，走向速度奇点&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html &amp;quot;Staring into the Singularity&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 速度的上限最终可能会达到，尽管还不清楚这会有多高。杰夫·霍金斯（Jeff Hawkins）曾表示，一个自我完善的计算机系统不可避免地会遇到计算能力的上限：“最终，计算机的运行速度和速度都是有限的。我们最终会在同一个地方；我们只会更快到达那里。不会有奇点。”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hawkins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is difficult to directly compare [[silicon]]-based hardware with [[neuron]]s. But {{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}} notes that computer [[speech recognition]] is approaching human capabilities, and that this capability seems to require 0.01% of the volume of the brain. This analogy suggests that modern computer hardware is within a few orders of magnitude of being as powerful as the human brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
很难直接将基于硅的硬件与神经元相比较。但是{Harvtxt| Berglas|2008}指出计算机语音识别正在接近人类的能力，而且这种能力似乎需要0.01%的脑容量。这个类比表明，现代计算机硬件与人脑一样强大，只差几个数量级。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====指数增长====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Martin Ford in The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
马丁 · 福特Martin Ford的《隧道中的灯光: 自动化，加速技术和未来经济The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future》&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:PPTMooresLawai.jpg|thumb|Ray Kurzweil writes that, due to [[paradigm shift]]s, a trend of exponential growth extends [[Moore's law]] from [[integrated circuits]] to earlier [[transistor]]s, [[vacuum tube]]s, [[relay]]s, and [[electromechanics|electromechanical]] computers. He predicts that the exponential growth will continue, and that in a few decades the computing power of all computers will exceed that of (&amp;quot;unenhanced&amp;quot;) human brains, with superhuman [[artificial intelligence]] appearing around the same time.|链接=Special:FilePath/PPTMooresLawai.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[图片：PPTMooresLawai.jpg|thumb | Ray Kurzweil写道，由于[[范式转换]]s，指数增长的趋势将[[摩尔定律]]从[[集成电路]]扩展到早期的[[晶体管]]、[[真空管]]、[[继电器]]和[[机电机械]]计算机。他预测，这种指数增长将继续下去，在几十年内，所有计算机的计算能力将超过（“未增强的”）人脑，同时出现超人[[人工智能]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Moore's Law over 120 Years.png|thumb|left|An updated version of Moore's law over 120 Years (based on [[Ray Kurzweil|Kurzweil's]] [[c:File:PPTMooresLawai.jpg|graph]]). The 7 most recent data points are all [[Nvidia GPUs|NVIDIA GPUs]].|链接=Special:FilePath/Moore's_Law_over_120_Years.png]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[资料图：摩尔超过120的定律年.png|拇指|左|摩尔定律120年的更新版本（基于[[Ray Kurzweil | Kurzweil's]][[c:文件：PPTMooresLawai.jpg|图形]]）。最近的7个数据点都是[[Nvidia GPU | Nvidia GPU]].]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exponential growth in computing technology suggested by Moore's law is commonly cited as a reason to expect a singularity in the relatively near future, and a number of authors have proposed generalizations of Moore's law. Computer scientist and futurist [[Hans Moravec]] proposed in a 1998 book&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&amp;amp;pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that the exponential growth curve could be extended back through earlier computing technologies prior to the [[integrated circuit]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
摩尔定律所建议的计算技术的指数增长通常被认为是在相对不远的将来出现奇点的一个理由，许多作者已经提出了摩尔定律的推广。计算机科学家和未来主义者Hans Moravec在1998年的一本书中提到&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&amp;amp;pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;指数型增长曲线可以沿着集成电路之前的早期计算技术进行延伸。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ray Kurzweil]] postulates a [[law of accelerating returns]] in which the speed of technological change (and more generally, all evolutionary processes&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;) increases exponentially, generalizing Moore's law in the same manner as Moravec's proposal, and also including material technology (especially as applied to [[nanotechnology]]), [[Medical Technology|medical technology]] and others.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity2&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Between 1986 and 2007, machines' application-specific capacity to compute information per capita roughly doubled every 14 months; the per capita capacity of the world's general-purpose computers has doubled every 18 months; the global telecommunication capacity per capita doubled every 34 months; and the world's storage capacity per capita doubled every 40 months.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 &amp;quot;The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information&amp;quot;], Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), [[Science (journal)|Science]], 332(6025), 60–65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; On the other hand, it has been argued that the global acceleration pattern having the 21st century singularity as its parameter should be characterized as [[Hyperbolic growth|hyperbolic]] rather than exponential.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8 ''The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures. A Big History Perspective''] (Springer, 2020)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ray Kurzweil]]假设了一个[[加速回报定律]]，其中技术变革的速度（更广泛地说，所有进化过程&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;）急剧增长。从1986年到2007年，摩尔定律以与莫拉维克提案相同的方式呈指数增长，并包括材料技术（尤其是应用于[[纳米技术]]）、[[医疗技术|医疗技术]]和其他技术，计算机计算人均信息的特定应用能力大约每14个月翻一番；世界通用计算机的人均容量每18个月翻一番；全球人均电信容量每34个月翻一番；世界人均存储容量每40个月翻一番。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 &amp;quot;The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information&amp;quot;], Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), [[Science (journal)|Science]], 332(6025), 60–65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 另一方面，有人认为，以21世纪奇点为参数的全球加速度模式应该被描述为[[双曲线增长|双曲]]而不是指数型&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8 ''The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures. A Big History Perspective''] (Springer, 2020)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil reserves the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; for a rapid increase in artificial intelligence (as opposed to other technologies), writing for example that &amp;quot;The Singularity will allow us to transcend these limitations of our biological bodies and brains ... There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity3&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; He also defines his predicted date of the singularity (2045) in terms of when he expects computer-based intelligences to significantly exceed the sum total of human brainpower, writing that advances in computing before that date &amp;quot;will not represent the Singularity&amp;quot; because they do &amp;quot;not yet correspond to a profound expansion of our intelligence.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;transformation&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
库兹韦尔将“奇点”一词用于描述人工智能(相对于其他技术)的快速增长，例如他写道: “奇点将允许我们超越生物体和大脑的局限……后奇点时代，人类与机器之间将不再有区别”。库兹韦尔相信奇点将在大约2045年之前出现，那时基于计算机的智能将明显超越人类脑力的总和，在这个日期之前计算机技术的进步“并不代表奇点”，因为它们“还不符合智慧的深刻扩展”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====加速变革====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Main|Accelerating change}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Main |加速变革}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|thumb|According to Kurzweil, his [[logarithmic scale|logarithmic graph]] of 15 lists of [[paradigm shift]]s for key [[human history|historic]] events shows an [[exponential growth|exponential]] trend|链接=Special:FilePath/ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[图片：ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|thumb |根据Kurzweil的说法，他对关键的[[人类历史|历史]]事件的15个[[范式转移]]列表的[[对数标度|对数图]]显示了[[指数增长|指数]]趋势]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some singularity proponents argue its inevitability through extrapolation of past trends, especially those pertaining to shortening gaps between improvements to technology. In one of the first uses of the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in the context of technological progress, [[Stanislaw Ulam]] tells of a conversation with [[John von Neumann]] about accelerating change: &lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.&amp;lt;ref name=mathematical/&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些奇点论的支持者认为，通过对过去趋势的推断，特别是那些缩减技术进步的差距有关的趋势，奇点是不可避免的。技术进步的背景下，较早使用“奇点”一词时，Stanislaw Ulam讲述了与冯·诺伊曼关于加速变革的一次谈话：&lt;br /&gt;
一次围绕不断加速的技术进步和生活方式变化的对话，它使得人类历史上出现了一些基本的奇点，超过了这些奇点，人类的事务，如我们所知，将无法继续下去。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil claims that technological progress follows a pattern of&lt;br /&gt;
exponential growth, following what he calls the &amp;quot;law of&lt;br /&gt;
accelerating returns&amp;quot;. Whenever technology approaches a barrier,&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil writes, new technologies will surmount it. He predicts&lt;br /&gt;
paradigm shifts will become increasingly common, leading to&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;technological change so rapid and profound it represents a&lt;br /&gt;
rupture in the fabric of human history&amp;quot;.[43] Kurzweil believes that&lt;br /&gt;
the singularity will occur by approximately 2045.[38] His&lt;br /&gt;
predictions differ from Vinge's in that he predicts a gradual&lt;br /&gt;
ascent to the singularity, rather than Vinge's rapidly self�improving superhuman intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
库兹韦尔声称，技术进步遵循[[指数增长]的模式，遵循他所称的“加速返回定律law of accelerating returns”。库兹韦尔写道，每当一项技术遇到障碍时，新技术就会出来克服这个障碍。他预测范式转变将变得越来越普遍，导致“技术变革非常迅速和深刻，以至于它代表着人类历史结构的一个断裂”。库兹韦尔相信奇点将在2045年之前出现。他和Vinge预测的不同点在于他预测的是一个逐渐上升到奇点的过程，而Vinge预测了一个快速自我更新的超人类智能。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oft-cited dangers include those commonly associated with molecular nanotechnology and genetic engineering. These threats are major issues for both singularity advocates and critics, and were the subject of Bill Joy's Wired magazine article &amp;quot;Why the future doesn't need us&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
经常被引用的危险包括那些与分子纳米技术和基因工程有关的技术。这些威胁是奇点论的倡导者和批评者面临的主要议题，也是比尔 · 乔伊《连线 Wired》杂志上所发表文章《为什么未来不需要我们Why the future doesn't need us》的主题。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===算法改进 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some intelligence technologies, like &amp;quot;seed AI&amp;quot;,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Yampolskiy, Roman V 2015&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceA&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; may also have the potential to not just make themselves faster, but also more efficient, by modifying their [[source code]]. These improvements would make further improvements possible, which would make further improvements possible, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
一些智能技术，比如“种子人工智能”，通过修改自己的源代码，可能使自己不仅更快，而且更高效。这些改进将使进一步的改进成为可能，以此类推。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mechanism for a recursively self-improving set of algorithms differs from an increase in raw computation speed in two ways. First, it does not require external influence: machines designing faster hardware would still require humans to create the improved hardware, or to program factories appropriately.{{citation needed|date=July 2017}} An AI rewriting its own source code could do so while contained in an [[AI box]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
递归自我改进算法集的机制在两个方面不同于原始计算速度的提高。首先，它不需要外部影响：设计更快的硬件的机器仍然需要人类来创造改进的硬件，或者对工厂进行适当的编程。AI可以既身处一个AI盒 AI box里面，又同时改进自己的 源代码。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second, as with [[Vernor Vinge]]’s conception of the singularity, it is much harder to predict the outcome. While speed increases seem to be only a quantitative difference from human intelligence, actual algorithm improvements would be qualitatively different. [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]] compares it to the changes that human intelligence brought: humans changed the world thousands of times more rapidly than evolution had done, and in totally different ways. Similarly, the evolution of life was a massive departure and acceleration from the previous geological rates of change, and improved intelligence could cause change to be as different again.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|author=Eliezer S. Yudkowsky |url=http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/power |title=Power of Intelligence |publisher=Yudkowsky |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第二，和Vernor Vinge关于奇点的概念一样，对结果的预测要困难得多。虽然速度的提高似乎与人类的智能只是数量上的区别，但实际的算法改进在质量上是不同的。Eliezer Yudkowsky将其与人类智能带来的变化相比较：人类改变世界的速度比进化速度快数千倍，而且方式完全不同。同样地，生命的进化与以前的地质变化又有着巨大的不同和加速，而智能的提高可能会使变化再次变得不同。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|author=Eliezer S. Yudkowsky |url=http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/power |title=Power of Intelligence |publisher=Yudkowsky |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are substantial dangers associated with an intelligence explosion singularity originating from a recursively self-improving set of algorithms. First, the goal structure of the AI might not be invariant under self-improvement, potentially causing the AI to optimise for something other than what was originally intended.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008 ]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;kurzweilai&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.kurzweilai.net/artificial-general-intelligence-now-is-the-time |title=Artificial General Intelligence: Now Is the Time |publisher=KurzweilAI |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Secondly, AIs could compete for the same scarce resources mankind uses to survive.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/10/05/paper-on-the-nature-of-self-improving-artificial-intelligence/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence.&amp;quot; Self-Aware Systems. 21 Jan. 2008. Web. 07 Jan. 2010.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|last1=Barrat|first1=James|title=Our Final Invention|year=2013|publisher=St. Martin's Press|location=New York|isbn=978-0312622374|pages=78–98|edition=First|chapter=6, &amp;quot;Four Basic Drives&amp;quot;|title-link=Our Final Invention}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
由递归自我改进的算法集合引起的智能爆炸存在着巨大的危险。首先，人工智能的目标结构在自我完善的情况下可能不是一成不变的，这可能会导致人工智能对原本计划之外的东西进行优化。第二，人工智能可以与人类竞争赖以生存的稀缺资源。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While not actively malicious, there is no reason to think that AIs would actively promote human goals unless they could be programmed as such, and if not, might use the resources currently used to support mankind to promote its own goals, causing human extinction.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;kurzweilai.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.kurzweilai.net/max-more-and-ray-kurzweil-on-the-singularity-2 |title=Max More and Ray Kurzweil on the Singularity |publisher=KurzweilAI |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceB&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/riskintro/index.html |title=Concise Summary &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.nickbostrom.com/fut/evolution.html Bostrom, Nick, The Future of Human Evolution, Death and Anti-Death: Two Hundred Years After Kant, Fifty Years After Turing, ed. Charles Tandy, pp. 339–371, 2004, Ria University Press.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然不是恶意的，但没有理由认为人工智能会积极促进人类目标的实现，除非这些目标可以被编程，否则，它们就可能利用目前用于支持人类的资源来促进自己的目标，从而导致人类灭绝。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Carl Shulman]] and [[Anders Sandberg]] suggest that algorithm improvements may be the limiting factor for a singularity; while hardware efficiency tends to improve at a steady pace, software innovations are more unpredictable and may be bottlenecked by serial, cumulative research. They suggest that in the case of a software-limited singularity, intelligence explosion would actually become more likely than with a hardware-limited singularity, because in the software-limited case, once human-level AI is developed, it could run serially on very fast hardware, and the abundance of cheap hardware would make AI research less constrained.&amp;lt;ref name=ShulmanSandberg2010&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Shulman|first=Carl|author2=Anders Sandberg |title=Implications of a Software-Limited Singularity|journal=ECAP10: VIII European Conference on Computing and Philosophy|year=2010|url=http://intelligence.org/files/SoftwareLimited.pdf|accessdate=17 May 2014|editor1-first=Klaus|editor1-last=Mainzer}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An abundance of accumulated hardware that can be unleashed once the software figures out how to use it has been called &amp;quot;computing overhang.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;MuehlhauserSalamon2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book|last=Muehlhauser|first=Luke|title=Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment|year=2012|publisher=Springer|chapter-url=http://intelligence.org/files/IE-EI.pdf|author2=Anna Salamon |editor=Amnon Eden |editor2=Johnny Søraker |editor3=James H. Moor |editor4=Eric Steinhart|chapter=Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carl Shulman和Anders Sandberg认为，算法改进可能是奇点的限制因素；虽然硬件效率趋于稳步提高，但软件创新更不具可预测性，可能会受到连续、累积的研究的限制。他们认为，智能爆炸在受软件限制的奇点情况中发生的可能性实际上比在受硬件限制的奇点更可能发生，因为在软件受限的情况下，一旦开发出人类水平的人工智能，它可以在非常快的硬件上连续运行，廉价硬件的丰富将使人工智能研究不那么受限制。&amp;lt;ref name=ShulmanSandberg2010&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Shulman|first=Carl|author2=Anders Sandberg |title=Implications of a Software-Limited Singularity|journal=ECAP10: VIII European Conference on Computing and Philosophy|year=2010|url=http://intelligence.org/files/SoftwareLimited.pdf|accessdate=17 May 2014|editor1-first=Klaus|editor1-last=Mainzer}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 一旦软件知道如何使用硬件，大量的硬件就可以被释放出来，这被称为“计算过剩”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;MuehlhauserSalamon2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book|last=Muehlhauser|first=Luke|title=Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment|year=2012|publisher=Springer|chapter-url=http://intelligence.org/files/IE-EI.pdf|author2=Anna Salamon |editor=Amnon Eden |editor2=Johnny Søraker |editor3=James H. Moor |editor4=Eric Steinhart|chapter=Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===危机===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some critics, like philosopher [[Hubert Dreyfus]], assert that computers or machines cannot achieve [[human intelligence]], while others, like physicist [[Stephen Hawking]], hold that the definition of intelligence is irrelevant if the net result is the same.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;dreyfus&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些批评者，如哲学家Hubert Dreyfus断言计算机或机器无法实现人类智能，而其他人，如物理学家史蒂芬·霍金，则认为如果最终结果是相同的，那么智力的定义其实无关紧要。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An early description of the idea was made in John Wood Campbell Jr.'s 1932 short story &amp;quot;The last evolution&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
早在1932年，约翰·W·坎贝尔的短篇小说《最后的进化》中就对这个想法进行了描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psychologist [[Steven Pinker]] stated in 2008:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
心理学家史蒂芬·平克在2008年指出：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|... There is not the slightest reason to believe in a coming singularity. The fact that you can visualize a future in your imagination is not evidence that it is likely or even possible. Look at domed cities, jet-pack commuting, underwater cities, mile-high buildings, and nuclear-powered automobiles—all staples of futuristic fantasies when I was a child that have never arrived. Sheer processing power is not a pixie dust that magically solves all your problems. ...&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
没有一点理由相信奇点即将到来。你可以想象一个未来并不能证明它是可能出现的。看看穹顶城市、喷气式飞行器通勤、水下城市、一英里高的建筑和核动力汽车：这些都是我小时候未来主义幻想的主要内容，然而它们都没有成真。纯粹的计算能力不是能神奇地解决所有问题的仙尘。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[University of California, Berkeley]], [[philosophy]] professor [[John Searle]] writes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[加州大学伯克利分校]，哲学教授约翰·塞尔写道：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{blockquote|[Computers] have, literally ..., no [[intelligence]], no [[motivation]], no [[autonomy]], and no agency.  We design them to behave as if they had certain sorts of [[psychology]], but there is no psychological reality to the corresponding processes or behavior. ...  [T]he machinery has no beliefs, desires, [or] motivations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[John R. Searle]], “What Your Computer Can’t Know”, ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', 9 October 2014, p. 54.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
毫不夸张地说，计算机没有智能，没有动机，没有自主，也没有智能体。我们设计他们，使他们的行为好像表示他们有某种心理，但其实没有对应这些过程或行为的心理现实……机器没有信仰、愿望或动机。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Martin Ford (author)|Martin Ford]] in ''The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thelightsinthetunnel&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; postulates a &amp;quot;technology paradox&amp;quot; in that before the singularity could occur most routine jobs in the economy would be automated, since this would require a level of technology inferior to that of the singularity. This would cause massive unemployment and plummeting consumer demand, which in turn would destroy the incentive to invest in the technologies that would be required to bring about the Singularity. Job displacement is increasingly no longer limited to work traditionally considered to be &amp;quot;routine.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Martin Ford在“隧道中的灯光：自动化、加速技术和未来经济 The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thelightsinthetunnel&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;中提出了一个“技术悖论”：在奇点出现之前，经济体中的大多数日常工作都将自动化，因为这所需的技术水平低于奇点。这将导致大规模的失业和消费者需求的骤降，这反过来又会破坏投资于实现奇点所需技术的动机。工作的替代越来越不再局限于那些传统上被认为是“例行公事”的工作。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Theodore Modis]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; and [[Jonathan Huebner]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological14&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; argue that the rate of technological innovation has not only ceased to rise, but is actually now declining. Evidence for this decline is that the rise in computer [[clock rate]]s is slowing, even while Moore's prediction of exponentially increasing circuit density continues to hold. This is due to excessive heat build-up from the chip, which cannot be dissipated quickly enough to prevent the chip from melting when operating at higher speeds. Advances in speed may be possible in the future by virtue of more power-efficient CPU designs and multi-cell processors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; While Kurzweil used Modis' resources, and Modis' work was around accelerating change, Modis distanced himself from Kurzweil's thesis of a &amp;quot;technological singularity&amp;quot;, claiming that it lacks scientific rigor.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Theodore Modis&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;和Jonathan Huebner&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological14&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 认为技术创新的速度不仅停止上升，而且现在实际上正在下降。这种下降的证据是计算机时钟速率的增长正在放缓，尽管摩尔关于电路密度指数增长的预测仍然成立。这是由于芯片产生过多的热量，当它们以较高的速度运行时，这些热量不能足够快地散去，可能导致芯片熔化。在未来，随着更节能的CPU设计和多单元处理器的发明，速度的提高可能实现。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;尽管 Kurzweil 利用了Modis的（工作成果）作为资源，同时 Modis 的工作围绕着加速变革，但 Modis 与 Kurzweil 的“技术奇点”理论保持距离，称其缺乏科学严谨性。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a detailed empirical accounting, ''The Progress of Computing'', [[William Nordhaus]] argued that, prior to 1940, computers followed the much slower growth of a traditional industrial economy, thus rejecting extrapolations of Moore's law to 19th-century computers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal | doi=10.1017/S0022050707000058|title = Two Centuries of Productivity Growth in Computing| journal=The Journal of Economic History| volume=67|pages = 128–159|year = 2007|last1 = Nordhaus|first1 = William D.| citeseerx=10.1.1.330.1871}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在一份详细的实证报告《计算的进步 The Progress of Computing》中，威廉·诺德豪斯 William Nordhaus 认为，在 1940 年之前，计算机遵循传统工业经济增长缓慢的趋势，因此拒绝了摩尔定律对19世纪计算机的推断。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal | doi=10.1017/S0022050707000058|title = Two Centuries of Productivity Growth in Computing| journal=The Journal of Economic History| volume=67|pages = 128–159|year = 2007|last1 = Nordhaus|first1 = William D.| citeseerx=10.1.1.330.1871}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a 2007 paper, Schmidhuber stated that the frequency of subjectively &amp;quot;notable events&amp;quot; appears to be approaching a 21st-century singularity, but cautioned readers to take such plots of subjective events with a grain of salt: perhaps differences in memory of recent and distant events could create an illusion of accelerating change where none exists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schmidhuber, Jürgen. &amp;quot;New millennium AI and the convergence of history.&amp;quot; Challenges for computational intelligence. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. 15–35.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在2007年的一篇论文中，Schmidhuber指出主观上“值得注意的事件”出现的频率似乎正在接近21世纪的奇点，但他提醒读者，对这些主观事件的情节要持保留态度：也许对近期和远期事件的记忆差异，可能会造成一种在根本不存在的情况下变化加速的错觉。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schmidhuber, Jürgen. &amp;quot;New millennium AI and the convergence of history.&amp;quot; Challenges for computational intelligence. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. 15–35.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paul Allen argued the opposite of accelerating returns, the complexity brake; the more progress science makes towards understanding intelligence, the more difficult it becomes to make additional progress. A study of the number of patents shows that human creativity does not show accelerating returns, but in fact, as suggested by Joseph Tainter in his The Collapse of Complex Societies, a law of diminishing returns. The number of patents per thousand peaked in the period from 1850 to 1900, and has been declining since.[60] The growth of complexity eventually becomes self-limiting, and leads to a widespread &amp;quot;general systems collapse&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
保罗·艾伦 Paul Allen 认为，与加速回报相反的是复杂性制动；科学在理解智力方面取得的进展越多，就越难取得更多的进展。一项对专利数量的研究表明，人类的创造力并没有表现出加速的回报。事实上，正如Joseph Tainter 在他的《复杂社会的崩溃 The Collapse of Complex Societies 》中所指出的那样，存在一个收益递减定律 a law of diminishing returns 的限制。每千人的专利的数量在1850年至1900年期间达到顶峰，此后一直在下降。复杂性的增长最终会自我限制，并导致广泛的“一般系统崩溃 general systems collapse”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jaron Lanier]] refutes the idea that the Singularity is inevitable. He states: &amp;quot;I do not think the technology is creating itself. It's not an autonomous process.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |author=Jaron Lanier |title=Who Owns the Future? |work=New York: Simon &amp;amp; Schuster |date=2013 |url=http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=JCB8D9LA&amp;amp;tocp=59}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He goes on to assert: &amp;quot;The reason to believe in human agency over technological determinism is that you can then have an economy where people earn their own way and invent their own lives. If you structure a society on ''not'' emphasizing individual human agency, it's the same thing operationally as denying people clout, dignity, and self-determination ... to embrace [the idea of the Singularity] would be a celebration of bad data and bad politics.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jaron Lanier驳斥了奇点不可避免的观点。他说：“我不认为这项技术是在创造自我。这不是一个自主的过程。”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |author=Jaron Lanier |title=Who Owns the Future? |work=New York: Simon &amp;amp; Schuster |date=2013 |url=http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=JCB8D9LA&amp;amp;tocp=59}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;他接着断言：“相信人的能动性而不是技术决定论的原因是，这样你就可以有一个经济体，人们在其中可以自己挣钱，创造自己的生活。如果你在不强调个人主观能动性的基础上构建社会，就等于在操作上否认人们的影响力、尊严和自决...接受 [奇点的想法] 将是对糟糕数据和糟糕政治的颂扬。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Economics|Economist]] [[Robert J. Gordon]], in ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'' (2016), points out that measured economic growth has slowed around 1970 and slowed even further since the [[financial crisis of 2007–2008]], and argues that the economic data show no trace of a coming Singularity as imagined by mathematician [[I.J. Good]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[William D. Nordhaus]], &amp;quot;Why Growth Will Fall&amp;quot; (a review of [[Robert J. Gordon]], ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'', Princeton University Press, 2016, {{ISBN|978-0691147727}}, 762 pp., $39.95), ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', vol. LXIII, no. 13 (August 18, 2016), p. 68.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
经济学家 Robert J.Gordon在《美国经济增长的兴衰：内战以来的美国生活水平 The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War》（2016）中指出，据测量，经济增长在1970年左右放缓，自2007-2008年金融危机以来甚至进一步放缓，并认为经济数据显示没有迹象表明数学家I.J.Good所设想的奇点将会到来。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[William D. Nordhaus]], &amp;quot;Why Growth Will Fall&amp;quot; (a review of [[Robert J. Gordon]], ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'', Princeton University Press, 2016, {{ISBN|978-0691147727}}, 762 pp., $39.95), ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', vol. LXIII, no. 13 (August 18, 2016), p. 68.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to general criticisms of the singularity concept, several critics have raised issues with Kurzweil's iconic chart. One line of criticism is that a [[Log-log plot|log-log]] chart of this nature is inherently biased toward a straight-line result. Others identify selection bias in the points that Kurzweil chooses to use. For example, biologist [[PZ Myers]] points out that many of the early evolutionary &amp;quot;events&amp;quot; were picked arbitrarily.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Kurzweil has rebutted this by charting evolutionary events from 15 neutral sources, and showing that they fit a straight line on [[:File:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|a log-log chart]]. ''[[The Economist]]'' mocked the concept with a graph extrapolating that the number of blades on a razor, which has increased over the years from one to as many as five, will increase ever-faster to infinity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
除了对奇点概念的一般性批评外，一些批评者还对库兹韦尔的标志性图表提出了质疑。一种批评是，这种性质的对数图像本质上就会存在倾向于直线的有偏差结果。其他人批评库兹韦尔在数据点的使用上存在选择偏差。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;例如，生物学家P. Z. Myers指出，许多早期的进化“事件”都是随意挑选的。库兹韦尔反驳了这一点，他绘制了15个中立来源的进化事件图，并表明它们都符合一条直线.《经济学人》用一张图表来嘲讽这个概念：一把剃须刀上的刀片数在过去几年里从一个增加到多达五个，并且它将以更快的速度增长到无穷大。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==潜在影响==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dramatic changes in the rate of economic growth have occurred in the past because of some technological advancement. Based on population growth, the economy doubled every 250,000 years from the [[Paleolithic]] era until the [[Neolithic Revolution]]. The new agricultural economy doubled every 900 years, a remarkable increase. In the current era, beginning with the Industrial Revolution, the world's economic output doubles every fifteen years, sixty times faster than during the agricultural era. If the rise of superhuman intelligence causes a similar revolution, argues Robin Hanson, one would expect the economy to double at least quarterly and possibly on a weekly basis.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url=http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/robotics-software/economics-of-the-singularity |title=Economics Of The Singularity |author=Robin Hanson |work=IEEE Spectrum Special Report: The Singularity }} &amp;amp; [http://hanson.gmu.edu/longgrow.pdf Long-Term Growth As A Sequence of Exponential Modes]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
过去由于一些技术进步，经济增长率发生了巨大变化。以人口增长为基础，从[[旧石器时代]]到[[新石器时代]]，经济每25万年翻一番。新农业经济每900年翻一番，增长显著。在当今时代，从工业革命开始，世界经济产出每15年翻一番，比农业时代快60倍。罗宾·汉森Robin Hanson认为，如果超人智能的兴起引发了类似的革命，人们会预期经济至少每季度翻一番，甚至可能每周翻一番。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===不确定性和风险===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Existential risk from artificial general intelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步|来自人工通用智能的存在风险}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;technological singularity&amp;quot; reflects the idea that such change may happen suddenly, and that it is difficult to predict how the resulting new world would operate.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|last=Yudkowsky |first=Eliezer |title=Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk |journal=Global Catastrophic Risks |editor-last=Bostrom |editor-first=Nick |editor2-last=Cirkovic |editor2-first=Milan |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |url=http://singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |bibcode=2008gcr..book..303Y |isbn=978-0-19-857050-9 |page=303 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080807132337/http://www.singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |archivedate=2008-08-07 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;theuncertainfuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; It is unclear whether an intelligence explosion resulting in a singularity would be beneficial or harmful, or even an [[Existential risk|existential threat]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Because AI is a major factor in singularity risk, a number of organizations pursue a technical theory of aligning AI goal-systems with human values, including the [[Future of Humanity Institute]], the [[Machine Intelligence Research Institute]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; the [[Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence]], and the [[Future of Life Institute]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“技术奇点”一词反映了这样一种想法&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|last=Yudkowsky |first=Eliezer |title=Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk |journal=Global Catastrophic Risks |editor-last=Bostrom |editor-first=Nick |editor2-last=Cirkovic |editor2-first=Milan |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |url=http://singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |bibcode=2008gcr..book..303Y |isbn=978-0-19-857050-9 |page=303 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080807132337/http://www.singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |archivedate=2008-08-07 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;theuncertainfuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; ：这种变化可能突然发生，而且很难预测由此产生的新世界将如何运作。目前尚不清楚导致奇点的智能爆炸是有益还是有害，甚至是一种存在威胁。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 由于人工智能是奇点风险的一个主要因素，许多组织追求一种将人工智能的目标系统与人类价值观相协调的技术理论。这些组织包括人类未来研究所 Future of Humanity Institute，机器智能研究所 The Machine Intelligence Research Institute， 人类兼容人工智能中心 &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;The Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence和未来生命研究所 The Future of Life Institute。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Physicist [[Stephen Hawking]] said in 2014 that &amp;quot;Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; Hawking believed that in the coming decades, AI could offer &amp;quot;incalculable benefits and risks&amp;quot; such as &amp;quot;technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; Hawking suggested that artificial intelligence should be taken more seriously and that more should be done to prepare for the singularity:&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-transcendence-looks-at-the-implications-of-artificial-intelligence--but-are-we-taking-ai-seriously-enough-9313474.html |title=Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of artificial intelligence - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'  |work=[[The Independent]] |author=Stephen Hawking |date=1 May 2014 |accessdate=May 5, 2014|author-link=Stephen Hawking }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
物理学家史蒂芬·霍金在2014年表示，“成功创造人工智能将是人类历史上最大的事件。不幸的是，这也可能是最后一次，除非我们学会如何规避风险。”&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt;  霍金认为，在未来几十年里，人工智能可能会带来“无法估量的利益和风险”，例如“技术超越金融市场的聪明程度，超越人类研究人员的创造力，超越人类领袖的操控力，开发我们甚至无法理解的武器”。霍金建议&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; ，人们应该更认真地对待人工智能，并做更多的工作来为奇点做准备：&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-transcendence-looks-at-the-implications-of-artificial-intelligence--but-are-we-taking-ai-seriously-enough-9313474.html |title=Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of artificial intelligence - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'  |work=[[The Independent]] |author=Stephen Hawking |date=1 May 2014 |accessdate=May 5, 2014|author-link=Stephen Hawking }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|So, facing possible futures of incalculable benefits and risks, the experts are surely doing everything possible to ensure the best outcome, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message saying, &amp;quot;We'll arrive in a few decades,&amp;quot; would we just reply, &amp;quot;OK, call us when you get here – we'll leave the lights on&amp;quot;? Probably not – but this is more or less what is happening with AI.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
所以，面对可能的收益和风险难以估量的未来，专家们肯定会尽一切可能确保最好的结果，对吗？错了。如果一个高级的外星文明给我们发了一条信息说，“我们几十年后就会到达”，我们会不会只回答，“好吧，你到了这里就打电话给我们——我们会开着灯的”？可能不会——但这或多或少就是人工智能正在发生的事情。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}} claims that there is no direct evolutionary motivation for an AI to be friendly to humans. Evolution has no inherent tendency to produce outcomes valued by humans, and there is little reason to expect an arbitrary optimisation process to promote an outcome desired by mankind, rather than inadvertently leading to an AI behaving in a way not intended by its creators.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom8&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nick Bostrom, [http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html &amp;quot;Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;], in ''Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making in Humans and in Artificial Intelligence'', Vol. 2, ed. I. Smit et al., Int. Institute of Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics, 2003, pp. 12–17&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]: [http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120611190606/http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf |date=2012-06-11 }}. Draft for a publication in ''Global Catastrophic Risk'' from August 31, 2006, retrieved July 18, 2011 (PDF file)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst9&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/06/11/the-stamp-collecting-device/ The Stamp Collecting Device, Nick Hay]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Anders Sandberg]] has also elaborated on this scenario, addressing various common counter-arguments.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;aleph&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2011/02/why_we_should_fear_the_paperclipper.html 'Why we should fear the Paperclipper'], 2011-02-14 entry of Sandberg's blog 'Andart'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; AI researcher [[Hugo de Garis]] suggests that artificial intelligences may simply eliminate the human race [[instrumental convergence|for access to scarce resources]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems10&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and humans would be powerless to stop them.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;forbes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;de Garis, Hugo. [https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/cosmist-terran-cyborgist-opinions-contributors-artificial-intelligence-09-hugo-de-garis.html &amp;quot;The Coming Artilect War&amp;quot;], Forbes.com, 22 June 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Alternatively, AIs developed under evolutionary pressure to promote their own survival could outcompete humanity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Berglas(2008) 声称, 没有直接的进化动机促使人工智能对人类友好。进化并不倾向于产生人类所重视的结果，也没有理由期望一个任意的优化过程会促进人类所期望的结果，而不是无意中导致人工智能以违背其创造者原有意图的方式行事。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom8&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nick Bostrom, [http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html &amp;quot;Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;], in ''Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making in Humans and in Artificial Intelligence'', Vol. 2, ed. I. Smit et al., Int. Institute of Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics, 2003, pp. 12–17&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]: [http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120611190606/http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf |date=2012-06-11 }}. Draft for a publication in ''Global Catastrophic Risk'' from August 31, 2006, retrieved July 18, 2011 (PDF file)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst9&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/06/11/the-stamp-collecting-device/ The Stamp Collecting Device, Nick Hay]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 安德斯·桑德伯格 Anders Sandberg 也也对这一情景进行了详细阐述，讨论了各种常见的反驳意见&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;aleph&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2011/02/why_we_should_fear_the_paperclipper.html 'Why we should fear the Paperclipper'], 2011-02-14 entry of Sandberg's blog 'Andart'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。人工智能研究员 Hugo de Garis&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems10&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  认为，人工智能可能会为了获取稀缺资源而直接消灭人类，并且人类将无力阻止它们。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;forbes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;de Garis, Hugo. [https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/cosmist-terran-cyborgist-opinions-contributors-artificial-intelligence-09-hugo-de-garis.html &amp;quot;The Coming Artilect War&amp;quot;], Forbes.com, 22 June 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 或者，在进化压力下为了促进自身生存而发展起来的人工智能可能会胜过人类。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bostrom (2002) discusses human extinction scenarios, and lists superintelligence as a possible cause:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bostrom(2002)讨论了人类灭绝的场景，并列举超级智能作为一个可能的原因:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person who asked the question.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the  matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person  who asked the question.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
当我们创造出第一个超级智能实体时，我们可能会犯错并给它一个导致人类毁灭的目标（假设它巨大的智力优势赋予它这样做的力量）。例如，我们可能会错误地将子目标提升为超级目标。我们告诉它去解决一个数学问题，然后它将太阳系中的所有物质变成一个巨大的计算装置，在这个过程中杀死了提出这个问题的人。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]], a significant problem in AI safety is that unfriendly artificial intelligence is likely to be much easier to create than friendly AI. While both require large advances in recursive optimisation process design, friendly AI also requires the ability to make goal structures invariant under self-improvement (or the AI could transform itself into something unfriendly) and a goal structure that aligns with human values and does not automatically destroy the human race. An unfriendly AI, on the other hand, can optimize for an arbitrary goal structure, which does not need to be invariant under self-modification.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst12&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html Coherent Extrapolated Volition, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, May 2004 ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100815055725/http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html |date=2010-08-15 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{harvtxt|Bill Hibbard|2014}} proposes an AI design that avoids several dangers including self-delusion,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JAGI2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| journal=Journal of Artificial General Intelligence| year=2012| volume=3| issue=1| title=Model-Based Utility Functions| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.| doi=10.2478/v10229-011-0013-5| page=1|arxiv = 1111.3934 |bibcode = 2012JAGI....3....1H | s2cid=8434596}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; unintended instrumental actions,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_56.pdf  Avoiding Unintended AI Behaviors.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle. [http://intelligence.org/2012/12/19/december-2012-newsletter/ This paper won the Machine Intelligence Research Institute's 2012 Turing Prize for the Best AGI Safety Paper].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and corruption of the reward generator.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; He also discusses social impacts of AI&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JET2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| url=http://jetpress.org/v17/hibbard.htm| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology| year=2008| volume=17| title=The Technology of Mind and a New Social Contract| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and testing AI.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12b&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_57.pdf  Decision Support for Safe AI Design|.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His 2001 book ''[[Super-Intelligent Machines]]'' advocates the need for public education about AI and public control over AI. It also proposed a simple design that was vulnerable to corruption of the reward generator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
按照[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]的观点，人工智能安全的一个重要问题是，不友好的人工智能可能比友好的人工智能更容易创建。虽然两者都需要递归优化过程的进步，但友好的人工智能还需要目标结构在自我改进过程中保持不变（否则人工智能可以将自己转变成不友好的东西），以及一个与人类价值观相一致且不会自动毁灭人类的目标结构。另一方面，一个不友好的人工智能可以针对任意的目标结构进行优化，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst12&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html Coherent Extrapolated Volition, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, May 2004 ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100815055725/http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html |date=2010-08-15 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 而目标结构不需要在自我改进过程中保持不变。Bill Hibbard (2014)提出了一种人工智能设计&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JAGI2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| journal=Journal of Artificial General Intelligence| year=2012| volume=3| issue=1| title=Model-Based Utility Functions| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.| doi=10.2478/v10229-011-0013-5| page=1|arxiv = 1111.3934 |bibcode = 2012JAGI....3....1H | s2cid=8434596}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ，可以避免包括自欺欺人&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_56.pdf  Avoiding Unintended AI Behaviors.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle. [http://intelligence.org/2012/12/19/december-2012-newsletter/ This paper won the Machine Intelligence Research Institute's 2012 Turing Prize for the Best AGI Safety Paper].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 、无意的工具性行为和奖励机制&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;的腐败等一些危险。他还讨论了人工智能&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JET2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| url=http://jetpress.org/v17/hibbard.htm| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology| year=2008| volume=17| title=The Technology of Mind and a New Social Contract| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;和人工智能测试的社会影响&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12b&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_57.pdf  Decision Support for Safe AI Design|.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。他在2001年出版的“超级智能机器Super-Intelligent Machines”一书中提倡对人工智能的公共教育和公众控制。该书还提出了一个简单的易受奖励机制的腐败影响的设计。It also proposed a simple design that was vulnerable to corruption of the reward generator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===社会生物进化的下一步===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Sociocultural evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{社会文化进化}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Major Evolutionary Transitions digital.jpg|thumb|upright=1.6|Schematic Timeline of Information and Replicators in the Biosphere: Gillings et al.'s &amp;quot;[[The Major Transitions in Evolution|major evolutionary transitions]]&amp;quot; in information processing.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Major_Evolutionary_Transitions_digital.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[档案：主要进化过渡数字.jpg|thumb |直立=1.6 |生物圈中信息和复制因子的示意时间线：Gillings等人在信息处理中的“[[进化中的主要转变|主要进化转变]]”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-99|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[99]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Biological vs. digital information.jpg|thumb|Amount of digital information worldwide (5{{e|21}} bytes) versus human genome information worldwide (10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;19&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; bytes) in 2014.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Biological_vs._digital_information.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[档案：生物vs。数字信息.jpg|2014年，全球数字信息总量（5{e | 21}字节）与全球人类基因组信息（10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;19&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;字节）的对比。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-99|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[99]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the technological singularity is usually seen as a sudden event, some scholars argue the current speed of change already fits this description.{{citation needed|date=April 2018}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然技术奇点通常被视为一个突发事件，但一些学者认为目前的变化速度已经符合这种描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, some argue that we are already in the midst of a [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|major evolutionary transition]] that merges technology, biology, and society. Digital technology has infiltrated the fabric of human society to a degree of indisputable and often life-sustaining dependence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
此外，有人认为，我们已经处在一个融合了技术、生物学和社会学的进化巨变major evolutionary transition之中。数字技术已经无可争辩地渗透到人类社会的结构中，而且生命的维持常常依赖数字技术。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2016 article in ''[[Trends in Ecology &amp;amp; Evolution]]'' argues that &amp;quot;humans already embrace fusions of biology and technology. We spend most of our waking time communicating through digitally mediated channels... we trust [[artificial intelligence]] with our lives through [[Anti-lock braking system|antilock braking in cars]] and [[autopilot]]s in planes... With one in three marriages in America beginning online, digital algorithms are also taking a role in human pair bonding and reproduction&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2016年发表在 生态学和进化进展 Trends in Ecology and Evolution 的一篇文章认为，“人类已经接受了生物和技术的融合。我们清醒时大部分时间都是通过数字媒介进行交流的……我们拿性命做担保信任汽车上的防抱死制动系统 Anti-lock braking system 和飞机上的自动巡航模式 autopilot……在美国，三分之一的婚姻都是在网络上开始的，数字算法也在人类配对和繁殖中也发挥了作用”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article further argues that from the perspective of the [[evolution]], several previous [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|Major Transitions in Evolution]] have transformed life through innovations in information storage and replication ([[RNA]], [[DNA]], [[multicellularity]], and [[culture]] and [[language]]). In the current stage of life's evolution, the carbon-based biosphere has generated a [[cognitive system]] (humans) capable of creating technology that will result in a comparable [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|evolutionary transition]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
文章进一步指出，从进化的角度来看，以前的几次[[进化]]巨变通过信息存储和复制方式（如RNA、DNA、多细胞性、文化和语言的出现）的创新来改变生命。在生命进化的当前阶段，以碳为基础的生物圈产生了一个认知系统（人类），能够创造技术，从而导致一个类似的进化变迁。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The digital information created by humans has reached a similar magnitude to biological information in the biosphere. Since the 1980s, the quantity of digital information stored has doubled about every 2.5 years, reaching about 5 [[zettabyte]]s in 2014 (5{{e|21}} bytes).{{Citation needed|date=April 2019}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
人类创造的数字信息已经达到了与生物圈中生物信息相似的规模。自20世纪80年代以来，存储的数字信息量大约每2.5年翻一番，2014年达到约5泽字节（5e21字节）。{{Citation needed|date=April 2019}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In biological terms, there are 7.2&amp;amp;nbsp;billion humans on the planet, each having a genome of 6.2&amp;amp;nbsp;billion nucleotides. Since one byte can encode four nucleotide pairs, the individual genomes of every human on the planet could be encoded by approximately 1{{e|19}} bytes. The digital realm stored 500 times more information than this in 2014 (see figure). The total amount of DNA contained in all of the cells on Earth is estimated to be about 5.3{{e|37}} base pairs, equivalent to 1.325{{e|37}} bytes of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在生物学方面，地球上有72亿人，每个人的基因组有62亿个核苷酸。由于一个字节可以编码四个核苷酸对，地球上每个人类的个体基因组可以编码大约1{e | 19}字节。2014年，数字领域存储的信息是这个数字的500倍（见图）。据估计，地球上所有细胞所含的DNA总量约为5.3{e | 37}碱基对，相当于1.325{e | 37}字节的信息。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If growth in digital storage continues at its current rate of 30–38% compound annual growth per year,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; it will rival the total information content contained in all of the DNA in all of the cells on Earth in about 110 years. This would represent a doubling of the amount of information stored in the biosphere across a total time period of just 150 years&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal |url=http://escholarship.org/uc/item/38f4b791 |doi=10.1016/j.tree.2015.12.013|pmid=26777788|title=Information in the Biosphere: Biological and Digital Worlds|journal=Trends in Ecology &amp;amp; Evolution|volume=31|issue=3|pages=180–189|year=2016|last1=Kemp|first1=D. J.|last2=Hilbert|first2=M.|last3=Gillings|first3=M. R.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如果数字存储以目前每年30-38%的复合年增长率继续增长，它将在大约110年内与地球上所有细胞中的所有DNA所包含的信息总量相抗衡。这将意味着在仅仅150年的时间里，生物圈中储存的信息量翻了一番”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===对人类社会的影响===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{further|Artificial intelligence in fiction}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{小说中的人工智能}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In February 2009, under the auspices of the [[Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence]] (AAAI), [[Eric Horvitz]] chaired a meeting of leading computer scientists, artificial intelligence researchers and roboticists at Asilomar in Pacific Grove, California. The goal was to discuss the potential impact of the hypothetical possibility that robots could become self-sufficient and able to make their own decisions. They discussed the extent to which computers and robots might be able to acquire [[autonomy]], and to what degree they could use such abilities to pose threats or hazards.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009年2月，在人工智能促进协会Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence(AAAI) 的主持下，Eric Horvitz在加利福尼亚州Pacific Grove 的 Asilomar 主持了一次由主要计算机科学家、人工智能研究人员和机器人学家参加的会议。其目的是讨论机器人能够自给自足并能够自己做决定的假设可能性的潜在影响。他们讨论了计算机和机器人能够在多大程度上获得自主性 autonomy，以及在多大程度上可以利用这些能力对人类构成威胁或危险。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some machines are programmed with various forms of semi-autonomy, including the ability to locate their own power sources and choose targets to attack with weapons. Also, some [[computer viruses]] can evade elimination and, according to scientists in attendance, could therefore be said to have reached a &amp;quot;cockroach&amp;quot; stage of machine intelligence. The conference attendees noted that self-awareness as depicted in science-fiction is probably unlikely, but that other potential hazards and pitfalls exist.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?_r=1&amp;amp;ref=todayspaper Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man] By JOHN MARKOFF, NY Times, July 26, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有些机器被编程成各种形式的半自主 semi-autonomy，包括定位自己的电源和选择武器攻击的目标等。此外，有些计算机病毒可以避免被消除，根据与会科学家的说法，可以说已经达到了机器智能的“蟑螂”阶段。与会者指出，科幻小说中描述的自我意识可能不太可能，但也存在其他潜在的危险和陷阱。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?_r=1&amp;amp;ref=todayspaper Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man] By JOHN MARKOFF, NY Times, July 26, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank S. Robinson predicts that once humans achieve a machine with the intelligence of a human, scientific and technological problems will be tackled and solved with brainpower far superior to that of humans. He notes that artificial systems are able to share data more directly than humans, and predicts that this would result in a global network of super-intelligence that would dwarf human capability.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |last=Robinson |first=Frank S. |title=The Human Future: Upgrade or Replacement? |magazine=[[The Humanist]] |date=27 June 2013 |url=https://thehumanist.com/magazine/july-august-2013/features/the-human-future-upgrade-or-replacement}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Robinson also discusses how vastly different the future would potentially look after such an intelligence explosion. One example of this is solar energy, where the Earth receives vastly more solar energy than humanity captures, so capturing more of that solar energy would hold vast promise for civilizational growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank S. Robinson 预言，一旦人类实现了具有人类智能的机器，科学技术问题将被远远优于人类的智力来解决。他指出，人工系统能够比人类更直接地共享数据，并预测这将导致一个全球的超级智能网络，使人类的能力相形见绌。Robinson还讨论了在这样一次智能爆炸之后，未来可能会有多大的不同。其中一个例子就是太阳能，地球接收到的太阳能远远多于人类捕获的太阳能，因此捕捉更多的太阳能将为文明发展带来巨大的希望。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==硬起飞与软起飞==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Recursive self-improvement.svg|thumb|upright=1.6|In this sample recursive self-improvement scenario, humans modifying an AI's architecture would be able to double its performance every three years through, for example, 30 generations before exhausting all feasible improvements (left). If instead the AI is smart enough to modify its own architecture as well as human researchers can, its time required to complete a redesign halves with each generation, and it progresses all 30 feasible generations in six years (right).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky-global-risk&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]. &amp;quot;Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk.&amp;quot; Global catastrophic risks (2008).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Recursive_self-improvement.svg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[文件：在这个示例递归自我改进场景中，修改人工智能体系结构的人可以每三年将其性能提高一倍，例如，30代人，然后用尽所有可行的改进（左）。相反，如果人工智能足够聪明，能够像人类研究人员那样修改自己的架构，那么每一代人完成一次重新设计所需的时间将减半，并且它在6年内将所有30代可行的代都推进（右图）。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky-global-risk&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]. &amp;quot;Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk.&amp;quot; Global catastrophic risks (2008).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a hard takeoff scenario, an AGI rapidly self-improves, &amp;quot;taking control&amp;quot; of the world (perhaps in a matter of hours), too quickly for significant human-initiated error correction or for a gradual tuning of the AGI's goals. In a soft takeoff scenario, AGI still becomes far more powerful than humanity, but at a human-like pace (perhaps on the order of decades), on a timescale where ongoing human interaction and correction can effectively steer the AGI's development.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bugaj, Stephan Vladimir, and Ben Goertzel. &amp;quot;Five ethical imperatives and their implications for human-AGI interaction.&amp;quot; Dynamical Psychology (2007).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sotala, Kaj, and Roman V. Yampolskiy. &amp;quot;Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a survey.&amp;quot; Physica Scripta 90.1 (2014): 018001.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在硬起飞的情况下，通用人工智能 AGI 迅速自我完善并“掌控”世界（也许在几个小时内）。速度太快，以致于无法进行重大的人为纠错或对 AGI 的目标进行逐步调整。在软起飞的情况下，虽然 AGI 仍然比人类强大得多，但却以一种类似人类的速度进步（也许是几十年的数量级），持续的人类互动和修正可以有效地引导AGI 的发展。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bugaj, Stephan Vladimir, and Ben Goertzel. &amp;quot;Five ethical imperatives and their implications for human-AGI interaction.&amp;quot; Dynamical Psychology (2007).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sotala, Kaj, and Roman V. Yampolskiy. &amp;quot;Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a survey.&amp;quot; Physica Scripta 90.1 (2014): 018001.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ramez Naam]] argues against a hard takeoff. He has pointed that we already see recursive self-improvement by superintelligences, such as corporations. [[Intel]], for example, has &amp;quot;the collective brainpower of tens of thousands of humans and probably millions of CPU cores to... design better CPUs!&amp;quot; However, this has not led to a hard takeoff; rather, it has led to a soft takeoff in the form of [[Moore's law]].&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Further&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=The Singularity Is Further Than It Appears|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/the-singularity-is-further-tha.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Naam further points out that the computational complexity of higher intelligence may be much greater than linear, such that &amp;quot;creating a mind of intelligence 2 is probably ''more'' than twice as hard as creating a mind of intelligence 1.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Ascend&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=Why AIs Won't Ascend in the Blink of an Eye - Some Math|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/why-ais-wont-ascend-in-blink-of-an-eye.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ramez Naam反对硬起飞。他指出，我们已经看到企业等超级智能体的递归式地自我完善。例如，Intel拥有“数万人的集体脑力，可能还有数百万个CPU核心……来设计更好的CPU！”然而，这并没有导致硬起飞；相反，它以摩尔定律的形式实现了软起飞&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Further&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=The Singularity Is Further Than It Appears|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/the-singularity-is-further-tha.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。Naam进一步指出，高等智能的计算复杂度可能比线性大得多，因此，“创建智能系统2的难度可能两倍于是创建智能系统1的两倍多。”&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Ascend&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=Why AIs Won't Ascend in the Blink of an Eye - Some Math|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/why-ais-wont-ascend-in-blink-of-an-eye.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[J. Storrs Hall]] believes that &amp;quot;many of the more commonly seen scenarios for overnight hard takeoff are circular – they seem to assume hyperhuman capabilities at the ''starting point'' of the self-improvement process&amp;quot; in order for an AI to be able to make the dramatic, domain-general improvements required for takeoff. Hall suggests that rather than recursively self-improving its hardware, software, and infrastructure all on its own, a fledgling AI would be better off specializing in one area where it was most effective and then buying the remaining components on the marketplace, because the quality of products on the marketplace continually improves, and the AI would have a hard time keeping up with the cutting-edge technology used by the rest of the world.&amp;lt;ref name=Hall2008&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Hall|first=J. Storrs|title=Engineering Utopia|journal=Artificial General Intelligence, 2008: Proceedings of the First AGI Conference|date=2008|pages=460–467|url=http://www.agiri.org/takeoff_hall.pdf|accessdate=16 May 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J.Storrs Hall认为，“许多常见的一夜之间出现的硬起飞场景都是循环论证——它们似乎在自我提升过程的起点上假设了超人类的能力”，以便人工智能能够实现起飞所需的戏剧性的、领域通用的改进。Hall认为，一个初出茅庐的人工智能与其靠自己不断地自我改进硬件、软件和基础设施，不如专注于一个它最有效的领域，然后在市场上购买剩余的组件，因为市场上产品的质量不断提高，人工智能将很难跟上世界其他地方使用的尖端技术。&amp;lt;ref name=Hall2008&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Hall|first=J. Storrs|title=Engineering Utopia|journal=Artificial General Intelligence, 2008: Proceedings of the First AGI Conference|date=2008|pages=460–467|url=http://www.agiri.org/takeoff_hall.pdf|accessdate=16 May 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ben Goertzel]] agrees with Hall's suggestion that a new human-level AI would do well to use its intelligence to accumulate wealth. The AI's talents might inspire companies and governments to disperse its software throughout society. Goertzel is skeptical of a hard five minute takeoff but speculates that a takeoff from human to superhuman level on the order of five years is reasonable. Goerzel refers to this scenario as a &amp;quot;semihard takeoff&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Goertzel2014&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Goertzel|first1=Ben|title=Superintelligence — Semi-hard Takeoff Scenarios|url=http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/09/26/superintelligence-semi-hard-takeoff-scenarios/|accessdate=25 October 2014|agency=h+ Magazine|date=26 Sep 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ben Goertzel 同意 Hall 的意见，即一种新的人类级别的人工智能将很好地利用其智能来积累财富。人工智能的天赋可能会激励公司和政府将其软件分散到整个社会。Goertzel 对5分钟的硬起飞持怀疑态度，但他推测从人类到超人的水平，以5年的速度起飞是合理的。Goerzel将这种情况称为“半硬起飞semihard takeoff”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Goertzel2014&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Goertzel|first1=Ben|title=Superintelligence — Semi-hard Takeoff Scenarios|url=http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/09/26/superintelligence-semi-hard-takeoff-scenarios/|accessdate=25 October 2014|agency=h+ Magazine|date=26 Sep 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Max More]] disagrees, arguing that if there were only a few superfast human-level AIs, that they would not radically change the world, as they would still depend on other people to get things done and would still have human cognitive constraints. Even if all superfast AIs worked on intelligence augmentation, it is unclear why they would do better in a discontinuous way than existing human cognitive scientists at producing super-human intelligence, although the rate of progress would increase. More further argues that a superintelligence would not transform the world overnight: a superintelligence would need to engage with existing, slow human systems to accomplish physical impacts on the world. &amp;quot;The need for collaboration, for organization, and for putting ideas into physical changes will ensure that all the old rules are not thrown out overnight or even within years.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=More&amp;gt;{{cite web|last1=More|first1=Max|title=Singularity Meets Economy|url=http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#more|accessdate=10 November 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Max More不同意这一观点，他认为，如果只有少数超高速的人类水平的人工智能，它们不会从根本上改变世界，因为它们仍将依赖人来完成任务，并且仍然会受到人类认知的限制。即使所有的超高速人工智能都致力于智能增强，但目前还不清楚为什么它们在产生超人类智能方面比现有的人类认知科学家做得更好，尽管进展速度会加快。更进一步指出，超级智能不会在一夜之间改变世界：超级智能需要与现有的、缓慢的人类系统进行接触，以完成对世界的物理影响。”合作、组织和将想法付诸实际变革的需要将确保所有旧规则不会在一夜之间甚至几年内被抛弃。”&amp;lt;ref name=More&amp;gt;{{cite web|last1=More|first1=Max|title=Singularity Meets Economy|url=http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#more|accessdate=10 November 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==永生==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his 2005 book, ''[[The Singularity is Near]]'', [[Ray Kurzweil|Kurzweil]] suggests that medical advances would allow people to protect their bodies from the effects of aging, making the [[Life extension|life expectancy limitless]]. Kurzweil argues that the technological advances in medicine would allow us to continuously repair and replace defective components in our bodies, prolonging life to an undetermined age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Singularity Is Near'', p.&amp;amp;nbsp;215.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Kurzweil further buttresses his argument by discussing current bio-engineering advances. Kurzweil suggests [[somatic gene therapy]]; after synthetic viruses with specific genetic information, the next step would be to apply this technology to gene therapy, replacing human DNA with synthesized genes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Singularity is Near'', p.&amp;amp;nbsp;216.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在Kurzweil 2005年出版的《奇点近了The Singularity is Near》一书中，他指出，医学的进步将使人们能够保护自己的身体免受衰老的影响，从而延长寿命。Kurzweil认为，医学的技术进步将使我们能够不断地修复和更换我们身体中有缺陷的部件，从而将寿命延长到某个他无法确定的年龄。Kurzweil通过讨论当前的生物工程进展进一步支持了他的论点。Kurzweil建议了体细胞基因疗法somatic gene therapy；在合成具有特定遗传信息的病毒之后，下一步则是把这项技术应用到基因治疗中，用合成的基因取代人类的DNA。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[K. Eric Drexler]], one of the founders of [[nanotechnology]], postulated cell repair devices, including ones operating within cells and utilizing as yet hypothetical [[biological machine]]s, in his 1986 book ''[[Engines of Creation]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[K.Eric Drexler]]，纳米技术nanotechnology的创始人之一，在他1986年的著作“创造的引擎Engines of Creation”中，假设了细胞修复设备，包括在细胞内运行并利用目前假设的[[生物机器]]的设备。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Richard Feynman]], it was his former graduate student and collaborator [[Albert Hibbs]] who originally suggested to him (circa 1959) the idea of a ''medical'' use for Feynman's theoretical micromachines. Hibbs suggested that certain repair machines might one day be reduced in size to the point that it would, in theory, be possible to (as Feynman put it) &amp;quot;[[Molecular machine#Biological|swallow the doctor]]&amp;quot;. The idea was incorporated into Feynman's 1959 essay ''[[There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom]].''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url = http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html|title = There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom|first = Richard P.|last = Feynman |author-link = Richard Feynman|date = December 1959|url-status = dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100211190050/http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html|archive-date = 2010-02-11}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
根据[[Richard Feynman]]，他过去的研究生和合作者[[Albert Hibbs]]最初向他建议（大约在1959年）费曼理论微型机械Feynman's theoretical micromachines的“医学”用途。Hibbs认为，有一天，理论上某些修理机器的尺寸可能会被尽可能地缩小（正如费曼所说的那样）“[[Molecular machine#Biological|swallow the doctor]]”。这个想法被收入了费曼1959年的文章“在底部有很多空间[There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beyond merely extending the operational life of the physical body, [[Jaron Lanier]] argues for a form of immortality called &amp;quot;Digital Ascension&amp;quot; that involves &amp;quot;people dying in the flesh and being uploaded into a computer and remaining conscious&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |title = You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto |last = Lanier |first = Jaron |author-link = Jaron Lanier |publisher = [[Alfred A. Knopf]] |year = 2010 |isbn = 978-0307269645 |location = New York, NY |page = [https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780307269645/page/26 26] |url-access = registration |url = https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780307269645 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
除了仅仅延长物质身体的运行寿命之外，[[Jaron Lanier]]还主张一种称为“数字提升Digital Ascension”的不朽形式，即“人在肉体层面死亡，意识被上传到电脑里并保持清醒”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==概念史==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A paper by Mahendra Prasad, published in ''[[AI Magazine]]'', asserts that the 18th-century mathematician [[Marquis de Condorcet]] was the first person to hypothesize and mathematically model an intelligence explosion and its effects on humanity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Prasad|first=Mahendra|year=2019|title=Nicolas de Condorcet and the First Intelligence Explosion Hypothesis|journal=AI Magazine|volume=40|issue=1|pages=29–33|doi=10.1609/aimag.v40i1.2855}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahendra Prasad在“[[人工智能杂志]]”上发表的一篇论文断言，18世纪的数学家[[Marquis de Condorcet]]是第一个对智能爆炸及其对人类影响进行假设和数学建模的人。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An early description of the idea was made in [[John Wood Campbell Jr.]]'s 1932 short story &amp;quot;The last evolution&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1932年[[约翰.伍德.坎贝尔]的短篇小说《最后的进化》（the last evolution）对这一想法作了早期的描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his 1958 obituary for [[John von Neumann]], Ulam recalled a conversation with von Neumann about the &amp;quot;ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=mathematical/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ulam在1958年为约翰·冯·诺依曼写的讣告中，回忆了与冯·诺依曼的一次对话：“技术的不断进步和人类生活方式的变化，这使我们似乎接近了种族历史上某些基本的奇点，超出了这些奇点，人类的事务就不能继续下去了。”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1965, Good wrote his essay postulating an &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; of recursive self-improvement of a machine intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1965年，古德写了一篇文章，假设机器智能的自我改进迭代是“智能爆炸”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981, [[Stanisław Lem]] published his [[science fiction]] novel ''[[Golem XIV]]''. It describes a military AI computer (Golem XIV) who obtains consciousness and starts to increase his own intelligence, moving towards personal technological singularity. Golem XIV was originally created to aid its builders in fighting wars, but as its intelligence advances to a much higher level than that of humans, it stops being interested in the military requirement because it finds them lacking internal logical consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1981年，[[Stanisław Lem]]出版了他的[[科幻小说]]小说“[[Golem XIV]]”。它描述了一台军用人工智能计算机（Golem XIV）获得了意识并开始增加自己的智能，朝着个体的技术奇点迈进。Golem XIV最初是为了帮助它的建造者打仗，但随着它的智力发展到比人类更高的水平，它不再对军事感兴趣，因为它发现它们缺乏内在的逻辑一致性。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1983, [[Vernor Vinge]] greatly popularized Good's intelligence explosion in a number of writings, first addressing the topic in print in the January 1983 issue of ''[[Omni (magazine)|Omni]]'' magazine. In this op-ed piece, Vinge seems to have been the first to use the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in a way that was specifically tied to the creation of intelligent machines:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google4&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1983年，[[Vernor Vinge]]在许多著作中极大地普及了Good的智能爆炸，他第一次在1983年1月出版的“[[Omni”杂志上提到了这一主题。在这篇评论文章中，Vinge似乎是第一个使用“奇点”一词的人，并将“奇点”的概念特别地与智能机器的创造进行联系：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|We will soon create intelligences greater than our own. When this happens, human history will have reached a kind of singularity, an intellectual transition as impenetrable as the knotted space-time at the center of a black hole, and the world will pass far beyond our understanding. This singularity, I believe, already haunts a number of science-fiction writers. It makes realistic extrapolation to an interstellar future impossible. To write a story set more than a century hence, one needs a nuclear war in between ... so that the world remains intelligible.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{我们很快就会创造出比我们自己更强大的智能。当这种情况发生时，人类历史将达到一种奇点，一种如同黑洞中心打结的时空一样难以逾越的知识转变，世界将远远超出我们的理解。我相信，这种奇点已经困扰了许多科幻作家。这使得对星际未来的现实推断变得不可能。要写一个多世纪以后的故事，科幻小说家需要一场核战争……这样世界就可以理解了。}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1985, in &amp;quot;The Time Scale of Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;, artificial intelligence researcher [[Ray Solomonoff]] articulated mathematically the related notion of what he called an &amp;quot;infinity point&amp;quot;: if a research community of human-level self-improving AIs take four years to double their own speed, then two years, then one year and so on, their capabilities increase infinitely in finite time.&amp;lt;ref name=chalmers /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;std&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1985年，在《人工智能的时间尺度The Time Scale of Artificial Intelligence》一书中，人工智能研究人员[[Ray Solomonoff]]以数学的方式阐述了他所说的“无限点”的相关概念：如果一个人类水平的能自我改进人工智能的研究社区需要四年时间使其速度加倍，那么两年，然后一年，依此类推，它们的能力在有限的时间内无限增长。&amp;lt;ref name=chalmers/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=“std”/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vinge's 1993 article &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; spread widely on the internet and helped to popularize the idea.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google5&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; This article contains the statement, &amp;quot;Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.&amp;quot; Vinge argues that science-fiction authors cannot write realistic post-singularity characters who surpass the human intellect, as the thoughts of such an intellect would be beyond the ability of humans to express.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vinge 1993年的文章《未来的技术奇点：如何在后人类时代生存The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era》在互联网上广为传播，普及了这一理念。“在三十年内，我们将拥有创造超人智慧的技术手段。不久之后，人类时代将结束。”Vinge认为，科幻小说作者无法写出超越人类智力的现实主义后奇点人物，因为这种智力的思想将超出人类的表达能力。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2000, [[Bill Joy]], a prominent technologist and a co-founder of [[Sun Microsystems]], voiced concern over the potential dangers of the singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2000年，著名的技术专家和 Sun Microsystems 的联合创始人 Bill Joy，表达了对奇点潜在危险的担忧。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2005, Kurzweil published ''[[The Singularity is Near]]''. Kurzweil's publicity campaign included an appearance on ''[[The Daily Show with Jon Stewart]]''.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2005年，库兹韦尔发表了《奇点临近 The Singularity is Near》。库兹韦尔的宣传活动包括参加“ Jon Stewart 的每日秀 The Daily Show with Jon Stewart”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2007, [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]] suggested that many of the varied definitions that have been assigned to &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; are mutually incompatible rather than mutually supporting.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sandberg, Anders. &amp;quot;An overview of models of technological singularity.&amp;quot; Roadmaps to AGI and the Future of AGI Workshop, Lugano, Switzerland, March. Vol. 8. 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, Kurzweil extrapolates current technological trajectories past the arrival of self-improving AI or superhuman intelligence, which Yudkowsky argues represents a tension with both I. J. Good's proposed discontinuous upswing in intelligence and Vinge's thesis on unpredictability.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2007年，Eliezer Yudkowsky指出，“奇点”被赋予的许多不同的定义是互不兼容而不是相互支持的&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sandberg, Anders. &amp;quot;An overview of models of technological singularity.&amp;quot; Roadmaps to AGI and the Future of AGI Workshop, Lugano, Switzerland, March. Vol. 8. 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;。例如，库兹韦尔推断了在自我提升的人工智能或超人智能到来之前的当前技术轨迹。Yudkowsky 认为，这与I.J.Good 提出的智能的不连续上升和 Vinge 关于不可预测性的论点存在矛盾。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2009, Kurzweil and [[X-Prize]] founder [[Peter Diamandis]] announced the establishment of [[Singularity University]], a nonaccredited private institute whose stated mission is &amp;quot;to educate, inspire and empower leaders to apply exponential technologies to address humanity's grand challenges.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Funded by [[Google]], [[Autodesk]], [[ePlanet Ventures]], and a group of [[High tech|technology industry]] leaders, Singularity University is based at [[NASA]]'s [[Ames Research Center]] in [[Mountain View, California|Mountain View]], [[California]]. The not-for-profit organization runs an annual ten-week graduate program during summer that covers ten different technology and allied tracks, and a series of executive programs throughout the year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009年，Kurzweil和X-Prize的创始人Peter Diamandis宣布成立奇点大学，这是一所未经认证的私立学院，其宣称的使命是“教育、激励和赋能领导者来使用指数技术应对人类的重大挑战&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 。”奇点大学由Google、Autodesk、ePlanet Ventures和一群高科技产业的领导团队资助，总部设在位于加州山景城的美国宇航局 NASA 的 艾姆斯研究中心 Ames Research Center。这家非营利组织在每年夏季举办为期十周的研究生课程，涵盖十种不同的技术和相关领域，并全年举办一系列高管课程。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==在政治中==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2007, the Joint Economic Committee of the [[United States Congress]] released a report about the future of nanotechnology. It predicts significant technological and political changes in the mid-term future, including possible technological singularity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vyp1AwAAQBAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA375|title=Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society|first=David H.|last=Guston|date=14 July 2010|publisher=SAGE Publications|isbn=978-1-4522-6617-6}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web | url=http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20120213_TheFutureisComingSoonerThanYouThink.pdf | title=Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think | publisher=Joint Economic Committee | date=March 2007}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2007/03/congress_and_th.html|title=Congress and the Singularity}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2007年，美国国会联合经济委员会 the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress 发布了一份关于纳米技术的未来的报告。它预测在中期的未来会发生诸多重大的技术和政治变化，包括可能的技术奇点。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vyp1AwAAQBAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA375|title=Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society|first=David H.|last=Guston|date=14 July 2010|publisher=SAGE Publications|isbn=978-1-4522-6617-6}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web | url=http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20120213_TheFutureisComingSoonerThanYouThink.pdf | title=Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think | publisher=Joint Economic Committee | date=March 2007}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2007/03/congress_and_th.html|title=Congress and the Singularity}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former President of the United States [[Barack Obama]] spoke about singularity in his interview to ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' in 2016:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.wired.com/2016/10/president-obama-mit-joi-ito-interview/|title=Barack Obama Talks AI, Robo Cars, and the Future of the World|first=Scott|last=Dadich|journal=Wired|date=12 October 2016}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2016年，美国前总统巴拉克·奥巴马 Barack Obama 在接受《连线》杂志采访时谈到了奇点:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.wired.com/2016/10/president-obama-mit-joi-ito-interview/|title=Barack Obama Talks AI, Robo Cars, and the Future of the World|first=Scott|last=Dadich|journal=Wired|date=12 October 2016}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|text=One thing that we haven't talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren't spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about &amp;quot;Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?&amp;quot;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that we haven't talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren't spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about &amp;quot;Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有一件事我们没有谈得太多，我还想回过去谈谈，那就是我们真的必须考虑对经济的影响。因为大多数人现在并没有花太多时间去担心奇点，而是在担心“好吧，我的工作会被机器取代吗？”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==参考文献==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20010527181244/http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Authors/Computing/Good-IJ/SCtFUM.html |archive-date = 2001-05-27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archive-url =  https://web.archive.org/web/20010527181244/http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/authors/computing/good-ij/sctfum.html  | archive-date = 2001-05-27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Portal| Technology}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Accelerating change}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| series = Advances in Computers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
系列 = 计算机的进步&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial consciousness}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| isbn = 9780120121069| title = Advances in Computers Volume 6&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9780120121069&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial intelligence arms race}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl = 10919/89424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl = 10919/89424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial intelligence in fiction}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Brain simulation}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Brain–computer interface}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Emerging technologies}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Fermi paradox}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Some Skepticism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些怀疑论者&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Flynn effect}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Robin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一名: 罗宾&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Futures studies}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Global brain}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{sectionlink|Human intelligence|Improving intelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year = 1998&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1998年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Mind uploading}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Neuroenhancement}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| accessdate = 2009-06-19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009-06-19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Outline of transhumanism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20090828023928/http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年3月24日 | archiveurl =  https://web.archive.org/web/20090828023928/http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Robot learning}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archivedate = 2009-08-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archivedate = 2009-08-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Singularitarianism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological determinism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological revolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first=Anthony&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一名: 安东尼&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological unemployment}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last=Berglas&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Berglas&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title=Artificial Intelligence will Kill our Grandchildren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
人工智能会杀死我们的孙子&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year=2008&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2008年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TODO: end here&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Citations引用 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://berglas.org/Articles/AIKillGrandchildren/AIKillGrandchildren.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://berglas.org/articles/aikillgrandchildren/aikillgrandchildren.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Reflist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2008-06-13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2008-06-13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|refs =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url = http://www.technologyreview.com/view/425733/paul-allen-the-singularity-isnt-near |title= Paul Allen: The Singularity Isn't Near |access-date=2015-04-12 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Nick&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一 = 尼克&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation | first=Bill | last=Joy | author-link=Bill Joy | title=Why the future doesn't need us | journal=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired Magazine]] | volume=8 | date= April 2000 | issue=4 |url = https://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html | access-date=2007-08-07 | isbn=978-0-670-03249-5 | publisher=Viking Adult }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Bostrom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
博斯特罗姆&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Nick Bostrom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
作者: 尼克 · 博斯特罗姆&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php |title=Singularly Silly Singularity |access-date=2009-04-13 |first1=PZ |last1=Myers |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090228161422/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php |archive-date=2009-02-28 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title=Existential Risks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
存在风险&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
进化与技术杂志&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil.htm Modis, Theodore. ''The Singularity Myth''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121030072409/http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil.htm |date=2012-10-30 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year=2002&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2002年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| volume=9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| volume = 9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Anders Sandberg|Sandberg, Anders]]. [http://agi-conf.org/2010/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/agi10singmodels2.pdf An overview of models of technological singularity]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date=2007-08-07&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2007-08-07&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3854/global-catastrophic-risks-report.pdf|title=GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS SURVEY (2008) Technical Report 2008/1 Published by Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University. Anders Sandberg and Nick Bostrom|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110516021945/http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3854/global-catastrophic-risks-report.pdf|archivedate=2011-05-16}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Krazit, Tom. [http://news.cnet.com/2100-1006_3-6119618.html Intel pledges 80 cores in five years], ''CNET News'', 26 September 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Bill&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 第一 = 比尔&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;dreyfus&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Harvnb|Dreyfus|Dreyfus|2000|p=xiv}}: 'The truth is that human intelligence can never be replaced with machine intelligence simply because we are not ourselves &amp;quot;thinking machines&amp;quot; in the sense in which that term is commonly understood.' {{Harvtxt|Hawking|1998}}: 'Some people say that computers can never show true intelligence whatever that may be. But it seems to me that if very complicated chemical molecules can operate in humans to make them intelligent then equally complicated electronic circuits can also make computers act in an intelligent way. And if they are intelligent they can presumably design computers that have even greater complexity and intelligence.'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Bill Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 作者链接 = Bill Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Ethical Artificial Intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Ethical Artificial Intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{IMDb title|847969|Episode dated 23 August 2006}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| date = 5 November 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 日期 = 2014年11月5日&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| eprint=1411.1373&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1411.1373&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, ''[[The Age of Spiritual Machines]]'', Viking; 1999,  {{ISBN|978-0-14-028202-3}}. pp. [https://books.google.com/books?id=ldAGcyh0bkUC&amp;amp;pg=PA630 30, 32]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| class = cs.AI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年10月12日 | class = cs.AI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| ref=harv&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= harv&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Theodore Modis, [http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/TedWEB.htm Forecasting the Growth of Complexity and Change], ''Technological Forecasting &amp;amp; Social Change'', 69, No 4, 2002 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120615054939/http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/TedWEB.htm |date=June 15, 2012 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dooling, Richard. ''[[Rapture for the Geeks|Rapture for the Geeks: When AI Outsmarts IQ]]'' (2008), [https://books.google.com/books?id=VbBRsv1lxsUC&amp;amp;lpg=PP1&amp;amp;pg=PA88 p. 88]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dooling, Richard. ''[[Rapture for the Geeks|Rapture for the Geeks: When AI Outsmarts IQ]]'' (2008), [https://books.google.com/books?id=VbBRsv1lxsUC&amp;amp;lpg=PP1&amp;amp;pg=PA89 p. 89]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/nano/singularity-nanotech-or-ai |title=h+ Magazine &amp;amp;#124; Covering technological, scientific, and cultural trends that are changing human beings in fundamental ways |publisher=Hplusmagazine.com |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/whos-who-in-the-singularity |title=Who's Who In The Singularity – IEEE Spectrum |publisher=Spectrum.ieee.org |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1958-64-03/S0002-9904-1958-10189-5/S0002-9904-1958-10189-5.pdf | last=Ulam|first=Stanislaw |title=Tribute to John von Neumann|publisher=Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society|volume=64, #3, part 2|date=May 1958|page=5}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |title=More blades good |author=Anonymous |newspaper=The Economist |date=18 March 2006 |url=http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5624861 |location=London |page=85 |volume=378  |issue=8469 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html |title=Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards |website=nickbostrom.com }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news |url = https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html |newspaper = The New York Times | first=John | last=Markoff | title=Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced by Cheaper Software | date=2011-03-04}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near, pp. 135–136. Penguin Group, 2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, ''The Singularity is Near'', Penguin Group, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near, p. 9. Penguin Group, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Eschatology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 末世论&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Futures studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 未来研究&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singularityu.org/ Singularity University] at its official website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Philosophy of artificial intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
范畴: 人工智能哲学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Existential risk from artificial general intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 来自人工一般智能的世界末日&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;This page was moved from [[wikipedia:en:Technological singularity]]. Its edit history can be viewed at [[技术奇点/edithistory]]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:待整理页面]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Alchemist</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E5%A5%87%E7%82%B9&amp;diff=25831</id>
		<title>技术奇点</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E5%A5%87%E7%82%B9&amp;diff=25831"/>
		<updated>2021-08-15T05:47:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Alchemist：&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;此词条暂由水流心不竞、嘉树初译，徐培审校，带来阅读不便，请见谅。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Redirect|The Singularity||Singularity (disambiguation)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Redirect |奇点| |奇点（释疑)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{short description|Hypothetical point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{简介}技术增长变得不可控制和不可逆转的假设时间点}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The '''technological singularity'''—also, simply, '''the singularity'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cadwalladr, Carole (2014). &amp;quot;[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/22/robots-google-ray-kurzweil-terminator-singularity-artificial-intelligence Are the robots about to rise? Google's new director of engineering thinks so…]&amp;quot; ''The Guardian''. Guardian News and Media Limited.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;—is a [[hypothetical]] point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web |title=Collection of sources defining &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; |url=http://www.singularitysymposium.com/definition-of-singularity.html |website=singularitysymposium.com |accessdate=17 April 2019}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book |author1=Eden, Amnon H. |author2=Moor, James H. |title=Singularity hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment |date=2012 |publisher=Springer |location=Dordrecht |isbn=9783642325601 |pages=1–2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to the most popular version of the singularity hypothesis, called [[Technological singularity#Intelligence explosion|intelligence explosion]], an upgradable [[intelligent agent]] will eventually enter a &amp;quot;runaway reaction&amp;quot; of self-improvement cycles, each new and more intelligent generation appearing more and more rapidly, causing an &amp;quot;explosion&amp;quot; in intelligence and resulting in a powerful [[superintelligence]] that qualitatively far surpasses all [[human intelligence]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;技术奇点 Technological singularity&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;——简称 奇点 Singularity &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cadwalladr, Carole (2014). &amp;quot;[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/22/robots-google-ray-kurzweil-terminator-singularity-artificial-intelligence Are the robots about to rise? Google's new director of engineering thinks so…]&amp;quot; ''The Guardian''. Guardian News and Media Limited.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;是一个假设的时间点。在该时间点上，技术的增长变得不可控制和不可逆转，从而导致人类文明发生无法预见的变化。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web |title=Collection of sources defining &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; |url=http://www.singularitysymposium.com/definition-of-singularity.html |website=singularitysymposium.com |accessdate=17 April 2019}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book |author1=Eden, Amnon H. |author2=Moor, James H. |title=Singularity hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment |date=2012 |publisher=Springer |location=Dordrecht |isbn=9783642325601 |pages=1–2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;根据奇点假说（也被称为智能爆炸 intelligence explosion）最流行的版本：一个可升级的智能体终将进入一种自我完善循环的“&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;失控反应 runaway reaction&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”。每个新的、更智能的世代将出现得越来越快，导致智能的“爆炸”，并产生一种在实质上远超所有人类智能的超级智能。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first use of the concept of a &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in the technological context was [[John von Neumann]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Technological Singularity'' by Murray Shanahan, (MIT Press, 2015), page 233&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Stanislaw Ulam]] reports a discussion with von Neumann &amp;quot;centered on the [[Accelerating change|accelerating progress]] of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential [[Wiktionary:singularity|singularity]] in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Subsequent authors have echoed this viewpoint.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;chalmers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Chalmers|first=David|date=2010|title=The singularity: a philosophical analysis|url=|journal=Journal of Consciousness Studies|volume=17|issue=9–10|pages=7–65|via=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一次在科技领域使用“奇点”这一概念的人是冯·诺依曼 John von Neumann&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Technological Singularity'' by Murray Shanahan, (MIT Press, 2015), page 233&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;。Stanislaw Ulam 报告了一次与冯·诺依曼的讨论。“围绕技术的加速进步和人类生活模式的改变，这让我们看到了人类历史上一些本质上的奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; 一旦超越了这些奇点，我们所熟知的人类事务就无法继续下去了”。后来作者也赞同这一观点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;chalmers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Chalmers|first=David|date=2010|title=The singularity: a philosophical analysis|url=|journal=Journal of Consciousness Studies|volume=17|issue=9–10|pages=7–65|via=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. J. Good]]'s &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; model predicts that a future superintelligence will trigger a singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Vinge, Vernor. [http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;], in ''Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace'', G. A. Landis, ed., NASA Publication CP-10129, pp. 11–22, 1993.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I. J.古德的“智能爆炸”模型预测，未来的超级智能将触发一个奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Vinge, Vernor. [http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;], in ''Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace'', G. A. Landis, ed., NASA Publication CP-10129, pp. 11–22, 1993.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The concept and the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; were popularized by [[Vernor Vinge]] in his 1993 essay ''The Coming Technological Singularity'', in which he wrote that it would signal the end of the human era, as the new superintelligence would continue to upgrade itself and would advance technologically at an incomprehensible rate. He wrote that he would be surprised if it occurred before 2005 or after 2030.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
奇点的概念和术语“奇点”是由 Vernor Vinge 在他1993年的文章《即将到来的技术奇点 The Coming Technological Singularity》中得到推广的。他在文中写道，这将标志着人类时代的终结，因为新的超级智能将持续自我升级，并以不可思议的速度在技术上进步。他写道，如果奇点发生在2005年之前或2030年之后，他会感到惊讶。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Public figures such as [[Stephen Hawking]] and [[Elon Musk]] have expressed concern that full [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) could result in human extinction.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Sparkes|first1=Matthew|title=Top scientists call for caution over artificial intelligence|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11342200/Top-scientists-call-for-caution-over-artificial-intelligence.html|accessdate=24 April 2015|work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph (UK)]]|date=13 January 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540|title=Hawking: AI could end human race|date=2 December 2014|publisher=BBC|accessdate=11 November 2017}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The consequences of the singularity and its potential benefit or harm to the human race have been intensely debated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
斯蒂芬·霍金和埃隆·马斯克等公众人物对完全人工智能（AI）可能导致人类灭绝表示担忧。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Sparkes|first1=Matthew|title=Top scientists call for caution over artificial intelligence|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11342200/Top-scientists-call-for-caution-over-artificial-intelligence.html|accessdate=24 April 2015|work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph (UK)]]|date=13 January 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540|title=Hawking: AI could end human race|date=2 December 2014|publisher=BBC|accessdate=11 November 2017}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;奇点的后果及其对人类的潜在利益或伤害一直存在激烈的争论。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Four polls of AI researchers, conducted in 2012 and 2013 by [[Nick Bostrom]] and [[Vincent C. Müller]], suggested a median probability estimate of 50% that [[artificial general intelligence]] (AGI) would be developed by 2040–2050.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;newyorker&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Khatchadourian|first1=Raffi|title=The Doomsday Invention|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=The New Yorker|date=16 November 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Müller, V. C., &amp;amp; Bostrom, N. (2016). &amp;quot;Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion&amp;quot;. In V. C. Müller (ed): ''Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence'' (pp. 555–572). Springer, Berlin. http://philpapers.org/rec/MLLFPI&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年到2013年，Nick Bostrom和Vincent c. Müller 对人工智能研究人员进行了四次调查。结果显示，通用人工智能(artificial general intelligence, AGI)在2040年至2050年被成功开发出来的概率估计的中位数为50% 。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;newyorker&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Khatchadourian|first1=Raffi|title=The Doomsday Invention|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=The New Yorker|date=16 November 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Müller, V. C., &amp;amp; Bostrom, N. (2016). &amp;quot;Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion&amp;quot;. In V. C. Müller (ed): ''Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence'' (pp. 555–572). Springer, Berlin. http://philpapers.org/rec/MLLFPI&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==背景==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although technological progress has been accelerating, it has been limited by the basic intelligence of the human brain, which has not, according to [[Paul R. Ehrlich]], changed significantly for millennia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Paul Ehrlich June 2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ehrlich, Paul. [http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/ The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, with the increasing power of computers and other technologies, it might eventually be possible to build a machine that is significantly more intelligent than humans.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;businessweek&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm Superbrains born of silicon will change everything.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801074729/http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm |date=August 1, 2010 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然技术进步一直在加速，但它一直受到人脑基本智力的限制，而根据Paul R.Ehrlich的说法，人类大脑的基本智力在几千年来并没有发生显著变化。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Paul Ehrlich June 2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ehrlich, Paul. [http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/ The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;然而，随着计算机和其他技术的日益强大，人类最终有可能制造出一台比人类智能得多的机器&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;businessweek&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm Superbrains born of silicon will change everything.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801074729/http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm |date=August 1, 2010 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a superhuman intelligence were to be invented—either through the amplification of human intelligence or through artificial intelligence—it would bring to bear greater problem-solving and inventive skills than current humans are capable of. Such an AI is referred to as Seed AI because if an AI were created with engineering capabilities that matched or surpassed those of its human creators, it would have the potential to autonomously improve its own software and hardware or design an even more capable machine. This more capable machine could then go on to design a machine of yet greater capability. These iterations of recursive self-improvement could accelerate, potentially allowing enormous qualitative change before any upper limits imposed by the laws of physics or theoretical computation set in. It is speculated that over many iterations, such an AI would far surpass human cognitive abilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如果一种超人类智能被发明出来。无论是通过人类智能的放大还是通过人工智能，它将带来比现在的人类更强的问题解决和发明创造能力。这种人工智能被称为种子人工智能 Seed AI。因为如果人工智能的工程能力能够与它的人类创造者相匹敌或超越，那么它就有潜力自主改进自己的软件和硬件，或者设计出更强大的机器。这台能力更强的机器可以继续设计一台能力更强的机器。这种自我递归改进的迭代可以加速，在物理定律或理论计算设定的任何上限之前，可能会发生巨大的质变。据推测，经过多次迭代，这样的人工智能将远远超过人类的认知能力。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==智能爆炸==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligence explosion is a possible outcome of humanity building [[artificial general intelligence]] (AGI). AGI would be capable of recursive self-improvement, leading to the rapid emergence of [[Superintelligence|artificial superintelligence]] (ASI), the limits of which are unknown, shortly after technological singularity is achieved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能爆炸是构建通用人工智能 artificial general intelligence (AGI) 的可能结果。在技术奇点实现后不久，AGI 将能够进行递归式的自我迭代，从而导致人工超级智能 artificial superintelligence (ASI) 的迅速出现，但其局限性尚不清楚。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. J. Good]] speculated in 1965 that artificial general intelligence might bring about an intelligence explosion. He speculated on the effects of superhuman machines, should they ever be invented:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1965年，I.J.Good 曾推测人工通用智能可能会带来智能爆炸。他对超人类及其的影响进行了推测，如果他们真的被发明出来的话：&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an ‘intelligence explosion,’ and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{让我们把超智能机器定义为一种机器，它可以进行远超无论多么聪明的一个人的所有智力活动。由于机器的设计是一种智力活动，那么一台超智能机器可以设计出更好的机器；那么毫无疑问会出现“智能爆炸”，人类的智能将远远落后。因此，第一台超智能机器是人类所需要的最后一项发明，当然，假设机器足够温顺并能够告诉我们如何控制它们的话。}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good's scenario runs as follows: as computers increase in power, it becomes possible for people to build a machine that is more intelligent than humanity; this superhuman intelligence possesses greater problem-solving and inventive skills than current humans are capable of. This superintelligent machine then designs an even more capable machine, or re-writes its own software to become even more intelligent; this (even more capable) machine then goes on to design a machine of yet greater capability, and so on. These iterations of recursive self-improvement accelerate, allowing enormous qualitative change before any upper limits imposed by the laws of physics or theoretical computation set in.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
古德的设想如下：随着计算机能力的增加，人们有可能制造出一台比人类更智能的机器；这种超人的智能拥有比现在人类更强大的问题解决和发明创造的能力。这台超级智能机器随后设计一台功能更强大的机器，或者重写自己的软件来变得更加智能；这台（甚至更强大的）机器接着继续设计功能更强大的机器，以此类推。这些递归式的自我完善的迭代加速，允许在物理定律或理论计算设定的任何上限之内发生巨大的质变。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==其他表现形式==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===超级智能的出现===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Superintelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{超级智能}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A superintelligence, hyperintelligence, or superhuman intelligence is a hypothetical [[intelligent agent|agent]] that possesses intelligence far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human minds. &amp;quot;Superintelligence&amp;quot; may also refer to the form or degree of intelligence possessed by such an agent. [[John von Neumann]], [[Vernor Vinge]] and [[Ray Kurzweil]] define the concept in terms of the technological creation of super intelligence. They argue that it is difficult or impossible for present-day humans to predict what human beings' lives would be like in a post-singularity world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
超级智能、超智能或超人智能是一种假想的智能体。它拥有的智能远远超过最聪明、最有天赋的人类大脑的智能。“超级智能”也可以指这种智能体所拥有的智能的形式或程度。John von Neumann，Vernor Vinge和Ray Kurzweil 从技术创造超级智能的角度定义了这个概念。他们认为，现在的人类很难或不可能预测人类在后奇点世界的生活会是什么样子&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Technology forecasters and researchers disagree about if or when human intelligence is likely to be surpassed. Some argue that advances in [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) will probably result in general reasoning systems that lack human cognitive limitations. Others believe that humans will evolve or directly modify their biology so as to achieve radically greater intelligence. A number of [[futures studies]] scenarios combine elements from both of these possibilities, suggesting that humans are likely to [[brain–computer interface|interface with computers]], or [[mind uploading|upload their minds to computers]], in a way that enables substantial intelligence amplification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
技术预言家和研究人员对人类智能是否或何时可能被超越存在分歧。一些人认为，人工智能（AI）的进步可能会产生没有人类认知局限的一般推理系统。另一些人则认为，人类将进化或直接改变自己的生物性，从而从根本上实现更高的智能。许多未来研究的场景结合了这两种可能的元素，认为人类很可能会与计算机交互，或以将他们的意识上传到计算机的方式实现大量的智能增益。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===非人工智能奇点===&lt;br /&gt;
Some writers use &amp;quot;the singularity&amp;quot; in a broader way to refer to any radical changes in our society brought about by new technologies such as [[molecular nanotechnology]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; although Vinge and other writers specifically state that without superintelligence, such changes would not qualify as a true singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些作家writers更宽泛地使用“奇点”的概念，用来指代任何我们社会中由新技术带来的剧烈变化，如分子纳米技术，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 尽管Vinge和其他作家明确指出，如果没有超级智能，这些改变就不能算作真正的奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===速度超智能===&lt;br /&gt;
A speed superintelligence describes an AI that can do everything that a human can do, where the only difference is that the machine runs faster.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1007/978-3-662-54033-6_2 |year=2017 |publisher=Springer Berlin Heidelberg |pages=11–23 |author=Kaj Sotala and Roman Yampolskiy |title=The Technological Singularity |chapter=Risks of the Journey to the Singularity |series=The Frontiers Collection |isbn=978-3-662-54031-2 |conference=The Frontiers Collection }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, with a million-fold increase in the speed of information processing relative to that of humans, a subjective year would pass in 30 physical seconds.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Such a difference in information processing speed could drive the singularity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1002/9781118922590.ch16 |year=2016 |publisher=John Wiley \&amp;amp; Sons, Inc |pages=171–224 |author=David J. Chalmers |title=Science Fiction and Philosophy |chapter=The Singularity |isbn=9781118922590 |conference=Science Fiction and Philosophy }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
速度超级智能描述了一个人工智能，它可以做任何人类能做的事情，唯一的区别是这个机器运行得更快.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1007/978-3-662-54033-6_2 |year=2017 |publisher=Springer Berlin Heidelberg |pages=11–23 |author=Kaj Sotala and Roman Yampolskiy |title=The Technological Singularity |chapter=Risks of the Journey to the Singularity |series=The Frontiers Collection |isbn=978-3-662-54031-2 |conference=The Frontiers Collection }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。例如，与人类相比，它信息处理的速度提高了一百万倍，一个主观年将在30个物理秒内过去。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;这种在信息处理上的差异可能会导致奇点。.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1002/9781118922590.ch16 |year=2016 |publisher=John Wiley \&amp;amp; Sons, Inc |pages=171–224 |author=David J. Chalmers |title=Science Fiction and Philosophy |chapter=The Singularity |isbn=9781118922590 |conference=Science Fiction and Philosophy }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==合理性==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many prominent technologists and academics dispute the plausibility of a technological singularity, including [[Paul Allen]], [[Jeff Hawkins]], [[John Henry Holland|John Holland]], [[Jaron Lanier]], and [[Gordon Moore]], whose [[Moore's law|law]] is often cited in support of the concept.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
许多著名的技术专家和学者都对技术奇点的合理性提出质疑，包括Paul Allen、Jeff Hawkins、 John Holland、Jaron Lanier和Gordon Moore，他的摩尔定律经常被引用来支持这一概念。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most proposed methods for creating superhuman or [[transhuman]] minds fall into one of two categories: intelligence amplification of human brains and artificial intelligence. The speculated ways to produce intelligence augmentation are many, and include [[bioengineering]], [[genetic engineering]], [[nootropic]] drugs, AI assistants, direct [[brain–computer interface]]s and [[mind uploading]]. Because multiple paths to an intelligence explosion are being explored, it makes a singularity more likely; for a singularity to not occur they would all have to fail.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity |title=What is the Singularity? &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
大多数创造超人或跨人类头脑的方法分为两类：人脑的智能增强和人工智能。据推测，智能增强的方法很多，包括生物工程、基因工程、益智药物、AI 助手、直接脑机接口和思维上传。因为人们正在探索通向智能爆炸的多种途径，这使得奇点出现的可能更大；奇点不发生，所有这些都必将失败。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity |title=What is the Singularity? &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robin Hanson]] expressed skepticism of human intelligence augmentation, writing that once the &amp;quot;low-hanging fruit&amp;quot; of easy methods for increasing human intelligence have been exhausted, further improvements will become increasingly difficult to find.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/vc.html#hanson |title=Some Skepticism |date=1998 |first=Robin |last=Hanson |author-link=Robin Hanson |accessdate=April 8, 2020}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Despite all of the speculated ways for amplifying human intelligence, non-human artificial intelligence (specifically seed AI) is the most popular option among the hypotheses that would advance the singularity.{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Robin Hanson 对人类智能增强表示怀疑，他写道，一旦提高人类智力的“唾手可得的”简单方法用尽，进一步的改进将变得越来越难。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/vc.html#hanson |title=Some Skepticism |date=1998 |first=Robin |last=Hanson |author-link=Robin Hanson |accessdate=April 8, 2020}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;尽管有各种提高人类智能的方法，但非人类人工智能(特别是种子人工智能)仍是所有能推进奇点的假说中最受欢迎的一个。{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether or not an intelligence explosion occurs depends on three factors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Chalmers John Locke Lecture, 10 May, Exam Schools, Oxford, [http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/news/2010/david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available Presenting a philosophical analysis of the possibility of a technological singularity or &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; resulting from recursively self-improving AI] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115205558/http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/news/2010/david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available |date=2013-01-15 }}.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The first accelerating factor is the new intelligence enhancements made possible by each previous improvement. Contrariwise, as the intelligences become more advanced, further advances will become more and more complicated, possibly overcoming the advantage of increased intelligence. Each improvement should beget at least one more improvement, on average, for movement towards singularity to continue. Finally, the laws of physics will eventually prevent any further improvements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能爆炸是否发生取决于三个因素。第一个加速因素是以前的每一次改进都使新的智能增强成为可能。相反，随着智能的进步，进一步的发展将变得越来越复杂，可能会抵消智力增长的优势。平均而言，每一次改进都应该至少带来一次改进，以便继续朝着奇点的方向发展。最后，物理定律最终会阻止任何进一步的改进。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are two logically independent, but mutually reinforcing, causes of intelligence improvements: increases in the speed of computation, and improvements to the [[algorithm]]s used.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;consc.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, David J. Chalmers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The former is predicted by [[Moore's law|Moore's Law]] and the forecasted improvements in hardware,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;itrs&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |title=ITRS |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929173755/http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |archivedate=2011-09-29 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and is comparatively similar to previous technological advances. But there are some AI researchers{{who|date=March 2017}} who believe software is more important than hardware.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|url=https://blog.chronicled.com/why-software-is-more-important-than-hardware-right-now-6a4b58feaa7c|title=Why Software Is More Important Than Hardware Right Now|last=Kulkarni|first=Ajit|date=2017-12-12|website=Chronicled|access-date=2019-02-23}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能改进有两个逻辑上独立但又相互加强的原因：计算速度的提高和使用的算法的改进。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;consc.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, David J. Chalmers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;前者由摩尔定律和硬件方面的预测改进进行预测，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;itrs&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |title=ITRS |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929173755/http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |archivedate=2011-09-29 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;与以前的技术进步比较相似。但也有一些人工智能研究人员认为软件比硬件更重要&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|url=https://blog.chronicled.com/why-software-is-more-important-than-hardware-right-now-6a4b58feaa7c|title=Why Software Is More Important Than Hardware Right Now|last=Kulkarni|first=Ajit|date=2017-12-12|website=Chronicled|access-date=2019-02-23}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2017 email survey of authors with publications at the 2015 [[Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems|NeurIPS]] and [[International Conference on Machine Learning|ICML]] machine learning conferences asked  about the chance of an intelligence explosion. Of the respondents, 12% said it was &amp;quot;quite likely&amp;quot;, 17% said it was &amp;quot;likely&amp;quot;, 21% said it was &amp;quot;about even&amp;quot;, 24% said it was &amp;quot;unlikely&amp;quot; and 26% said it was &amp;quot;quite unlikely&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2017年，一项对2015年 NeurIPS 和 ICML 机器学习会议上发表论文的作者的电子邮件调查询问了智能爆炸的可能性。在受访者中，12% 的人认为“很有可能” ，17% 的人认为“有可能” ，21% 的人认为“可能性中等” ，24% 的人认为“不太可能” ，26% 的人认为“非常不可能”。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===速度改进 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both for human and artificial intelligence, hardware improvements increase the rate of future hardware improvements. Simply put,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arstechnica&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Moore's Law]] suggests that if the first doubling of speed took 18 months, the second would take 18 subjective months; or 9 external months, whereafter, four months, two months, and so on towards a speed singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html &amp;quot;Staring into the Singularity&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An upper limit on speed may eventually be reached, although it is unclear how high this would be.  Jeff Hawkins has stated that a self-improving computer system would inevitably run into upper limits on computing power: &amp;quot;in the end there are limits to how big and fast computers can run. We would end up in the same place; we'd just get there a bit faster. There would be no singularity.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hawkins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
无论对于人类智能还是人工智能，硬件改进都会提高未来硬件改进的速度。简单地说，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arstechnica&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;Moore's Law认为，如果第一次速度翻倍需要18个月，第二次则需要18个主观月；或者9个外部月，之后，4个月、2个月，以此类推，走向速度奇点&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html &amp;quot;Staring into the Singularity&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 速度的上限最终可能会达到，尽管还不清楚这会有多高。杰夫·霍金斯（Jeff Hawkins）曾表示，一个自我完善的计算机系统不可避免地会遇到计算能力的上限：“最终，计算机的运行速度和速度都是有限的。我们最终会在同一个地方；我们只会更快到达那里。不会有奇点。”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hawkins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is difficult to directly compare [[silicon]]-based hardware with [[neuron]]s. But {{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}} notes that computer [[speech recognition]] is approaching human capabilities, and that this capability seems to require 0.01% of the volume of the brain. This analogy suggests that modern computer hardware is within a few orders of magnitude of being as powerful as the human brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
很难直接将基于硅的硬件与神经元相比较。但是{Harvtxt| Berglas|2008}指出计算机语音识别正在接近人类的能力，而且这种能力似乎需要0.01%的脑容量。这个类比表明，现代计算机硬件与人脑一样强大，只差几个数量级。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====指数增长====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Martin Ford in The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
马丁 · 福特Martin Ford的《隧道中的灯光: 自动化，加速技术和未来经济The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future》&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:PPTMooresLawai.jpg|thumb|Ray Kurzweil writes that, due to [[paradigm shift]]s, a trend of exponential growth extends [[Moore's law]] from [[integrated circuits]] to earlier [[transistor]]s, [[vacuum tube]]s, [[relay]]s, and [[electromechanics|electromechanical]] computers. He predicts that the exponential growth will continue, and that in a few decades the computing power of all computers will exceed that of (&amp;quot;unenhanced&amp;quot;) human brains, with superhuman [[artificial intelligence]] appearing around the same time.|链接=Special:FilePath/PPTMooresLawai.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[图片：PPTMooresLawai.jpg|thumb | Ray Kurzweil写道，由于[[范式转换]]s，指数增长的趋势将[[摩尔定律]]从[[集成电路]]扩展到早期的[[晶体管]]、[[真空管]]、[[继电器]]和[[机电机械]]计算机。他预测，这种指数增长将继续下去，在几十年内，所有计算机的计算能力将超过（“未增强的”）人脑，同时出现超人[[人工智能]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Moore's Law over 120 Years.png|thumb|left|An updated version of Moore's law over 120 Years (based on [[Ray Kurzweil|Kurzweil's]] [[c:File:PPTMooresLawai.jpg|graph]]). The 7 most recent data points are all [[Nvidia GPUs|NVIDIA GPUs]].|链接=Special:FilePath/Moore's_Law_over_120_Years.png]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[资料图：摩尔超过120的定律年.png|拇指|左|摩尔定律120年的更新版本（基于[[Ray Kurzweil | Kurzweil's]][[c:文件：PPTMooresLawai.jpg|图形]]）。最近的7个数据点都是[[Nvidia GPU | Nvidia GPU]].]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exponential growth in computing technology suggested by Moore's law is commonly cited as a reason to expect a singularity in the relatively near future, and a number of authors have proposed generalizations of Moore's law. Computer scientist and futurist [[Hans Moravec]] proposed in a 1998 book&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&amp;amp;pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that the exponential growth curve could be extended back through earlier computing technologies prior to the [[integrated circuit]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
摩尔定律所建议的计算技术的指数增长通常被认为是在相对不远的将来出现奇点的一个理由，许多作者已经提出了摩尔定律的推广。计算机科学家和未来主义者Hans Moravec在1998年的一本书中提到&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&amp;amp;pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;指数型增长曲线可以沿着集成电路之前的早期计算技术进行延伸。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ray Kurzweil]] postulates a [[law of accelerating returns]] in which the speed of technological change (and more generally, all evolutionary processes&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;) increases exponentially, generalizing Moore's law in the same manner as Moravec's proposal, and also including material technology (especially as applied to [[nanotechnology]]), [[Medical Technology|medical technology]] and others.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity2&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Between 1986 and 2007, machines' application-specific capacity to compute information per capita roughly doubled every 14 months; the per capita capacity of the world's general-purpose computers has doubled every 18 months; the global telecommunication capacity per capita doubled every 34 months; and the world's storage capacity per capita doubled every 40 months.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 &amp;quot;The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information&amp;quot;], Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), [[Science (journal)|Science]], 332(6025), 60–65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; On the other hand, it has been argued that the global acceleration pattern having the 21st century singularity as its parameter should be characterized as [[Hyperbolic growth|hyperbolic]] rather than exponential.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8 ''The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures. A Big History Perspective''] (Springer, 2020)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ray Kurzweil]]假设了一个[[加速回报定律]]，其中技术变革的速度（更广泛地说，所有进化过程&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;）急剧增长。从1986年到2007年，摩尔定律以与莫拉维克提案相同的方式呈指数增长，并包括材料技术（尤其是应用于[[纳米技术]]）、[[医疗技术|医疗技术]]和其他技术，计算机计算人均信息的特定应用能力大约每14个月翻一番；世界通用计算机的人均容量每18个月翻一番；全球人均电信容量每34个月翻一番；世界人均存储容量每40个月翻一番。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 &amp;quot;The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information&amp;quot;], Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), [[Science (journal)|Science]], 332(6025), 60–65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 另一方面，有人认为，以21世纪奇点为参数的全球加速度模式应该被描述为[[双曲线增长|双曲]]而不是指数型&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8 ''The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures. A Big History Perspective''] (Springer, 2020)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil reserves the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; for a rapid increase in artificial intelligence (as opposed to other technologies), writing for example that &amp;quot;The Singularity will allow us to transcend these limitations of our biological bodies and brains ... There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity3&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; He also defines his predicted date of the singularity (2045) in terms of when he expects computer-based intelligences to significantly exceed the sum total of human brainpower, writing that advances in computing before that date &amp;quot;will not represent the Singularity&amp;quot; because they do &amp;quot;not yet correspond to a profound expansion of our intelligence.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;transformation&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
库兹韦尔将“奇点”一词用于描述人工智能(相对于其他技术)的快速增长，例如他写道: “奇点将允许我们超越生物体和大脑的局限……后奇点时代，人类与机器之间将不再有区别”。库兹韦尔相信奇点将在大约2045年之前出现，那时基于计算机的智能将明显超越人类脑力的总和，在这个日期之前计算机技术的进步“并不代表奇点”，因为它们“还不符合智慧的深刻扩展”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====加速变革====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Main|Accelerating change}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Main |加速变革}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|thumb|According to Kurzweil, his [[logarithmic scale|logarithmic graph]] of 15 lists of [[paradigm shift]]s for key [[human history|historic]] events shows an [[exponential growth|exponential]] trend|链接=Special:FilePath/ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[图片：ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|thumb |根据Kurzweil的说法，他对关键的[[人类历史|历史]]事件的15个[[范式转移]]列表的[[对数标度|对数图]]显示了[[指数增长|指数]]趋势]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some singularity proponents argue its inevitability through extrapolation of past trends, especially those pertaining to shortening gaps between improvements to technology. In one of the first uses of the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in the context of technological progress, [[Stanislaw Ulam]] tells of a conversation with [[John von Neumann]] about accelerating change: &lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.&amp;lt;ref name=mathematical/&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些奇点论的支持者认为，通过对过去趋势的推断，特别是那些缩减技术进步的差距有关的趋势，奇点是不可避免的。技术进步的背景下，较早使用“奇点”一词时，Stanislaw Ulam讲述了与冯·诺伊曼关于加速变革的一次谈话：&lt;br /&gt;
一次围绕不断加速的技术进步和生活方式变化的对话，它使得人类历史上出现了一些基本的奇点，超过了这些奇点，人类的事务，如我们所知，将无法继续下去。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil claims that technological progress follows a pattern of&lt;br /&gt;
exponential growth, following what he calls the &amp;quot;law of&lt;br /&gt;
accelerating returns&amp;quot;. Whenever technology approaches a barrier,&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil writes, new technologies will surmount it. He predicts&lt;br /&gt;
paradigm shifts will become increasingly common, leading to&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;technological change so rapid and profound it represents a&lt;br /&gt;
rupture in the fabric of human history&amp;quot;.[43] Kurzweil believes that&lt;br /&gt;
the singularity will occur by approximately 2045.[38] His&lt;br /&gt;
predictions differ from Vinge's in that he predicts a gradual&lt;br /&gt;
ascent to the singularity, rather than Vinge's rapidly self�improving superhuman intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
库兹韦尔声称，技术进步遵循[[指数增长]的模式，遵循他所称的“加速返回定律law of accelerating returns”。库兹韦尔写道，每当一项技术遇到障碍时，新技术就会出来克服这个障碍。他预测范式转变将变得越来越普遍，导致“技术变革非常迅速和深刻，以至于它代表着人类历史结构的一个断裂”。库兹韦尔相信奇点将在2045年之前出现。他和Vinge预测的不同点在于他预测的是一个逐渐上升到奇点的过程，而Vinge预测了一个快速自我更新的超人类智能。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oft-cited dangers include those commonly associated with molecular nanotechnology and genetic engineering. These threats are major issues for both singularity advocates and critics, and were the subject of Bill Joy's Wired magazine article &amp;quot;Why the future doesn't need us&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
经常被引用的危险包括那些与分子纳米技术和基因工程有关的技术。这些威胁是奇点论的倡导者和批评者面临的主要议题，也是比尔 · 乔伊《连线 Wired》杂志上所发表文章《为什么未来不需要我们Why the future doesn't need us》的主题。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===算法改进 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some intelligence technologies, like &amp;quot;seed AI&amp;quot;,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Yampolskiy, Roman V 2015&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceA&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; may also have the potential to not just make themselves faster, but also more efficient, by modifying their [[source code]]. These improvements would make further improvements possible, which would make further improvements possible, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
一些智能技术，比如“种子人工智能”，通过修改自己的源代码，可能使自己不仅更快，而且更高效。这些改进将使进一步的改进成为可能，以此类推。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mechanism for a recursively self-improving set of algorithms differs from an increase in raw computation speed in two ways. First, it does not require external influence: machines designing faster hardware would still require humans to create the improved hardware, or to program factories appropriately.{{citation needed|date=July 2017}} An AI rewriting its own source code could do so while contained in an [[AI box]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
递归自我改进算法集的机制在两个方面不同于原始计算速度的提高。首先，它不需要外部影响：设计更快的硬件的机器仍然需要人类来创造改进的硬件，或者对工厂进行适当的编程。AI可以既身处一个AI盒 AI box里面，又同时改进自己的 源代码。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second, as with [[Vernor Vinge]]’s conception of the singularity, it is much harder to predict the outcome. While speed increases seem to be only a quantitative difference from human intelligence, actual algorithm improvements would be qualitatively different. [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]] compares it to the changes that human intelligence brought: humans changed the world thousands of times more rapidly than evolution had done, and in totally different ways. Similarly, the evolution of life was a massive departure and acceleration from the previous geological rates of change, and improved intelligence could cause change to be as different again.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|author=Eliezer S. Yudkowsky |url=http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/power |title=Power of Intelligence |publisher=Yudkowsky |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第二，和Vernor Vinge关于奇点的概念一样，对结果的预测要困难得多。虽然速度的提高似乎与人类的智能只是数量上的区别，但实际的算法改进在质量上是不同的。Eliezer Yudkowsky将其与人类智能带来的变化相比较：人类改变世界的速度比进化速度快数千倍，而且方式完全不同。同样地，生命的进化与以前的地质变化又有着巨大的不同和加速，而智能的提高可能会使变化再次变得不同。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|author=Eliezer S. Yudkowsky |url=http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/power |title=Power of Intelligence |publisher=Yudkowsky |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are substantial dangers associated with an intelligence explosion singularity originating from a recursively self-improving set of algorithms. First, the goal structure of the AI might not be invariant under self-improvement, potentially causing the AI to optimise for something other than what was originally intended.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008 ]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;kurzweilai&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.kurzweilai.net/artificial-general-intelligence-now-is-the-time |title=Artificial General Intelligence: Now Is the Time |publisher=KurzweilAI |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Secondly, AIs could compete for the same scarce resources mankind uses to survive.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/10/05/paper-on-the-nature-of-self-improving-artificial-intelligence/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence.&amp;quot; Self-Aware Systems. 21 Jan. 2008. Web. 07 Jan. 2010.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|last1=Barrat|first1=James|title=Our Final Invention|year=2013|publisher=St. Martin's Press|location=New York|isbn=978-0312622374|pages=78–98|edition=First|chapter=6, &amp;quot;Four Basic Drives&amp;quot;|title-link=Our Final Invention}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
由递归自我改进的算法集合引起的智能爆炸存在着巨大的危险。首先，人工智能的目标结构在自我完善的情况下可能不是一成不变的，这可能会导致人工智能对原本计划之外的东西进行优化。第二，人工智能可以与人类竞争赖以生存的稀缺资源。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While not actively malicious, there is no reason to think that AIs would actively promote human goals unless they could be programmed as such, and if not, might use the resources currently used to support mankind to promote its own goals, causing human extinction.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;kurzweilai.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.kurzweilai.net/max-more-and-ray-kurzweil-on-the-singularity-2 |title=Max More and Ray Kurzweil on the Singularity |publisher=KurzweilAI |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceB&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/riskintro/index.html |title=Concise Summary &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.nickbostrom.com/fut/evolution.html Bostrom, Nick, The Future of Human Evolution, Death and Anti-Death: Two Hundred Years After Kant, Fifty Years After Turing, ed. Charles Tandy, pp. 339–371, 2004, Ria University Press.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然不是恶意的，但没有理由认为人工智能会积极促进人类目标的实现，除非这些目标可以被编程，否则，它们就可能利用目前用于支持人类的资源来促进自己的目标，从而导致人类灭绝。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Carl Shulman]] and [[Anders Sandberg]] suggest that algorithm improvements may be the limiting factor for a singularity; while hardware efficiency tends to improve at a steady pace, software innovations are more unpredictable and may be bottlenecked by serial, cumulative research. They suggest that in the case of a software-limited singularity, intelligence explosion would actually become more likely than with a hardware-limited singularity, because in the software-limited case, once human-level AI is developed, it could run serially on very fast hardware, and the abundance of cheap hardware would make AI research less constrained.&amp;lt;ref name=ShulmanSandberg2010&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Shulman|first=Carl|author2=Anders Sandberg |title=Implications of a Software-Limited Singularity|journal=ECAP10: VIII European Conference on Computing and Philosophy|year=2010|url=http://intelligence.org/files/SoftwareLimited.pdf|accessdate=17 May 2014|editor1-first=Klaus|editor1-last=Mainzer}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An abundance of accumulated hardware that can be unleashed once the software figures out how to use it has been called &amp;quot;computing overhang.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;MuehlhauserSalamon2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book|last=Muehlhauser|first=Luke|title=Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment|year=2012|publisher=Springer|chapter-url=http://intelligence.org/files/IE-EI.pdf|author2=Anna Salamon |editor=Amnon Eden |editor2=Johnny Søraker |editor3=James H. Moor |editor4=Eric Steinhart|chapter=Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carl Shulman和Anders Sandberg认为，算法改进可能是奇点的限制因素；虽然硬件效率趋于稳步提高，但软件创新更不具可预测性，可能会受到连续、累积的研究的限制。他们认为，智能爆炸在受软件限制的奇点情况中发生的可能性实际上比在受硬件限制的奇点更可能发生，因为在软件受限的情况下，一旦开发出人类水平的人工智能，它可以在非常快的硬件上连续运行，廉价硬件的丰富将使人工智能研究不那么受限制。&amp;lt;ref name=ShulmanSandberg2010&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Shulman|first=Carl|author2=Anders Sandberg |title=Implications of a Software-Limited Singularity|journal=ECAP10: VIII European Conference on Computing and Philosophy|year=2010|url=http://intelligence.org/files/SoftwareLimited.pdf|accessdate=17 May 2014|editor1-first=Klaus|editor1-last=Mainzer}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 一旦软件知道如何使用硬件，大量的硬件就可以被释放出来，这被称为“计算过剩”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;MuehlhauserSalamon2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book|last=Muehlhauser|first=Luke|title=Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment|year=2012|publisher=Springer|chapter-url=http://intelligence.org/files/IE-EI.pdf|author2=Anna Salamon |editor=Amnon Eden |editor2=Johnny Søraker |editor3=James H. Moor |editor4=Eric Steinhart|chapter=Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===危机===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some critics, like philosopher [[Hubert Dreyfus]], assert that computers or machines cannot achieve [[human intelligence]], while others, like physicist [[Stephen Hawking]], hold that the definition of intelligence is irrelevant if the net result is the same.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;dreyfus&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些批评者，如哲学家Hubert Dreyfus断言计算机或机器无法实现人类智能，而其他人，如物理学家史蒂芬·霍金，则认为如果最终结果是相同的，那么智力的定义其实无关紧要。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An early description of the idea was made in John Wood Campbell Jr.'s 1932 short story &amp;quot;The last evolution&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
早在1932年，约翰·W·坎贝尔的短篇小说《最后的进化》中就对这个想法进行了描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psychologist [[Steven Pinker]] stated in 2008:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
心理学家史蒂芬·平克在2008年指出：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|... There is not the slightest reason to believe in a coming singularity. The fact that you can visualize a future in your imagination is not evidence that it is likely or even possible. Look at domed cities, jet-pack commuting, underwater cities, mile-high buildings, and nuclear-powered automobiles—all staples of futuristic fantasies when I was a child that have never arrived. Sheer processing power is not a pixie dust that magically solves all your problems. ...&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
没有一点理由相信奇点即将到来。你可以想象一个未来并不能证明它是可能出现的。看看穹顶城市、喷气式飞行器通勤、水下城市、一英里高的建筑和核动力汽车：这些都是我小时候未来主义幻想的主要内容，然而它们都没有成真。纯粹的计算能力不是能神奇地解决所有问题的仙尘。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[University of California, Berkeley]], [[philosophy]] professor [[John Searle]] writes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[加州大学伯克利分校]，哲学教授约翰·塞尔写道：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{blockquote|[Computers] have, literally ..., no [[intelligence]], no [[motivation]], no [[autonomy]], and no agency.  We design them to behave as if they had certain sorts of [[psychology]], but there is no psychological reality to the corresponding processes or behavior. ...  [T]he machinery has no beliefs, desires, [or] motivations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[John R. Searle]], “What Your Computer Can’t Know”, ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', 9 October 2014, p. 54.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
毫不夸张地说，计算机没有智能，没有动机，没有自主，也没有智能体。我们设计他们，使他们的行为好像表示他们有某种心理，但其实没有对应这些过程或行为的心理现实……机器没有信仰、愿望或动机。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Martin Ford (author)|Martin Ford]] in ''The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thelightsinthetunnel&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; postulates a &amp;quot;technology paradox&amp;quot; in that before the singularity could occur most routine jobs in the economy would be automated, since this would require a level of technology inferior to that of the singularity. This would cause massive unemployment and plummeting consumer demand, which in turn would destroy the incentive to invest in the technologies that would be required to bring about the Singularity. Job displacement is increasingly no longer limited to work traditionally considered to be &amp;quot;routine.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Martin Ford在“隧道中的灯光：自动化、加速技术和未来经济 The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thelightsinthetunnel&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;中提出了一个“技术悖论”：在奇点出现之前，经济体中的大多数日常工作都将自动化，因为这所需的技术水平低于奇点。这将导致大规模的失业和消费者需求的骤降，这反过来又会破坏投资于实现奇点所需技术的动机。工作的替代越来越不再局限于那些传统上被认为是“例行公事”的工作。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Theodore Modis]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; and [[Jonathan Huebner]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological14&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; argue that the rate of technological innovation has not only ceased to rise, but is actually now declining. Evidence for this decline is that the rise in computer [[clock rate]]s is slowing, even while Moore's prediction of exponentially increasing circuit density continues to hold. This is due to excessive heat build-up from the chip, which cannot be dissipated quickly enough to prevent the chip from melting when operating at higher speeds. Advances in speed may be possible in the future by virtue of more power-efficient CPU designs and multi-cell processors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; While Kurzweil used Modis' resources, and Modis' work was around accelerating change, Modis distanced himself from Kurzweil's thesis of a &amp;quot;technological singularity&amp;quot;, claiming that it lacks scientific rigor.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Theodore Modis&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;和Jonathan Huebner&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological14&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 认为技术创新的速度不仅停止上升，而且现在实际上正在下降。这种下降的证据是计算机时钟速率的增长正在放缓，尽管摩尔关于电路密度指数增长的预测仍然成立。这是由于芯片产生过多的热量，当它们以较高的速度运行时，这些热量不能足够快地散去，可能导致芯片熔化。在未来，随着更节能的CPU设计和多单元处理器的发明，速度的提高可能实现。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;尽管 Kurzweil 利用了Modis的（工作成果）作为资源，同时 Modis 的工作围绕着加速变革，但 Modis 与 Kurzweil 的“技术奇点”理论保持距离，称其缺乏科学严谨性。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a detailed empirical accounting, ''The Progress of Computing'', [[William Nordhaus]] argued that, prior to 1940, computers followed the much slower growth of a traditional industrial economy, thus rejecting extrapolations of Moore's law to 19th-century computers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal | doi=10.1017/S0022050707000058|title = Two Centuries of Productivity Growth in Computing| journal=The Journal of Economic History| volume=67|pages = 128–159|year = 2007|last1 = Nordhaus|first1 = William D.| citeseerx=10.1.1.330.1871}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在一份详细的实证报告《计算的进步 The Progress of Computing》中，威廉·诺德豪斯 William Nordhaus 认为，在 1940 年之前，计算机遵循传统工业经济增长缓慢的趋势，因此拒绝了摩尔定律对19世纪计算机的推断。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal | doi=10.1017/S0022050707000058|title = Two Centuries of Productivity Growth in Computing| journal=The Journal of Economic History| volume=67|pages = 128–159|year = 2007|last1 = Nordhaus|first1 = William D.| citeseerx=10.1.1.330.1871}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a 2007 paper, Schmidhuber stated that the frequency of subjectively &amp;quot;notable events&amp;quot; appears to be approaching a 21st-century singularity, but cautioned readers to take such plots of subjective events with a grain of salt: perhaps differences in memory of recent and distant events could create an illusion of accelerating change where none exists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schmidhuber, Jürgen. &amp;quot;New millennium AI and the convergence of history.&amp;quot; Challenges for computational intelligence. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. 15–35.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在2007年的一篇论文中，Schmidhuber指出主观上“值得注意的事件”出现的频率似乎正在接近21世纪的奇点，但他提醒读者，对这些主观事件的情节要持保留态度：也许对近期和远期事件的记忆差异，可能会造成一种在根本不存在的情况下变化加速的错觉。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schmidhuber, Jürgen. &amp;quot;New millennium AI and the convergence of history.&amp;quot; Challenges for computational intelligence. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. 15–35.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paul Allen argued the opposite of accelerating returns, the complexity brake; the more progress science makes towards understanding intelligence, the more difficult it becomes to make additional progress. A study of the number of patents shows that human creativity does not show accelerating returns, but in fact, as suggested by Joseph Tainter in his The Collapse of Complex Societies, a law of diminishing returns. The number of patents per thousand peaked in the period from 1850 to 1900, and has been declining since.[60] The growth of complexity eventually becomes self-limiting, and leads to a widespread &amp;quot;general systems collapse&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
保罗·艾伦 Paul Allen 认为，与加速回报相反的是复杂性制动；科学在理解智力方面取得的进展越多，就越难取得更多的进展。一项对专利数量的研究表明，人类的创造力并没有表现出加速的回报。事实上，正如Joseph Tainter 在他的《复杂社会的崩溃 The Collapse of Complex Societies 》中所指出的那样，存在一个收益递减定律 a law of diminishing returns 的限制。每千人的专利的数量在1850年至1900年期间达到顶峰，此后一直在下降。复杂性的增长最终会自我限制，并导致广泛的“一般系统崩溃 general systems collapse”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jaron Lanier]] refutes the idea that the Singularity is inevitable. He states: &amp;quot;I do not think the technology is creating itself. It's not an autonomous process.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |author=Jaron Lanier |title=Who Owns the Future? |work=New York: Simon &amp;amp; Schuster |date=2013 |url=http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=JCB8D9LA&amp;amp;tocp=59}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He goes on to assert: &amp;quot;The reason to believe in human agency over technological determinism is that you can then have an economy where people earn their own way and invent their own lives. If you structure a society on ''not'' emphasizing individual human agency, it's the same thing operationally as denying people clout, dignity, and self-determination ... to embrace [the idea of the Singularity] would be a celebration of bad data and bad politics.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jaron Lanier驳斥了奇点不可避免的观点。他说：“我不认为这项技术是在创造自我。这不是一个自主的过程。”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |author=Jaron Lanier |title=Who Owns the Future? |work=New York: Simon &amp;amp; Schuster |date=2013 |url=http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=JCB8D9LA&amp;amp;tocp=59}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;他接着断言：“相信人的能动性而不是技术决定论的原因是，这样你就可以有一个经济体，人们在其中可以自己挣钱，创造自己的生活。如果你在不强调个人主观能动性的基础上构建社会，就等于在操作上否认人们的影响力、尊严和自决...接受 [奇点的想法] 将是对糟糕数据和糟糕政治的颂扬。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Economics|Economist]] [[Robert J. Gordon]], in ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'' (2016), points out that measured economic growth has slowed around 1970 and slowed even further since the [[financial crisis of 2007–2008]], and argues that the economic data show no trace of a coming Singularity as imagined by mathematician [[I.J. Good]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[William D. Nordhaus]], &amp;quot;Why Growth Will Fall&amp;quot; (a review of [[Robert J. Gordon]], ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'', Princeton University Press, 2016, {{ISBN|978-0691147727}}, 762 pp., $39.95), ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', vol. LXIII, no. 13 (August 18, 2016), p. 68.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
经济学家 Robert J.Gordon在《美国经济增长的兴衰：内战以来的美国生活水平 The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War》（2016）中指出，据测量，经济增长在1970年左右放缓，自2007-2008年金融危机以来甚至进一步放缓，并认为经济数据显示没有迹象表明数学家I.J.Good所设想的奇点将会到来。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[William D. Nordhaus]], &amp;quot;Why Growth Will Fall&amp;quot; (a review of [[Robert J. Gordon]], ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'', Princeton University Press, 2016, {{ISBN|978-0691147727}}, 762 pp., $39.95), ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', vol. LXIII, no. 13 (August 18, 2016), p. 68.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to general criticisms of the singularity concept, several critics have raised issues with Kurzweil's iconic chart. One line of criticism is that a [[Log-log plot|log-log]] chart of this nature is inherently biased toward a straight-line result. Others identify selection bias in the points that Kurzweil chooses to use. For example, biologist [[PZ Myers]] points out that many of the early evolutionary &amp;quot;events&amp;quot; were picked arbitrarily.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Kurzweil has rebutted this by charting evolutionary events from 15 neutral sources, and showing that they fit a straight line on [[:File:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|a log-log chart]]. ''[[The Economist]]'' mocked the concept with a graph extrapolating that the number of blades on a razor, which has increased over the years from one to as many as five, will increase ever-faster to infinity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
除了对奇点概念的一般性批评外，一些批评者还对库兹韦尔的标志性图表提出了质疑。一种批评是，这种性质的对数图像本质上就会存在倾向于直线的有偏差结果。其他人批评库兹韦尔在数据点的使用上存在选择偏差。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;例如，生物学家P. Z. Myers指出，许多早期的进化“事件”都是随意挑选的。库兹韦尔反驳了这一点，他绘制了15个中立来源的进化事件图，并表明它们都符合一条直线.《经济学人》用一张图表来嘲讽这个概念：一把剃须刀上的刀片数在过去几年里从一个增加到多达五个，并且它将以更快的速度增长到无穷大。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==潜在影响==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dramatic changes in the rate of economic growth have occurred in the past because of some technological advancement. Based on population growth, the economy doubled every 250,000 years from the [[Paleolithic]] era until the [[Neolithic Revolution]]. The new agricultural economy doubled every 900 years, a remarkable increase. In the current era, beginning with the Industrial Revolution, the world's economic output doubles every fifteen years, sixty times faster than during the agricultural era. If the rise of superhuman intelligence causes a similar revolution, argues Robin Hanson, one would expect the economy to double at least quarterly and possibly on a weekly basis.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url=http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/robotics-software/economics-of-the-singularity |title=Economics Of The Singularity |author=Robin Hanson |work=IEEE Spectrum Special Report: The Singularity }} &amp;amp; [http://hanson.gmu.edu/longgrow.pdf Long-Term Growth As A Sequence of Exponential Modes]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
过去由于一些技术进步，经济增长率发生了巨大变化。以人口增长为基础，从[[旧石器时代]]到[[新石器时代]]，经济每25万年翻一番。新农业经济每900年翻一番，增长显著。在当今时代，从工业革命开始，世界经济产出每15年翻一番，比农业时代快60倍。罗宾·汉森Robin Hanson认为，如果超人智能的兴起引发了类似的革命，人们会预期经济至少每季度翻一番，甚至可能每周翻一番。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===不确定性和风险===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Existential risk from artificial general intelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步|来自人工通用智能的存在风险}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;technological singularity&amp;quot; reflects the idea that such change may happen suddenly, and that it is difficult to predict how the resulting new world would operate.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|last=Yudkowsky |first=Eliezer |title=Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk |journal=Global Catastrophic Risks |editor-last=Bostrom |editor-first=Nick |editor2-last=Cirkovic |editor2-first=Milan |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |url=http://singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |bibcode=2008gcr..book..303Y |isbn=978-0-19-857050-9 |page=303 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080807132337/http://www.singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |archivedate=2008-08-07 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;theuncertainfuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; It is unclear whether an intelligence explosion resulting in a singularity would be beneficial or harmful, or even an [[Existential risk|existential threat]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Because AI is a major factor in singularity risk, a number of organizations pursue a technical theory of aligning AI goal-systems with human values, including the [[Future of Humanity Institute]], the [[Machine Intelligence Research Institute]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; the [[Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence]], and the [[Future of Life Institute]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“技术奇点”一词反映了这样一种想法&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|last=Yudkowsky |first=Eliezer |title=Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk |journal=Global Catastrophic Risks |editor-last=Bostrom |editor-first=Nick |editor2-last=Cirkovic |editor2-first=Milan |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |url=http://singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |bibcode=2008gcr..book..303Y |isbn=978-0-19-857050-9 |page=303 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080807132337/http://www.singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |archivedate=2008-08-07 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;theuncertainfuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; ：这种变化可能突然发生，而且很难预测由此产生的新世界将如何运作。目前尚不清楚导致奇点的智能爆炸是有益还是有害，甚至是一种存在威胁。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 由于人工智能是奇点风险的一个主要因素，许多组织追求一种将人工智能的目标系统与人类价值观相协调的技术理论。这些组织包括人类未来研究所 Future of Humanity Institute，机器智能研究所 The Machine Intelligence Research Institute， 人类兼容人工智能中心 &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;The Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence和未来生命研究所 The Future of Life Institute。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Physicist [[Stephen Hawking]] said in 2014 that &amp;quot;Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; Hawking believed that in the coming decades, AI could offer &amp;quot;incalculable benefits and risks&amp;quot; such as &amp;quot;technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; Hawking suggested that artificial intelligence should be taken more seriously and that more should be done to prepare for the singularity:&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-transcendence-looks-at-the-implications-of-artificial-intelligence--but-are-we-taking-ai-seriously-enough-9313474.html |title=Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of artificial intelligence - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'  |work=[[The Independent]] |author=Stephen Hawking |date=1 May 2014 |accessdate=May 5, 2014|author-link=Stephen Hawking }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
物理学家史蒂芬·霍金在2014年表示，“成功创造人工智能将是人类历史上最大的事件。不幸的是，这也可能是最后一次，除非我们学会如何规避风险。”&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt;  霍金认为，在未来几十年里，人工智能可能会带来“无法估量的利益和风险”，例如“技术超越金融市场的聪明程度，超越人类研究人员的创造力，超越人类领袖的操控力，开发我们甚至无法理解的武器”。霍金建议&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; ，人们应该更认真地对待人工智能，并做更多的工作来为奇点做准备：&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-transcendence-looks-at-the-implications-of-artificial-intelligence--but-are-we-taking-ai-seriously-enough-9313474.html |title=Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of artificial intelligence - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'  |work=[[The Independent]] |author=Stephen Hawking |date=1 May 2014 |accessdate=May 5, 2014|author-link=Stephen Hawking }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|So, facing possible futures of incalculable benefits and risks, the experts are surely doing everything possible to ensure the best outcome, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message saying, &amp;quot;We'll arrive in a few decades,&amp;quot; would we just reply, &amp;quot;OK, call us when you get here – we'll leave the lights on&amp;quot;? Probably not – but this is more or less what is happening with AI.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
所以，面对可能的收益和风险难以估量的未来，专家们肯定会尽一切可能确保最好的结果，对吗？错了。如果一个高级的外星文明给我们发了一条信息说，“我们几十年后就会到达”，我们会不会只回答，“好吧，你到了这里就打电话给我们——我们会开着灯的”？可能不会——但这或多或少就是人工智能正在发生的事情。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}} claims that there is no direct evolutionary motivation for an AI to be friendly to humans. Evolution has no inherent tendency to produce outcomes valued by humans, and there is little reason to expect an arbitrary optimisation process to promote an outcome desired by mankind, rather than inadvertently leading to an AI behaving in a way not intended by its creators.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom8&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nick Bostrom, [http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html &amp;quot;Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;], in ''Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making in Humans and in Artificial Intelligence'', Vol. 2, ed. I. Smit et al., Int. Institute of Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics, 2003, pp. 12–17&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]: [http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120611190606/http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf |date=2012-06-11 }}. Draft for a publication in ''Global Catastrophic Risk'' from August 31, 2006, retrieved July 18, 2011 (PDF file)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst9&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/06/11/the-stamp-collecting-device/ The Stamp Collecting Device, Nick Hay]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Anders Sandberg]] has also elaborated on this scenario, addressing various common counter-arguments.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;aleph&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2011/02/why_we_should_fear_the_paperclipper.html 'Why we should fear the Paperclipper'], 2011-02-14 entry of Sandberg's blog 'Andart'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; AI researcher [[Hugo de Garis]] suggests that artificial intelligences may simply eliminate the human race [[instrumental convergence|for access to scarce resources]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems10&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and humans would be powerless to stop them.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;forbes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;de Garis, Hugo. [https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/cosmist-terran-cyborgist-opinions-contributors-artificial-intelligence-09-hugo-de-garis.html &amp;quot;The Coming Artilect War&amp;quot;], Forbes.com, 22 June 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Alternatively, AIs developed under evolutionary pressure to promote their own survival could outcompete humanity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Berglas(2008) 声称, 没有直接的进化动机促使人工智能对人类友好。进化并不倾向于产生人类所重视的结果，也没有理由期望一个任意的优化过程会促进人类所期望的结果，而不是无意中导致人工智能以违背其创造者原有意图的方式行事。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom8&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nick Bostrom, [http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html &amp;quot;Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;], in ''Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making in Humans and in Artificial Intelligence'', Vol. 2, ed. I. Smit et al., Int. Institute of Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics, 2003, pp. 12–17&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]: [http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120611190606/http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf |date=2012-06-11 }}. Draft for a publication in ''Global Catastrophic Risk'' from August 31, 2006, retrieved July 18, 2011 (PDF file)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst9&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/06/11/the-stamp-collecting-device/ The Stamp Collecting Device, Nick Hay]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 安德斯·桑德伯格 Anders Sandberg 也也对这一情景进行了详细阐述，讨论了各种常见的反驳意见&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;aleph&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2011/02/why_we_should_fear_the_paperclipper.html 'Why we should fear the Paperclipper'], 2011-02-14 entry of Sandberg's blog 'Andart'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。人工智能研究员 Hugo de Garis&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems10&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  认为，人工智能可能会为了获取稀缺资源而直接消灭人类，并且人类将无力阻止它们。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;forbes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;de Garis, Hugo. [https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/cosmist-terran-cyborgist-opinions-contributors-artificial-intelligence-09-hugo-de-garis.html &amp;quot;The Coming Artilect War&amp;quot;], Forbes.com, 22 June 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 或者，在进化压力下为了促进自身生存而发展起来的人工智能可能会胜过人类。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bostrom (2002) discusses human extinction scenarios, and lists superintelligence as a possible cause:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bostrom(2002)讨论了人类灭绝的场景，并列举超级智能作为一个可能的原因:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person who asked the question.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the  matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person  who asked the question.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
当我们创造出第一个超级智能实体时，我们可能会犯错并给它一个导致人类毁灭的目标（假设它巨大的智力优势赋予它这样做的力量）。例如，我们可能会错误地将子目标提升为超级目标。我们告诉它去解决一个数学问题，然后它将太阳系中的所有物质变成一个巨大的计算装置，在这个过程中杀死了提出这个问题的人。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]], a significant problem in AI safety is that unfriendly artificial intelligence is likely to be much easier to create than friendly AI. While both require large advances in recursive optimisation process design, friendly AI also requires the ability to make goal structures invariant under self-improvement (or the AI could transform itself into something unfriendly) and a goal structure that aligns with human values and does not automatically destroy the human race. An unfriendly AI, on the other hand, can optimize for an arbitrary goal structure, which does not need to be invariant under self-modification.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst12&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html Coherent Extrapolated Volition, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, May 2004 ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100815055725/http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html |date=2010-08-15 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{harvtxt|Bill Hibbard|2014}} proposes an AI design that avoids several dangers including self-delusion,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JAGI2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| journal=Journal of Artificial General Intelligence| year=2012| volume=3| issue=1| title=Model-Based Utility Functions| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.| doi=10.2478/v10229-011-0013-5| page=1|arxiv = 1111.3934 |bibcode = 2012JAGI....3....1H | s2cid=8434596}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; unintended instrumental actions,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_56.pdf  Avoiding Unintended AI Behaviors.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle. [http://intelligence.org/2012/12/19/december-2012-newsletter/ This paper won the Machine Intelligence Research Institute's 2012 Turing Prize for the Best AGI Safety Paper].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and corruption of the reward generator.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; He also discusses social impacts of AI&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JET2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| url=http://jetpress.org/v17/hibbard.htm| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology| year=2008| volume=17| title=The Technology of Mind and a New Social Contract| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and testing AI.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12b&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_57.pdf  Decision Support for Safe AI Design|.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His 2001 book ''[[Super-Intelligent Machines]]'' advocates the need for public education about AI and public control over AI. It also proposed a simple design that was vulnerable to corruption of the reward generator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
按照[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]的观点，人工智能安全的一个重要问题是，不友好的人工智能可能比友好的人工智能更容易创建。虽然两者都需要递归优化过程的进步，但友好的人工智能还需要目标结构在自我改进过程中保持不变（否则人工智能可以将自己转变成不友好的东西），以及一个与人类价值观相一致且不会自动毁灭人类的目标结构。另一方面，一个不友好的人工智能可以针对任意的目标结构进行优化，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst12&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html Coherent Extrapolated Volition, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, May 2004 ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100815055725/http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html |date=2010-08-15 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 而目标结构不需要在自我改进过程中保持不变。Bill Hibbard (2014)提出了一种人工智能设计&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JAGI2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| journal=Journal of Artificial General Intelligence| year=2012| volume=3| issue=1| title=Model-Based Utility Functions| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.| doi=10.2478/v10229-011-0013-5| page=1|arxiv = 1111.3934 |bibcode = 2012JAGI....3....1H | s2cid=8434596}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ，可以避免包括自欺欺人&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_56.pdf  Avoiding Unintended AI Behaviors.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle. [http://intelligence.org/2012/12/19/december-2012-newsletter/ This paper won the Machine Intelligence Research Institute's 2012 Turing Prize for the Best AGI Safety Paper].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 、无意的工具性行为和奖励机制&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;的腐败等一些危险。他还讨论了人工智能&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JET2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| url=http://jetpress.org/v17/hibbard.htm| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology| year=2008| volume=17| title=The Technology of Mind and a New Social Contract| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;和人工智能测试的社会影响&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12b&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_57.pdf  Decision Support for Safe AI Design|.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。他在2001年出版的“超级智能机器Super-Intelligent Machines”一书中提倡对人工智能的公共教育和公众控制。该书还提出了一个简单的易受奖励机制的腐败影响的设计。It also proposed a simple design that was vulnerable to corruption of the reward generator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===社会生物进化的下一步===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Sociocultural evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{社会文化进化}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Major Evolutionary Transitions digital.jpg|thumb|upright=1.6|Schematic Timeline of Information and Replicators in the Biosphere: Gillings et al.'s &amp;quot;[[The Major Transitions in Evolution|major evolutionary transitions]]&amp;quot; in information processing.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Major_Evolutionary_Transitions_digital.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[档案：主要进化过渡数字.jpg|thumb |直立=1.6 |生物圈中信息和复制因子的示意时间线：Gillings等人在信息处理中的“[[进化中的主要转变|主要进化转变]]”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-99|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[99]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Biological vs. digital information.jpg|thumb|Amount of digital information worldwide (5{{e|21}} bytes) versus human genome information worldwide (10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;19&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; bytes) in 2014.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Biological_vs._digital_information.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[档案：生物vs。数字信息.jpg|2014年，全球数字信息总量（5{e | 21}字节）与全球人类基因组信息（10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;19&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;字节）的对比。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-99|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[99]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the technological singularity is usually seen as a sudden event, some scholars argue the current speed of change already fits this description.{{citation needed|date=April 2018}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然技术奇点通常被视为一个突发事件，但一些学者认为目前的变化速度已经符合这种描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, some argue that we are already in the midst of a [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|major evolutionary transition]] that merges technology, biology, and society. Digital technology has infiltrated the fabric of human society to a degree of indisputable and often life-sustaining dependence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
此外，有人认为，我们已经处在一个融合了技术、生物学和社会学的进化巨变major evolutionary transition之中。数字技术已经无可争辩地渗透到人类社会的结构中，而且生命的维持常常依赖数字技术。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2016 article in ''[[Trends in Ecology &amp;amp; Evolution]]'' argues that &amp;quot;humans already embrace fusions of biology and technology. We spend most of our waking time communicating through digitally mediated channels... we trust [[artificial intelligence]] with our lives through [[Anti-lock braking system|antilock braking in cars]] and [[autopilot]]s in planes... With one in three marriages in America beginning online, digital algorithms are also taking a role in human pair bonding and reproduction&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2016年发表在 生态学和进化进展 Trends in Ecology and Evolution 的一篇文章认为，“人类已经接受了生物和技术的融合。我们清醒时大部分时间都是通过数字媒介进行交流的……我们拿性命做担保信任汽车上的防抱死制动系统 Anti-lock braking system 和飞机上的自动巡航模式 autopilot……在美国，三分之一的婚姻都是在网络上开始的，数字算法也在人类配对和繁殖中也发挥了作用”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article further argues that from the perspective of the [[evolution]], several previous [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|Major Transitions in Evolution]] have transformed life through innovations in information storage and replication ([[RNA]], [[DNA]], [[multicellularity]], and [[culture]] and [[language]]). In the current stage of life's evolution, the carbon-based biosphere has generated a [[cognitive system]] (humans) capable of creating technology that will result in a comparable [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|evolutionary transition]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
文章进一步指出，从进化的角度来看，以前的几次[[进化]]巨变通过信息存储和复制方式（如RNA、DNA、多细胞性、文化和语言的出现）的创新来改变生命。在生命进化的当前阶段，以碳为基础的生物圈产生了一个认知系统（人类），能够创造技术，从而导致一个类似的进化变迁。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The digital information created by humans has reached a similar magnitude to biological information in the biosphere. Since the 1980s, the quantity of digital information stored has doubled about every 2.5 years, reaching about 5 [[zettabyte]]s in 2014 (5{{e|21}} bytes).{{Citation needed|date=April 2019}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
人类创造的数字信息已经达到了与生物圈中生物信息相似的规模。自20世纪80年代以来，存储的数字信息量大约每2.5年翻一番，2014年达到约5泽字节（5e21字节）。{{Citation needed|date=April 2019}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In biological terms, there are 7.2&amp;amp;nbsp;billion humans on the planet, each having a genome of 6.2&amp;amp;nbsp;billion nucleotides. Since one byte can encode four nucleotide pairs, the individual genomes of every human on the planet could be encoded by approximately 1{{e|19}} bytes. The digital realm stored 500 times more information than this in 2014 (see figure). The total amount of DNA contained in all of the cells on Earth is estimated to be about 5.3{{e|37}} base pairs, equivalent to 1.325{{e|37}} bytes of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在生物学方面，地球上有72亿人，每个人的基因组有62亿个核苷酸。由于一个字节可以编码四个核苷酸对，地球上每个人类的个体基因组可以编码大约1{e | 19}字节。2014年，数字领域存储的信息是这个数字的500倍（见图）。据估计，地球上所有细胞所含的DNA总量约为5.3{e | 37}碱基对，相当于1.325{e | 37}字节的信息。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If growth in digital storage continues at its current rate of 30–38% compound annual growth per year,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; it will rival the total information content contained in all of the DNA in all of the cells on Earth in about 110 years. This would represent a doubling of the amount of information stored in the biosphere across a total time period of just 150 years&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal |url=http://escholarship.org/uc/item/38f4b791 |doi=10.1016/j.tree.2015.12.013|pmid=26777788|title=Information in the Biosphere: Biological and Digital Worlds|journal=Trends in Ecology &amp;amp; Evolution|volume=31|issue=3|pages=180–189|year=2016|last1=Kemp|first1=D. J.|last2=Hilbert|first2=M.|last3=Gillings|first3=M. R.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如果数字存储以目前每年30-38%的复合年增长率继续增长，它将在大约110年内与地球上所有细胞中的所有DNA所包含的信息总量相抗衡。这将意味着在仅仅150年的时间里，生物圈中储存的信息量翻了一番”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===对人类社会的影响===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{further|Artificial intelligence in fiction}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{小说中的人工智能}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In February 2009, under the auspices of the [[Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence]] (AAAI), [[Eric Horvitz]] chaired a meeting of leading computer scientists, artificial intelligence researchers and roboticists at Asilomar in Pacific Grove, California. The goal was to discuss the potential impact of the hypothetical possibility that robots could become self-sufficient and able to make their own decisions. They discussed the extent to which computers and robots might be able to acquire [[autonomy]], and to what degree they could use such abilities to pose threats or hazards.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009年2月，在人工智能促进协会Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence(AAAI) 的主持下，Eric Horvitz在加利福尼亚州Pacific Grove 的 Asilomar 主持了一次由主要计算机科学家、人工智能研究人员和机器人学家参加的会议。其目的是讨论机器人能够自给自足并能够自己做决定的假设可能性的潜在影响。他们讨论了计算机和机器人能够在多大程度上获得自主性 autonomy，以及在多大程度上可以利用这些能力对人类构成威胁或危险。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some machines are programmed with various forms of semi-autonomy, including the ability to locate their own power sources and choose targets to attack with weapons. Also, some [[computer viruses]] can evade elimination and, according to scientists in attendance, could therefore be said to have reached a &amp;quot;cockroach&amp;quot; stage of machine intelligence. The conference attendees noted that self-awareness as depicted in science-fiction is probably unlikely, but that other potential hazards and pitfalls exist.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?_r=1&amp;amp;ref=todayspaper Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man] By JOHN MARKOFF, NY Times, July 26, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有些机器被编程成各种形式的半自主 semi-autonomy，包括定位自己的电源和选择武器攻击的目标等。此外，有些计算机病毒可以避免被消除，根据与会科学家的说法，可以说已经达到了机器智能的“蟑螂”阶段。与会者指出，科幻小说中描述的自我意识可能不太可能，但也存在其他潜在的危险和陷阱。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?_r=1&amp;amp;ref=todayspaper Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man] By JOHN MARKOFF, NY Times, July 26, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank S. Robinson predicts that once humans achieve a machine with the intelligence of a human, scientific and technological problems will be tackled and solved with brainpower far superior to that of humans. He notes that artificial systems are able to share data more directly than humans, and predicts that this would result in a global network of super-intelligence that would dwarf human capability.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |last=Robinson |first=Frank S. |title=The Human Future: Upgrade or Replacement? |magazine=[[The Humanist]] |date=27 June 2013 |url=https://thehumanist.com/magazine/july-august-2013/features/the-human-future-upgrade-or-replacement}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Robinson also discusses how vastly different the future would potentially look after such an intelligence explosion. One example of this is solar energy, where the Earth receives vastly more solar energy than humanity captures, so capturing more of that solar energy would hold vast promise for civilizational growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank S. Robinson 预言，一旦人类实现了具有人类智能的机器，科学技术问题将被远远优于人类的智力来解决。他指出，人工系统能够比人类更直接地共享数据，并预测这将导致一个全球的超级智能网络，使人类的能力相形见绌。Robinson还讨论了在这样一次智能爆炸之后，未来可能会有多大的不同。其中一个例子就是太阳能，地球接收到的太阳能远远多于人类捕获的太阳能，因此捕捉更多的太阳能将为文明发展带来巨大的希望。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==硬起飞与软起飞==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Recursive self-improvement.svg|thumb|upright=1.6|In this sample recursive self-improvement scenario, humans modifying an AI's architecture would be able to double its performance every three years through, for example, 30 generations before exhausting all feasible improvements (left). If instead the AI is smart enough to modify its own architecture as well as human researchers can, its time required to complete a redesign halves with each generation, and it progresses all 30 feasible generations in six years (right).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky-global-risk&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]. &amp;quot;Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk.&amp;quot; Global catastrophic risks (2008).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Recursive_self-improvement.svg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[文件：在这个示例递归自我改进场景中，修改人工智能体系结构的人可以每三年将其性能提高一倍，例如，30代人，然后用尽所有可行的改进（左）。相反，如果人工智能足够聪明，能够像人类研究人员那样修改自己的架构，那么每一代人完成一次重新设计所需的时间将减半，并且它在6年内将所有30代可行的代都推进（右图）。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky-global-risk&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]. &amp;quot;Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk.&amp;quot; Global catastrophic risks (2008).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a hard takeoff scenario, an AGI rapidly self-improves, &amp;quot;taking control&amp;quot; of the world (perhaps in a matter of hours), too quickly for significant human-initiated error correction or for a gradual tuning of the AGI's goals. In a soft takeoff scenario, AGI still becomes far more powerful than humanity, but at a human-like pace (perhaps on the order of decades), on a timescale where ongoing human interaction and correction can effectively steer the AGI's development.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bugaj, Stephan Vladimir, and Ben Goertzel. &amp;quot;Five ethical imperatives and their implications for human-AGI interaction.&amp;quot; Dynamical Psychology (2007).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sotala, Kaj, and Roman V. Yampolskiy. &amp;quot;Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a survey.&amp;quot; Physica Scripta 90.1 (2014): 018001.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在硬起飞的情况下，通用人工智能 AGI 迅速自我完善并“掌控”世界（也许在几个小时内）。速度太快，以致于无法进行重大的人为纠错或对 AGI 的目标进行逐步调整。在软起飞的情况下，虽然 AGI 仍然比人类强大得多，但却以一种类似人类的速度进步（也许是几十年的数量级），持续的人类互动和修正可以有效地引导AGI 的发展。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bugaj, Stephan Vladimir, and Ben Goertzel. &amp;quot;Five ethical imperatives and their implications for human-AGI interaction.&amp;quot; Dynamical Psychology (2007).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sotala, Kaj, and Roman V. Yampolskiy. &amp;quot;Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a survey.&amp;quot; Physica Scripta 90.1 (2014): 018001.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ramez Naam]] argues against a hard takeoff. He has pointed that we already see recursive self-improvement by superintelligences, such as corporations. [[Intel]], for example, has &amp;quot;the collective brainpower of tens of thousands of humans and probably millions of CPU cores to... design better CPUs!&amp;quot; However, this has not led to a hard takeoff; rather, it has led to a soft takeoff in the form of [[Moore's law]].&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Further&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=The Singularity Is Further Than It Appears|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/the-singularity-is-further-tha.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Naam further points out that the computational complexity of higher intelligence may be much greater than linear, such that &amp;quot;creating a mind of intelligence 2 is probably ''more'' than twice as hard as creating a mind of intelligence 1.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Ascend&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=Why AIs Won't Ascend in the Blink of an Eye - Some Math|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/why-ais-wont-ascend-in-blink-of-an-eye.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ramez Naam反对硬起飞。他指出，我们已经看到企业等超级智能体的递归式地自我完善。例如，Intel拥有“数万人的集体脑力，可能还有数百万个CPU核心……来设计更好的CPU！”然而，这并没有导致硬起飞；相反，它以摩尔定律的形式实现了软起飞&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Further&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=The Singularity Is Further Than It Appears|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/the-singularity-is-further-tha.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。Naam进一步指出，高等智能的计算复杂度可能比线性大得多，因此，“创建智能系统2的难度可能两倍于是创建智能系统1的两倍多。”&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Ascend&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=Why AIs Won't Ascend in the Blink of an Eye - Some Math|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/why-ais-wont-ascend-in-blink-of-an-eye.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[J. Storrs Hall]] believes that &amp;quot;many of the more commonly seen scenarios for overnight hard takeoff are circular – they seem to assume hyperhuman capabilities at the ''starting point'' of the self-improvement process&amp;quot; in order for an AI to be able to make the dramatic, domain-general improvements required for takeoff. Hall suggests that rather than recursively self-improving its hardware, software, and infrastructure all on its own, a fledgling AI would be better off specializing in one area where it was most effective and then buying the remaining components on the marketplace, because the quality of products on the marketplace continually improves, and the AI would have a hard time keeping up with the cutting-edge technology used by the rest of the world.&amp;lt;ref name=Hall2008&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Hall|first=J. Storrs|title=Engineering Utopia|journal=Artificial General Intelligence, 2008: Proceedings of the First AGI Conference|date=2008|pages=460–467|url=http://www.agiri.org/takeoff_hall.pdf|accessdate=16 May 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J.Storrs Hall认为，“许多常见的一夜之间出现的硬起飞场景都是循环论证——它们似乎在自我提升过程的起点上假设了超人类的能力”，以便人工智能能够实现起飞所需的戏剧性的、领域通用的改进。Hall认为，一个初出茅庐的人工智能与其靠自己不断地自我改进硬件、软件和基础设施，不如专注于一个它最有效的领域，然后在市场上购买剩余的组件，因为市场上产品的质量不断提高，人工智能将很难跟上世界其他地方使用的尖端技术。&amp;lt;ref name=Hall2008&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Hall|first=J. Storrs|title=Engineering Utopia|journal=Artificial General Intelligence, 2008: Proceedings of the First AGI Conference|date=2008|pages=460–467|url=http://www.agiri.org/takeoff_hall.pdf|accessdate=16 May 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ben Goertzel]] agrees with Hall's suggestion that a new human-level AI would do well to use its intelligence to accumulate wealth. The AI's talents might inspire companies and governments to disperse its software throughout society. Goertzel is skeptical of a hard five minute takeoff but speculates that a takeoff from human to superhuman level on the order of five years is reasonable. Goerzel refers to this scenario as a &amp;quot;semihard takeoff&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Goertzel2014&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Goertzel|first1=Ben|title=Superintelligence — Semi-hard Takeoff Scenarios|url=http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/09/26/superintelligence-semi-hard-takeoff-scenarios/|accessdate=25 October 2014|agency=h+ Magazine|date=26 Sep 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ben Goertzel 同意 Hall 的意见，即一种新的人类级别的人工智能将很好地利用其智能来积累财富。人工智能的天赋可能会激励公司和政府将其软件分散到整个社会。Goertzel 对5分钟的硬起飞持怀疑态度，但他推测从人类到超人的水平，以5年的速度起飞是合理的。Goerzel将这种情况称为“半硬起飞semihard takeoff”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Goertzel2014&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Goertzel|first1=Ben|title=Superintelligence — Semi-hard Takeoff Scenarios|url=http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/09/26/superintelligence-semi-hard-takeoff-scenarios/|accessdate=25 October 2014|agency=h+ Magazine|date=26 Sep 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Max More]] disagrees, arguing that if there were only a few superfast human-level AIs, that they would not radically change the world, as they would still depend on other people to get things done and would still have human cognitive constraints. Even if all superfast AIs worked on intelligence augmentation, it is unclear why they would do better in a discontinuous way than existing human cognitive scientists at producing super-human intelligence, although the rate of progress would increase. More further argues that a superintelligence would not transform the world overnight: a superintelligence would need to engage with existing, slow human systems to accomplish physical impacts on the world. &amp;quot;The need for collaboration, for organization, and for putting ideas into physical changes will ensure that all the old rules are not thrown out overnight or even within years.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=More&amp;gt;{{cite web|last1=More|first1=Max|title=Singularity Meets Economy|url=http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#more|accessdate=10 November 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Max More不同意这一观点，他认为，如果只有少数超高速的人类水平的人工智能，它们不会从根本上改变世界，因为它们仍将依赖人来完成任务，并且仍然会受到人类认知的限制。即使所有的超高速人工智能都致力于智能增强，但目前还不清楚为什么它们在产生超人类智能方面比现有的人类认知科学家做得更好，尽管进展速度会加快。更进一步指出，超级智能不会在一夜之间改变世界：超级智能需要与现有的、缓慢的人类系统进行接触，以完成对世界的物理影响。”合作、组织和将想法付诸实际变革的需要将确保所有旧规则不会在一夜之间甚至几年内被抛弃。”&amp;lt;ref name=More&amp;gt;{{cite web|last1=More|first1=Max|title=Singularity Meets Economy|url=http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#more|accessdate=10 November 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==永生==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his 2005 book, ''[[The Singularity is Near]]'', [[Ray Kurzweil|Kurzweil]] suggests that medical advances would allow people to protect their bodies from the effects of aging, making the [[Life extension|life expectancy limitless]]. Kurzweil argues that the technological advances in medicine would allow us to continuously repair and replace defective components in our bodies, prolonging life to an undetermined age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Singularity Is Near'', p.&amp;amp;nbsp;215.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Kurzweil further buttresses his argument by discussing current bio-engineering advances. Kurzweil suggests [[somatic gene therapy]]; after synthetic viruses with specific genetic information, the next step would be to apply this technology to gene therapy, replacing human DNA with synthesized genes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Singularity is Near'', p.&amp;amp;nbsp;216.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在Kurzweil 2005年出版的《奇点近了The Singularity is Near》一书中，他指出，医学的进步将使人们能够保护自己的身体免受衰老的影响，从而延长寿命。Kurzweil认为，医学的技术进步将使我们能够不断地修复和更换我们身体中有缺陷的部件，从而将寿命延长到某个他无法确定的年龄。Kurzweil通过讨论当前的生物工程进展进一步支持了他的论点。Kurzweil建议了体细胞基因疗法somatic gene therapy；在合成具有特定遗传信息的病毒之后，下一步则是把这项技术应用到基因治疗中，用合成的基因取代人类的DNA。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[K. Eric Drexler]], one of the founders of [[nanotechnology]], postulated cell repair devices, including ones operating within cells and utilizing as yet hypothetical [[biological machine]]s, in his 1986 book ''[[Engines of Creation]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[K.Eric Drexler]]，纳米技术nanotechnology的创始人之一，在他1986年的著作“创造的引擎Engines of Creation”中，假设了细胞修复设备，包括在细胞内运行并利用目前假设的[[生物机器]]的设备。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Richard Feynman]], it was his former graduate student and collaborator [[Albert Hibbs]] who originally suggested to him (circa 1959) the idea of a ''medical'' use for Feynman's theoretical micromachines. Hibbs suggested that certain repair machines might one day be reduced in size to the point that it would, in theory, be possible to (as Feynman put it) &amp;quot;[[Molecular machine#Biological|swallow the doctor]]&amp;quot;. The idea was incorporated into Feynman's 1959 essay ''[[There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom]].''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url = http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html|title = There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom|first = Richard P.|last = Feynman |author-link = Richard Feynman|date = December 1959|url-status = dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100211190050/http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html|archive-date = 2010-02-11}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
根据[[Richard Feynman]]，他过去的研究生和合作者[[Albert Hibbs]]最初向他建议（大约在1959年）费曼理论微型机械Feynman's theoretical micromachines的“医学”用途。Hibbs认为，有一天，理论上某些修理机器的尺寸可能会被尽可能地缩小（正如费曼所说的那样）“[[Molecular machine#Biological|swallow the doctor]]”。这个想法被收入了费曼1959年的文章“在底部有很多空间[There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beyond merely extending the operational life of the physical body, [[Jaron Lanier]] argues for a form of immortality called &amp;quot;Digital Ascension&amp;quot; that involves &amp;quot;people dying in the flesh and being uploaded into a computer and remaining conscious&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |title = You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto |last = Lanier |first = Jaron |author-link = Jaron Lanier |publisher = [[Alfred A. Knopf]] |year = 2010 |isbn = 978-0307269645 |location = New York, NY |page = [https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780307269645/page/26 26] |url-access = registration |url = https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780307269645 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
除了仅仅延长物质身体的运行寿命之外，[[Jaron Lanier]]还主张一种称为“数字提升Digital Ascension”的不朽形式，即“人在肉体层面死亡，意识被上传到电脑里并保持清醒”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==概念史==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A paper by Mahendra Prasad, published in ''[[AI Magazine]]'', asserts that the 18th-century mathematician [[Marquis de Condorcet]] was the first person to hypothesize and mathematically model an intelligence explosion and its effects on humanity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Prasad|first=Mahendra|year=2019|title=Nicolas de Condorcet and the First Intelligence Explosion Hypothesis|journal=AI Magazine|volume=40|issue=1|pages=29–33|doi=10.1609/aimag.v40i1.2855}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahendra Prasad在“[[人工智能杂志]]”上发表的一篇论文断言，18世纪的数学家[[Marquis de Condorcet]]是第一个对智能爆炸及其对人类影响进行假设和数学建模的人。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An early description of the idea was made in [[John Wood Campbell Jr.]]'s 1932 short story &amp;quot;The last evolution&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1932年[[约翰.伍德.坎贝尔]的短篇小说《最后的进化》（the last evolution）对这一想法作了早期的描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his 1958 obituary for [[John von Neumann]], Ulam recalled a conversation with von Neumann about the &amp;quot;ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=mathematical/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ulam在1958年为约翰·冯·诺依曼写的讣告中，回忆了与冯·诺依曼的一次对话：“技术的不断进步和人类生活方式的变化，这使我们似乎接近了种族历史上某些基本的奇点，超出了这些奇点，人类的事务就不能继续下去了。”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1965, Good wrote his essay postulating an &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; of recursive self-improvement of a machine intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1965年，古德写了一篇文章，假设机器智能的自我改进迭代是“智能爆炸”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981, [[Stanisław Lem]] published his [[science fiction]] novel ''[[Golem XIV]]''. It describes a military AI computer (Golem XIV) who obtains consciousness and starts to increase his own intelligence, moving towards personal technological singularity. Golem XIV was originally created to aid its builders in fighting wars, but as its intelligence advances to a much higher level than that of humans, it stops being interested in the military requirement because it finds them lacking internal logical consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1981年，[[Stanisław Lem]]出版了他的[[科幻小说]]小说“[[Golem XIV]]”。它描述了一台军用人工智能计算机（Golem XIV）获得了意识并开始增加自己的智能，朝着个体的技术奇点迈进。Golem XIV最初是为了帮助它的建造者打仗，但随着它的智力发展到比人类更高的水平，它不再对军事感兴趣，因为它发现它们缺乏内在的逻辑一致性。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1983, [[Vernor Vinge]] greatly popularized Good's intelligence explosion in a number of writings, first addressing the topic in print in the January 1983 issue of ''[[Omni (magazine)|Omni]]'' magazine. In this op-ed piece, Vinge seems to have been the first to use the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in a way that was specifically tied to the creation of intelligent machines:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google4&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1983年，[[Vernor Vinge]]在许多著作中极大地普及了Good的智能爆炸，他第一次在1983年1月出版的“[[Omni”杂志上提到了这一主题。在这篇评论文章中，Vinge似乎是第一个使用“奇点”一词的人，并将“奇点”的概念特别地与智能机器的创造进行联系：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|We will soon create intelligences greater than our own. When this happens, human history will have reached a kind of singularity, an intellectual transition as impenetrable as the knotted space-time at the center of a black hole, and the world will pass far beyond our understanding. This singularity, I believe, already haunts a number of science-fiction writers. It makes realistic extrapolation to an interstellar future impossible. To write a story set more than a century hence, one needs a nuclear war in between ... so that the world remains intelligible.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{我们很快就会创造出比我们自己更强大的智能。当这种情况发生时，人类历史将达到一种奇点，一种如同黑洞中心打结的时空一样难以逾越的知识转变，世界将远远超出我们的理解。我相信，这种奇点已经困扰了许多科幻作家。这使得对星际未来的现实推断变得不可能。要写一个多世纪以后的故事，科幻小说家需要一场核战争……这样世界就可以理解了。}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1985, in &amp;quot;The Time Scale of Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;, artificial intelligence researcher [[Ray Solomonoff]] articulated mathematically the related notion of what he called an &amp;quot;infinity point&amp;quot;: if a research community of human-level self-improving AIs take four years to double their own speed, then two years, then one year and so on, their capabilities increase infinitely in finite time.&amp;lt;ref name=chalmers /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;std&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1985年，在《人工智能的时间尺度The Time Scale of Artificial Intelligence》一书中，人工智能研究人员[[Ray Solomonoff]]以数学的方式阐述了他所说的“无限点”的相关概念：如果一个人类水平的能自我改进人工智能的研究社区需要四年时间使其速度加倍，那么两年，然后一年，依此类推，它们的能力在有限的时间内无限增长。&amp;lt;ref name=chalmers/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=“std”/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vinge's 1993 article &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; spread widely on the internet and helped to popularize the idea.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google5&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; This article contains the statement, &amp;quot;Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.&amp;quot; Vinge argues that science-fiction authors cannot write realistic post-singularity characters who surpass the human intellect, as the thoughts of such an intellect would be beyond the ability of humans to express.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vinge 1993年的文章《未来的技术奇点：如何在后人类时代生存The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era》在互联网上广为传播，普及了这一理念。“在三十年内，我们将拥有创造超人智慧的技术手段。不久之后，人类时代将结束。”Vinge认为，科幻小说作者无法写出超越人类智力的现实主义后奇点人物，因为这种智力的思想将超出人类的表达能力。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2000, [[Bill Joy]], a prominent technologist and a co-founder of [[Sun Microsystems]], voiced concern over the potential dangers of the singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2000年，著名的技术专家和 Sun Microsystems 的联合创始人 Bill Joy，表达了对奇点潜在危险的担忧。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2005, Kurzweil published ''[[The Singularity is Near]]''. Kurzweil's publicity campaign included an appearance on ''[[The Daily Show with Jon Stewart]]''.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2005年，库兹韦尔发表了《奇点临近 The Singularity is Near》。库兹韦尔的宣传活动包括参加“ Jon Stewart 的每日秀 The Daily Show with Jon Stewart”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2007, [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]] suggested that many of the varied definitions that have been assigned to &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; are mutually incompatible rather than mutually supporting.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sandberg, Anders. &amp;quot;An overview of models of technological singularity.&amp;quot; Roadmaps to AGI and the Future of AGI Workshop, Lugano, Switzerland, March. Vol. 8. 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, Kurzweil extrapolates current technological trajectories past the arrival of self-improving AI or superhuman intelligence, which Yudkowsky argues represents a tension with both I. J. Good's proposed discontinuous upswing in intelligence and Vinge's thesis on unpredictability.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2007年，Eliezer Yudkowsky指出，“奇点”被赋予的许多不同的定义是互不兼容而不是相互支持的&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sandberg, Anders. &amp;quot;An overview of models of technological singularity.&amp;quot; Roadmaps to AGI and the Future of AGI Workshop, Lugano, Switzerland, March. Vol. 8. 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;。例如，库兹韦尔推断了在自我提升的人工智能或超人智能到来之前的当前技术轨迹。Yudkowsky 认为，这与I.J.Good 提出的智能的不连续上升和 Vinge 关于不可预测性的论点存在矛盾。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2009, Kurzweil and [[X-Prize]] founder [[Peter Diamandis]] announced the establishment of [[Singularity University]], a nonaccredited private institute whose stated mission is &amp;quot;to educate, inspire and empower leaders to apply exponential technologies to address humanity's grand challenges.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Funded by [[Google]], [[Autodesk]], [[ePlanet Ventures]], and a group of [[High tech|technology industry]] leaders, Singularity University is based at [[NASA]]'s [[Ames Research Center]] in [[Mountain View, California|Mountain View]], [[California]]. The not-for-profit organization runs an annual ten-week graduate program during summer that covers ten different technology and allied tracks, and a series of executive programs throughout the year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009年，Kurzweil和X-Prize的创始人Peter Diamandis宣布成立奇点大学，这是一所未经认证的私立学院，其宣称的使命是“教育、激励和赋能领导者来使用指数技术应对人类的重大挑战&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 。”奇点大学由Google、Autodesk、ePlanet Ventures和一群高科技产业的领导团队资助，总部设在位于加州山景城的美国宇航局 NASA 的 艾姆斯研究中心 Ames Research Center。这家非营利组织在每年夏季举办为期十周的研究生课程，涵盖十种不同的技术和相关领域，并全年举办一系列高管课程。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==在政治中==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2007, the Joint Economic Committee of the [[United States Congress]] released a report about the future of nanotechnology. It predicts significant technological and political changes in the mid-term future, including possible technological singularity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vyp1AwAAQBAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA375|title=Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society|first=David H.|last=Guston|date=14 July 2010|publisher=SAGE Publications|isbn=978-1-4522-6617-6}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web | url=http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20120213_TheFutureisComingSoonerThanYouThink.pdf | title=Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think | publisher=Joint Economic Committee | date=March 2007}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2007/03/congress_and_th.html|title=Congress and the Singularity}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2007年，美国国会联合经济委员会 the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress 发布了一份关于纳米技术的未来的报告。它预测在中期的未来会发生诸多重大的技术和政治变化，包括可能的技术奇点。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vyp1AwAAQBAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA375|title=Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society|first=David H.|last=Guston|date=14 July 2010|publisher=SAGE Publications|isbn=978-1-4522-6617-6}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web | url=http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20120213_TheFutureisComingSoonerThanYouThink.pdf | title=Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think | publisher=Joint Economic Committee | date=March 2007}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2007/03/congress_and_th.html|title=Congress and the Singularity}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former President of the United States [[Barack Obama]] spoke about singularity in his interview to ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' in 2016:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.wired.com/2016/10/president-obama-mit-joi-ito-interview/|title=Barack Obama Talks AI, Robo Cars, and the Future of the World|first=Scott|last=Dadich|journal=Wired|date=12 October 2016}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2016年，美国前总统巴拉克·奥巴马 Barack Obama 在接受《连线》杂志采访时谈到了奇点:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.wired.com/2016/10/president-obama-mit-joi-ito-interview/|title=Barack Obama Talks AI, Robo Cars, and the Future of the World|first=Scott|last=Dadich|journal=Wired|date=12 October 2016}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|text=One thing that we haven't talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren't spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about &amp;quot;Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?&amp;quot;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that we haven't talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren't spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about &amp;quot;Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有一件事我们没有谈得太多，我还想回过去谈谈，那就是我们真的必须考虑对经济的影响。因为大多数人现在并没有花太多时间去担心奇点，而是在担心“好吧，我的工作会被机器取代吗？”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==参考文献==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20010527181244/http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Authors/Computing/Good-IJ/SCtFUM.html |archive-date = 2001-05-27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archive-url =  https://web.archive.org/web/20010527181244/http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/authors/computing/good-ij/sctfum.html  | archive-date = 2001-05-27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Portal| Technology}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Accelerating change}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| series = Advances in Computers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
系列 = 计算机的进步&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial consciousness}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| isbn = 9780120121069| title = Advances in Computers Volume 6&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9780120121069&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial intelligence arms race}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl = 10919/89424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl = 10919/89424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial intelligence in fiction}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Brain simulation}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Brain–computer interface}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Emerging technologies}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Fermi paradox}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Some Skepticism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些怀疑论者&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Flynn effect}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Robin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一名: 罗宾&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Futures studies}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Global brain}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{sectionlink|Human intelligence|Improving intelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year = 1998&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1998年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Mind uploading}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Neuroenhancement}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| accessdate = 2009-06-19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009-06-19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Outline of transhumanism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20090828023928/http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年3月24日 | archiveurl =  https://web.archive.org/web/20090828023928/http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Robot learning}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archivedate = 2009-08-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archivedate = 2009-08-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Singularitarianism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological determinism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological revolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first=Anthony&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一名: 安东尼&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological unemployment}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last=Berglas&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Berglas&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title=Artificial Intelligence will Kill our Grandchildren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
人工智能会杀死我们的孙子&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year=2008&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2008年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TODO: end here&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Citations引用 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://berglas.org/Articles/AIKillGrandchildren/AIKillGrandchildren.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://berglas.org/articles/aikillgrandchildren/aikillgrandchildren.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Reflist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2008-06-13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2008-06-13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|refs =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url = http://www.technologyreview.com/view/425733/paul-allen-the-singularity-isnt-near |title= Paul Allen: The Singularity Isn't Near |access-date=2015-04-12 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Nick&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一 = 尼克&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation | first=Bill | last=Joy | author-link=Bill Joy | title=Why the future doesn't need us | journal=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired Magazine]] | volume=8 | date= April 2000 | issue=4 |url = https://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html | access-date=2007-08-07 | isbn=978-0-670-03249-5 | publisher=Viking Adult }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Bostrom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
博斯特罗姆&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Nick Bostrom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
作者: 尼克 · 博斯特罗姆&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php |title=Singularly Silly Singularity |access-date=2009-04-13 |first1=PZ |last1=Myers |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090228161422/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php |archive-date=2009-02-28 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title=Existential Risks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
存在风险&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
进化与技术杂志&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil.htm Modis, Theodore. ''The Singularity Myth''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121030072409/http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil.htm |date=2012-10-30 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year=2002&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2002年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| volume=9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| volume = 9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Anders Sandberg|Sandberg, Anders]]. [http://agi-conf.org/2010/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/agi10singmodels2.pdf An overview of models of technological singularity]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date=2007-08-07&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2007-08-07&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3854/global-catastrophic-risks-report.pdf|title=GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS SURVEY (2008) Technical Report 2008/1 Published by Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University. Anders Sandberg and Nick Bostrom|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110516021945/http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3854/global-catastrophic-risks-report.pdf|archivedate=2011-05-16}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Krazit, Tom. [http://news.cnet.com/2100-1006_3-6119618.html Intel pledges 80 cores in five years], ''CNET News'', 26 September 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Bill&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 第一 = 比尔&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;dreyfus&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Harvnb|Dreyfus|Dreyfus|2000|p=xiv}}: 'The truth is that human intelligence can never be replaced with machine intelligence simply because we are not ourselves &amp;quot;thinking machines&amp;quot; in the sense in which that term is commonly understood.' {{Harvtxt|Hawking|1998}}: 'Some people say that computers can never show true intelligence whatever that may be. But it seems to me that if very complicated chemical molecules can operate in humans to make them intelligent then equally complicated electronic circuits can also make computers act in an intelligent way. And if they are intelligent they can presumably design computers that have even greater complexity and intelligence.'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Bill Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 作者链接 = Bill Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Ethical Artificial Intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Ethical Artificial Intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{IMDb title|847969|Episode dated 23 August 2006}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| date = 5 November 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 日期 = 2014年11月5日&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| eprint=1411.1373&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1411.1373&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, ''[[The Age of Spiritual Machines]]'', Viking; 1999,  {{ISBN|978-0-14-028202-3}}. pp. [https://books.google.com/books?id=ldAGcyh0bkUC&amp;amp;pg=PA630 30, 32]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| class = cs.AI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年10月12日 | class = cs.AI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| ref=harv&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= harv&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Theodore Modis, [http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/TedWEB.htm Forecasting the Growth of Complexity and Change], ''Technological Forecasting &amp;amp; Social Change'', 69, No 4, 2002 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120615054939/http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/TedWEB.htm |date=June 15, 2012 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dooling, Richard. ''[[Rapture for the Geeks|Rapture for the Geeks: When AI Outsmarts IQ]]'' (2008), [https://books.google.com/books?id=VbBRsv1lxsUC&amp;amp;lpg=PP1&amp;amp;pg=PA88 p. 88]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dooling, Richard. ''[[Rapture for the Geeks|Rapture for the Geeks: When AI Outsmarts IQ]]'' (2008), [https://books.google.com/books?id=VbBRsv1lxsUC&amp;amp;lpg=PP1&amp;amp;pg=PA89 p. 89]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/nano/singularity-nanotech-or-ai |title=h+ Magazine &amp;amp;#124; Covering technological, scientific, and cultural trends that are changing human beings in fundamental ways |publisher=Hplusmagazine.com |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/whos-who-in-the-singularity |title=Who's Who In The Singularity – IEEE Spectrum |publisher=Spectrum.ieee.org |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1958-64-03/S0002-9904-1958-10189-5/S0002-9904-1958-10189-5.pdf | last=Ulam|first=Stanislaw |title=Tribute to John von Neumann|publisher=Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society|volume=64, #3, part 2|date=May 1958|page=5}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |title=More blades good |author=Anonymous |newspaper=The Economist |date=18 March 2006 |url=http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5624861 |location=London |page=85 |volume=378  |issue=8469 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html |title=Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards |website=nickbostrom.com }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news |url = https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html |newspaper = The New York Times | first=John | last=Markoff | title=Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced by Cheaper Software | date=2011-03-04}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near, pp. 135–136. Penguin Group, 2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, ''The Singularity is Near'', Penguin Group, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near, p. 9. Penguin Group, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Eschatology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 末世论&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Futures studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 未来研究&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singularityu.org/ Singularity University] at its official website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Philosophy of artificial intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
范畴: 人工智能哲学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Existential risk from artificial general intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 来自人工一般智能的世界末日&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;This page was moved from [[wikipedia:en:Technological singularity]]. Its edit history can be viewed at [[技术奇点/edithistory]]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:待整理页面]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Alchemist</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E5%A5%87%E7%82%B9&amp;diff=25830</id>
		<title>技术奇点</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E5%A5%87%E7%82%B9&amp;diff=25830"/>
		<updated>2021-08-15T05:44:23Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Alchemist：&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;此词条暂由水流心不竞、嘉树初译，徐培审校，带来阅读不便，请见谅。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Redirect|The Singularity||Singularity (disambiguation)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Redirect |奇点| |奇点（释疑)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{short description|Hypothetical point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{简介}技术增长变得不可控制和不可逆转的假设时间点}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The '''technological singularity'''—also, simply, '''the singularity'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cadwalladr, Carole (2014). &amp;quot;[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/22/robots-google-ray-kurzweil-terminator-singularity-artificial-intelligence Are the robots about to rise? Google's new director of engineering thinks so…]&amp;quot; ''The Guardian''. Guardian News and Media Limited.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;—is a [[hypothetical]] point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web |title=Collection of sources defining &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; |url=http://www.singularitysymposium.com/definition-of-singularity.html |website=singularitysymposium.com |accessdate=17 April 2019}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book |author1=Eden, Amnon H. |author2=Moor, James H. |title=Singularity hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment |date=2012 |publisher=Springer |location=Dordrecht |isbn=9783642325601 |pages=1–2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to the most popular version of the singularity hypothesis, called [[Technological singularity#Intelligence explosion|intelligence explosion]], an upgradable [[intelligent agent]] will eventually enter a &amp;quot;runaway reaction&amp;quot; of self-improvement cycles, each new and more intelligent generation appearing more and more rapidly, causing an &amp;quot;explosion&amp;quot; in intelligence and resulting in a powerful [[superintelligence]] that qualitatively far surpasses all [[human intelligence]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
技术奇点Technological singularity——简称 奇点 Singularity &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cadwalladr, Carole (2014). &amp;quot;[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/22/robots-google-ray-kurzweil-terminator-singularity-artificial-intelligence Are the robots about to rise? Google's new director of engineering thinks so…]&amp;quot; ''The Guardian''. Guardian News and Media Limited.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;是一个假设的时间点。在该时间点上，技术的增长变得不可控制和不可逆转，从而导致人类文明发生无法预见的变化。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web |title=Collection of sources defining &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; |url=http://www.singularitysymposium.com/definition-of-singularity.html |website=singularitysymposium.com |accessdate=17 April 2019}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book |author1=Eden, Amnon H. |author2=Moor, James H. |title=Singularity hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment |date=2012 |publisher=Springer |location=Dordrecht |isbn=9783642325601 |pages=1–2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;根据奇点假说（也被称为智能爆炸 intelligence explosion）最流行的版本：一个可升级的智能体终将进入一种自我完善循环的“&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;失控反应 runaway reaction&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”。每个新的、更智能的世代将出现得越来越快，导致智能的“爆炸”，并产生一种在实质上远超所有人类智能的超级智能。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first use of the concept of a &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in the technological context was [[John von Neumann]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Technological Singularity'' by Murray Shanahan, (MIT Press, 2015), page 233&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Stanislaw Ulam]] reports a discussion with von Neumann &amp;quot;centered on the [[Accelerating change|accelerating progress]] of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential [[Wiktionary:singularity|singularity]] in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Subsequent authors have echoed this viewpoint.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;chalmers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Chalmers|first=David|date=2010|title=The singularity: a philosophical analysis|url=|journal=Journal of Consciousness Studies|volume=17|issue=9–10|pages=7–65|via=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一次在科技领域使用“奇点”这一概念的人是冯·诺依曼 John von Neumann&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Technological Singularity'' by Murray Shanahan, (MIT Press, 2015), page 233&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;。Stanislaw Ulam 报告了一次与冯·诺依曼的讨论。“围绕技术的加速进步和人类生活模式的改变，这让我们看到了人类历史上一些本质上的奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; 一旦超越了这些奇点，我们所熟知的人类事务就无法继续下去了”。后来作者也赞同这一观点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;chalmers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Chalmers|first=David|date=2010|title=The singularity: a philosophical analysis|url=|journal=Journal of Consciousness Studies|volume=17|issue=9–10|pages=7–65|via=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. J. Good]]'s &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; model predicts that a future superintelligence will trigger a singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Vinge, Vernor. [http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;], in ''Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace'', G. A. Landis, ed., NASA Publication CP-10129, pp. 11–22, 1993.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I. J.古德的“智能爆炸”模型预测，未来的超级智能将触发一个奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Vinge, Vernor. [http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;], in ''Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace'', G. A. Landis, ed., NASA Publication CP-10129, pp. 11–22, 1993.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The concept and the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; were popularized by [[Vernor Vinge]] in his 1993 essay ''The Coming Technological Singularity'', in which he wrote that it would signal the end of the human era, as the new superintelligence would continue to upgrade itself and would advance technologically at an incomprehensible rate. He wrote that he would be surprised if it occurred before 2005 or after 2030.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
奇点的概念和术语“奇点”是由 Vernor Vinge 在他1993年的文章《即将到来的技术奇点 The Coming Technological Singularity》中得到推广的。他在文中写道，这将标志着人类时代的终结，因为新的超级智能将持续自我升级，并以不可思议的速度在技术上进步。他写道，如果奇点发生在2005年之前或2030年之后，他会感到惊讶。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Public figures such as [[Stephen Hawking]] and [[Elon Musk]] have expressed concern that full [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) could result in human extinction.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Sparkes|first1=Matthew|title=Top scientists call for caution over artificial intelligence|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11342200/Top-scientists-call-for-caution-over-artificial-intelligence.html|accessdate=24 April 2015|work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph (UK)]]|date=13 January 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540|title=Hawking: AI could end human race|date=2 December 2014|publisher=BBC|accessdate=11 November 2017}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The consequences of the singularity and its potential benefit or harm to the human race have been intensely debated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
斯蒂芬·霍金和埃隆·马斯克等公众人物对完全人工智能（AI）可能导致人类灭绝表示担忧。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Sparkes|first1=Matthew|title=Top scientists call for caution over artificial intelligence|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11342200/Top-scientists-call-for-caution-over-artificial-intelligence.html|accessdate=24 April 2015|work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph (UK)]]|date=13 January 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540|title=Hawking: AI could end human race|date=2 December 2014|publisher=BBC|accessdate=11 November 2017}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;奇点的后果及其对人类的潜在利益或伤害一直存在激烈的争论。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Four polls of AI researchers, conducted in 2012 and 2013 by [[Nick Bostrom]] and [[Vincent C. Müller]], suggested a median probability estimate of 50% that [[artificial general intelligence]] (AGI) would be developed by 2040–2050.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;newyorker&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Khatchadourian|first1=Raffi|title=The Doomsday Invention|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=The New Yorker|date=16 November 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Müller, V. C., &amp;amp; Bostrom, N. (2016). &amp;quot;Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion&amp;quot;. In V. C. Müller (ed): ''Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence'' (pp. 555–572). Springer, Berlin. http://philpapers.org/rec/MLLFPI&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年到2013年，Nick Bostrom和Vincent c. Müller 对人工智能研究人员进行了四次调查。结果显示，通用人工智能(artificial general intelligence, AGI)在2040年至2050年被成功开发出来的概率估计的中位数为50% 。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;newyorker&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Khatchadourian|first1=Raffi|title=The Doomsday Invention|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=The New Yorker|date=16 November 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Müller, V. C., &amp;amp; Bostrom, N. (2016). &amp;quot;Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion&amp;quot;. In V. C. Müller (ed): ''Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence'' (pp. 555–572). Springer, Berlin. http://philpapers.org/rec/MLLFPI&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==背景==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although technological progress has been accelerating, it has been limited by the basic intelligence of the human brain, which has not, according to [[Paul R. Ehrlich]], changed significantly for millennia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Paul Ehrlich June 2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ehrlich, Paul. [http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/ The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, with the increasing power of computers and other technologies, it might eventually be possible to build a machine that is significantly more intelligent than humans.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;businessweek&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm Superbrains born of silicon will change everything.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801074729/http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm |date=August 1, 2010 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然技术进步一直在加速，但它一直受到人脑基本智力的限制，而根据Paul R.Ehrlich的说法，人类大脑的基本智力在几千年来并没有发生显著变化。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Paul Ehrlich June 2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ehrlich, Paul. [http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/ The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;然而，随着计算机和其他技术的日益强大，人类最终有可能制造出一台比人类智能得多的机器&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;businessweek&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm Superbrains born of silicon will change everything.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801074729/http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm |date=August 1, 2010 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a superhuman intelligence were to be invented—either through the amplification of human intelligence or through artificial intelligence—it would bring to bear greater problem-solving and inventive skills than current humans are capable of. Such an AI is referred to as Seed AI because if an AI were created with engineering capabilities that matched or surpassed those of its human creators, it would have the potential to autonomously improve its own software and hardware or design an even more capable machine. This more capable machine could then go on to design a machine of yet greater capability. These iterations of recursive self-improvement could accelerate, potentially allowing enormous qualitative change before any upper limits imposed by the laws of physics or theoretical computation set in. It is speculated that over many iterations, such an AI would far surpass human cognitive abilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如果一种超人类智能被发明出来。无论是通过人类智能的放大还是通过人工智能，它将带来比现在的人类更强的问题解决和发明创造能力。这种人工智能被称为种子人工智能 Seed AI。因为如果人工智能的工程能力能够与它的人类创造者相匹敌或超越，那么它就有潜力自主改进自己的软件和硬件，或者设计出更强大的机器。这台能力更强的机器可以继续设计一台能力更强的机器。这种自我递归改进的迭代可以加速，在物理定律或理论计算设定的任何上限之前，可能会发生巨大的质变。据推测，经过多次迭代，这样的人工智能将远远超过人类的认知能力。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==智能爆炸==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligence explosion is a possible outcome of humanity building [[artificial general intelligence]] (AGI). AGI would be capable of recursive self-improvement, leading to the rapid emergence of [[Superintelligence|artificial superintelligence]] (ASI), the limits of which are unknown, shortly after technological singularity is achieved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能爆炸是构建通用人工智能 artificial general intelligence (AGI) 的可能结果。在技术奇点实现后不久，AGI 将能够进行递归式的自我迭代，从而导致人工超级智能 artificial superintelligence (ASI) 的迅速出现，但其局限性尚不清楚。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. J. Good]] speculated in 1965 that artificial general intelligence might bring about an intelligence explosion. He speculated on the effects of superhuman machines, should they ever be invented:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1965年，I.J.Good 曾推测人工通用智能可能会带来智能爆炸。他对超人类及其的影响进行了推测，如果他们真的被发明出来的话：&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an ‘intelligence explosion,’ and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{让我们把超智能机器定义为一种机器，它可以进行远超无论多么聪明的一个人的所有智力活动。由于机器的设计是一种智力活动，那么一台超智能机器可以设计出更好的机器；那么毫无疑问会出现“智能爆炸”，人类的智能将远远落后。因此，第一台超智能机器是人类所需要的最后一项发明，当然，假设机器足够温顺并能够告诉我们如何控制它们的话。}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good's scenario runs as follows: as computers increase in power, it becomes possible for people to build a machine that is more intelligent than humanity; this superhuman intelligence possesses greater problem-solving and inventive skills than current humans are capable of. This superintelligent machine then designs an even more capable machine, or re-writes its own software to become even more intelligent; this (even more capable) machine then goes on to design a machine of yet greater capability, and so on. These iterations of recursive self-improvement accelerate, allowing enormous qualitative change before any upper limits imposed by the laws of physics or theoretical computation set in.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
古德的设想如下：随着计算机能力的增加，人们有可能制造出一台比人类更智能的机器；这种超人的智能拥有比现在人类更强大的问题解决和发明创造的能力。这台超级智能机器随后设计一台功能更强大的机器，或者重写自己的软件来变得更加智能；这台（甚至更强大的）机器接着继续设计功能更强大的机器，以此类推。这些递归式的自我完善的迭代加速，允许在物理定律或理论计算设定的任何上限之内发生巨大的质变。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==其他表现形式==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===超级智能的出现===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Superintelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{超级智能}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A superintelligence, hyperintelligence, or superhuman intelligence is a hypothetical [[intelligent agent|agent]] that possesses intelligence far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human minds. &amp;quot;Superintelligence&amp;quot; may also refer to the form or degree of intelligence possessed by such an agent. [[John von Neumann]], [[Vernor Vinge]] and [[Ray Kurzweil]] define the concept in terms of the technological creation of super intelligence. They argue that it is difficult or impossible for present-day humans to predict what human beings' lives would be like in a post-singularity world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
超级智能、超智能或超人智能是一种假想的智能体。它拥有的智能远远超过最聪明、最有天赋的人类大脑的智能。“超级智能”也可以指这种智能体所拥有的智能的形式或程度。John von Neumann，Vernor Vinge和Ray Kurzweil 从技术创造超级智能的角度定义了这个概念。他们认为，现在的人类很难或不可能预测人类在后奇点世界的生活会是什么样子&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Technology forecasters and researchers disagree about if or when human intelligence is likely to be surpassed. Some argue that advances in [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) will probably result in general reasoning systems that lack human cognitive limitations. Others believe that humans will evolve or directly modify their biology so as to achieve radically greater intelligence. A number of [[futures studies]] scenarios combine elements from both of these possibilities, suggesting that humans are likely to [[brain–computer interface|interface with computers]], or [[mind uploading|upload their minds to computers]], in a way that enables substantial intelligence amplification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
技术预言家和研究人员对人类智能是否或何时可能被超越存在分歧。一些人认为，人工智能（AI）的进步可能会产生没有人类认知局限的一般推理系统。另一些人则认为，人类将进化或直接改变自己的生物性，从而从根本上实现更高的智能。许多未来研究的场景结合了这两种可能的元素，认为人类很可能会与计算机交互，或以将他们的意识上传到计算机的方式实现大量的智能增益。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===非人工智能奇点===&lt;br /&gt;
Some writers use &amp;quot;the singularity&amp;quot; in a broader way to refer to any radical changes in our society brought about by new technologies such as [[molecular nanotechnology]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; although Vinge and other writers specifically state that without superintelligence, such changes would not qualify as a true singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些作家writers更宽泛地使用“奇点”的概念，用来指代任何我们社会中由新技术带来的剧烈变化，如分子纳米技术，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 尽管Vinge和其他作家明确指出，如果没有超级智能，这些改变就不能算作真正的奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===速度超智能===&lt;br /&gt;
A speed superintelligence describes an AI that can do everything that a human can do, where the only difference is that the machine runs faster.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1007/978-3-662-54033-6_2 |year=2017 |publisher=Springer Berlin Heidelberg |pages=11–23 |author=Kaj Sotala and Roman Yampolskiy |title=The Technological Singularity |chapter=Risks of the Journey to the Singularity |series=The Frontiers Collection |isbn=978-3-662-54031-2 |conference=The Frontiers Collection }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, with a million-fold increase in the speed of information processing relative to that of humans, a subjective year would pass in 30 physical seconds.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Such a difference in information processing speed could drive the singularity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1002/9781118922590.ch16 |year=2016 |publisher=John Wiley \&amp;amp; Sons, Inc |pages=171–224 |author=David J. Chalmers |title=Science Fiction and Philosophy |chapter=The Singularity |isbn=9781118922590 |conference=Science Fiction and Philosophy }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
速度超级智能描述了一个人工智能，它可以做任何人类能做的事情，唯一的区别是这个机器运行得更快.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1007/978-3-662-54033-6_2 |year=2017 |publisher=Springer Berlin Heidelberg |pages=11–23 |author=Kaj Sotala and Roman Yampolskiy |title=The Technological Singularity |chapter=Risks of the Journey to the Singularity |series=The Frontiers Collection |isbn=978-3-662-54031-2 |conference=The Frontiers Collection }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。例如，与人类相比，它信息处理的速度提高了一百万倍，一个主观年将在30个物理秒内过去。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;这种在信息处理上的差异可能会导致奇点。.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1002/9781118922590.ch16 |year=2016 |publisher=John Wiley \&amp;amp; Sons, Inc |pages=171–224 |author=David J. Chalmers |title=Science Fiction and Philosophy |chapter=The Singularity |isbn=9781118922590 |conference=Science Fiction and Philosophy }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==合理性==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many prominent technologists and academics dispute the plausibility of a technological singularity, including [[Paul Allen]], [[Jeff Hawkins]], [[John Henry Holland|John Holland]], [[Jaron Lanier]], and [[Gordon Moore]], whose [[Moore's law|law]] is often cited in support of the concept.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
许多著名的技术专家和学者都对技术奇点的合理性提出质疑，包括Paul Allen、Jeff Hawkins、 John Holland、Jaron Lanier和Gordon Moore，他的摩尔定律经常被引用来支持这一概念。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most proposed methods for creating superhuman or [[transhuman]] minds fall into one of two categories: intelligence amplification of human brains and artificial intelligence. The speculated ways to produce intelligence augmentation are many, and include [[bioengineering]], [[genetic engineering]], [[nootropic]] drugs, AI assistants, direct [[brain–computer interface]]s and [[mind uploading]]. Because multiple paths to an intelligence explosion are being explored, it makes a singularity more likely; for a singularity to not occur they would all have to fail.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity |title=What is the Singularity? &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
大多数创造超人或跨人类头脑的方法分为两类：人脑的智能增强和人工智能。据推测，智能增强的方法很多，包括生物工程、基因工程、益智药物、AI 助手、直接脑机接口和思维上传。因为人们正在探索通向智能爆炸的多种途径，这使得奇点出现的可能更大；奇点不发生，所有这些都必将失败。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity |title=What is the Singularity? &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robin Hanson]] expressed skepticism of human intelligence augmentation, writing that once the &amp;quot;low-hanging fruit&amp;quot; of easy methods for increasing human intelligence have been exhausted, further improvements will become increasingly difficult to find.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/vc.html#hanson |title=Some Skepticism |date=1998 |first=Robin |last=Hanson |author-link=Robin Hanson |accessdate=April 8, 2020}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Despite all of the speculated ways for amplifying human intelligence, non-human artificial intelligence (specifically seed AI) is the most popular option among the hypotheses that would advance the singularity.{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Robin Hanson 对人类智能增强表示怀疑，他写道，一旦提高人类智力的“唾手可得的”简单方法用尽，进一步的改进将变得越来越难。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/vc.html#hanson |title=Some Skepticism |date=1998 |first=Robin |last=Hanson |author-link=Robin Hanson |accessdate=April 8, 2020}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;尽管有各种提高人类智能的方法，但非人类人工智能(特别是种子人工智能)仍是所有能推进奇点的假说中最受欢迎的一个。{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether or not an intelligence explosion occurs depends on three factors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Chalmers John Locke Lecture, 10 May, Exam Schools, Oxford, [http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/news/2010/david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available Presenting a philosophical analysis of the possibility of a technological singularity or &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; resulting from recursively self-improving AI] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115205558/http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/news/2010/david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available |date=2013-01-15 }}.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The first accelerating factor is the new intelligence enhancements made possible by each previous improvement. Contrariwise, as the intelligences become more advanced, further advances will become more and more complicated, possibly overcoming the advantage of increased intelligence. Each improvement should beget at least one more improvement, on average, for movement towards singularity to continue. Finally, the laws of physics will eventually prevent any further improvements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能爆炸是否发生取决于三个因素。第一个加速因素是以前的每一次改进都使新的智能增强成为可能。相反，随着智能的进步，进一步的发展将变得越来越复杂，可能会抵消智力增长的优势。平均而言，每一次改进都应该至少带来一次改进，以便继续朝着奇点的方向发展。最后，物理定律最终会阻止任何进一步的改进。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are two logically independent, but mutually reinforcing, causes of intelligence improvements: increases in the speed of computation, and improvements to the [[algorithm]]s used.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;consc.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, David J. Chalmers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The former is predicted by [[Moore's law|Moore's Law]] and the forecasted improvements in hardware,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;itrs&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |title=ITRS |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929173755/http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |archivedate=2011-09-29 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and is comparatively similar to previous technological advances. But there are some AI researchers{{who|date=March 2017}} who believe software is more important than hardware.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|url=https://blog.chronicled.com/why-software-is-more-important-than-hardware-right-now-6a4b58feaa7c|title=Why Software Is More Important Than Hardware Right Now|last=Kulkarni|first=Ajit|date=2017-12-12|website=Chronicled|access-date=2019-02-23}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能改进有两个逻辑上独立但又相互加强的原因：计算速度的提高和使用的算法的改进。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;consc.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, David J. Chalmers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;前者由摩尔定律和硬件方面的预测改进进行预测，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;itrs&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |title=ITRS |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929173755/http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |archivedate=2011-09-29 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;与以前的技术进步比较相似。但也有一些人工智能研究人员认为软件比硬件更重要&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|url=https://blog.chronicled.com/why-software-is-more-important-than-hardware-right-now-6a4b58feaa7c|title=Why Software Is More Important Than Hardware Right Now|last=Kulkarni|first=Ajit|date=2017-12-12|website=Chronicled|access-date=2019-02-23}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2017 email survey of authors with publications at the 2015 [[Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems|NeurIPS]] and [[International Conference on Machine Learning|ICML]] machine learning conferences asked  about the chance of an intelligence explosion. Of the respondents, 12% said it was &amp;quot;quite likely&amp;quot;, 17% said it was &amp;quot;likely&amp;quot;, 21% said it was &amp;quot;about even&amp;quot;, 24% said it was &amp;quot;unlikely&amp;quot; and 26% said it was &amp;quot;quite unlikely&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2017年，一项对2015年 NeurIPS 和 ICML 机器学习会议上发表论文的作者的电子邮件调查询问了智能爆炸的可能性。在受访者中，12% 的人认为“很有可能” ，17% 的人认为“有可能” ，21% 的人认为“可能性中等” ，24% 的人认为“不太可能” ，26% 的人认为“非常不可能”。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===速度改进 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both for human and artificial intelligence, hardware improvements increase the rate of future hardware improvements. Simply put,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arstechnica&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Moore's Law]] suggests that if the first doubling of speed took 18 months, the second would take 18 subjective months; or 9 external months, whereafter, four months, two months, and so on towards a speed singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html &amp;quot;Staring into the Singularity&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An upper limit on speed may eventually be reached, although it is unclear how high this would be.  Jeff Hawkins has stated that a self-improving computer system would inevitably run into upper limits on computing power: &amp;quot;in the end there are limits to how big and fast computers can run. We would end up in the same place; we'd just get there a bit faster. There would be no singularity.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hawkins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
无论对于人类智能还是人工智能，硬件改进都会提高未来硬件改进的速度。简单地说，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arstechnica&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;Moore's Law认为，如果第一次速度翻倍需要18个月，第二次则需要18个主观月；或者9个外部月，之后，4个月、2个月，以此类推，走向速度奇点&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html &amp;quot;Staring into the Singularity&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 速度的上限最终可能会达到，尽管还不清楚这会有多高。杰夫·霍金斯（Jeff Hawkins）曾表示，一个自我完善的计算机系统不可避免地会遇到计算能力的上限：“最终，计算机的运行速度和速度都是有限的。我们最终会在同一个地方；我们只会更快到达那里。不会有奇点。”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hawkins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is difficult to directly compare [[silicon]]-based hardware with [[neuron]]s. But {{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}} notes that computer [[speech recognition]] is approaching human capabilities, and that this capability seems to require 0.01% of the volume of the brain. This analogy suggests that modern computer hardware is within a few orders of magnitude of being as powerful as the human brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
很难直接将基于硅的硬件与神经元相比较。但是{Harvtxt| Berglas|2008}指出计算机语音识别正在接近人类的能力，而且这种能力似乎需要0.01%的脑容量。这个类比表明，现代计算机硬件与人脑一样强大，只差几个数量级。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====指数增长====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Martin Ford in The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
马丁 · 福特Martin Ford的《隧道中的灯光: 自动化，加速技术和未来经济The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future》&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:PPTMooresLawai.jpg|thumb|Ray Kurzweil writes that, due to [[paradigm shift]]s, a trend of exponential growth extends [[Moore's law]] from [[integrated circuits]] to earlier [[transistor]]s, [[vacuum tube]]s, [[relay]]s, and [[electromechanics|electromechanical]] computers. He predicts that the exponential growth will continue, and that in a few decades the computing power of all computers will exceed that of (&amp;quot;unenhanced&amp;quot;) human brains, with superhuman [[artificial intelligence]] appearing around the same time.|链接=Special:FilePath/PPTMooresLawai.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[图片：PPTMooresLawai.jpg|thumb | Ray Kurzweil写道，由于[[范式转换]]s，指数增长的趋势将[[摩尔定律]]从[[集成电路]]扩展到早期的[[晶体管]]、[[真空管]]、[[继电器]]和[[机电机械]]计算机。他预测，这种指数增长将继续下去，在几十年内，所有计算机的计算能力将超过（“未增强的”）人脑，同时出现超人[[人工智能]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Moore's Law over 120 Years.png|thumb|left|An updated version of Moore's law over 120 Years (based on [[Ray Kurzweil|Kurzweil's]] [[c:File:PPTMooresLawai.jpg|graph]]). The 7 most recent data points are all [[Nvidia GPUs|NVIDIA GPUs]].|链接=Special:FilePath/Moore's_Law_over_120_Years.png]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[资料图：摩尔超过120的定律年.png|拇指|左|摩尔定律120年的更新版本（基于[[Ray Kurzweil | Kurzweil's]][[c:文件：PPTMooresLawai.jpg|图形]]）。最近的7个数据点都是[[Nvidia GPU | Nvidia GPU]].]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exponential growth in computing technology suggested by Moore's law is commonly cited as a reason to expect a singularity in the relatively near future, and a number of authors have proposed generalizations of Moore's law. Computer scientist and futurist [[Hans Moravec]] proposed in a 1998 book&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&amp;amp;pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that the exponential growth curve could be extended back through earlier computing technologies prior to the [[integrated circuit]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
摩尔定律所建议的计算技术的指数增长通常被认为是在相对不远的将来出现奇点的一个理由，许多作者已经提出了摩尔定律的推广。计算机科学家和未来主义者Hans Moravec在1998年的一本书中提到&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&amp;amp;pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;指数型增长曲线可以沿着集成电路之前的早期计算技术进行延伸。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ray Kurzweil]] postulates a [[law of accelerating returns]] in which the speed of technological change (and more generally, all evolutionary processes&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;) increases exponentially, generalizing Moore's law in the same manner as Moravec's proposal, and also including material technology (especially as applied to [[nanotechnology]]), [[Medical Technology|medical technology]] and others.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity2&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Between 1986 and 2007, machines' application-specific capacity to compute information per capita roughly doubled every 14 months; the per capita capacity of the world's general-purpose computers has doubled every 18 months; the global telecommunication capacity per capita doubled every 34 months; and the world's storage capacity per capita doubled every 40 months.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 &amp;quot;The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information&amp;quot;], Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), [[Science (journal)|Science]], 332(6025), 60–65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; On the other hand, it has been argued that the global acceleration pattern having the 21st century singularity as its parameter should be characterized as [[Hyperbolic growth|hyperbolic]] rather than exponential.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8 ''The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures. A Big History Perspective''] (Springer, 2020)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ray Kurzweil]]假设了一个[[加速回报定律]]，其中技术变革的速度（更广泛地说，所有进化过程&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;）急剧增长。从1986年到2007年，摩尔定律以与莫拉维克提案相同的方式呈指数增长，并包括材料技术（尤其是应用于[[纳米技术]]）、[[医疗技术|医疗技术]]和其他技术，计算机计算人均信息的特定应用能力大约每14个月翻一番；世界通用计算机的人均容量每18个月翻一番；全球人均电信容量每34个月翻一番；世界人均存储容量每40个月翻一番。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 &amp;quot;The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information&amp;quot;], Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), [[Science (journal)|Science]], 332(6025), 60–65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 另一方面，有人认为，以21世纪奇点为参数的全球加速度模式应该被描述为[[双曲线增长|双曲]]而不是指数型&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8 ''The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures. A Big History Perspective''] (Springer, 2020)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil reserves the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; for a rapid increase in artificial intelligence (as opposed to other technologies), writing for example that &amp;quot;The Singularity will allow us to transcend these limitations of our biological bodies and brains ... There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity3&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; He also defines his predicted date of the singularity (2045) in terms of when he expects computer-based intelligences to significantly exceed the sum total of human brainpower, writing that advances in computing before that date &amp;quot;will not represent the Singularity&amp;quot; because they do &amp;quot;not yet correspond to a profound expansion of our intelligence.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;transformation&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
库兹韦尔将“奇点”一词用于描述人工智能(相对于其他技术)的快速增长，例如他写道: “奇点将允许我们超越生物体和大脑的局限……后奇点时代，人类与机器之间将不再有区别”。库兹韦尔相信奇点将在大约2045年之前出现，那时基于计算机的智能将明显超越人类脑力的总和，在这个日期之前计算机技术的进步“并不代表奇点”，因为它们“还不符合智慧的深刻扩展”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====加速变革====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Main|Accelerating change}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Main |加速变革}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|thumb|According to Kurzweil, his [[logarithmic scale|logarithmic graph]] of 15 lists of [[paradigm shift]]s for key [[human history|historic]] events shows an [[exponential growth|exponential]] trend|链接=Special:FilePath/ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[图片：ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|thumb |根据Kurzweil的说法，他对关键的[[人类历史|历史]]事件的15个[[范式转移]]列表的[[对数标度|对数图]]显示了[[指数增长|指数]]趋势]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some singularity proponents argue its inevitability through extrapolation of past trends, especially those pertaining to shortening gaps between improvements to technology. In one of the first uses of the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in the context of technological progress, [[Stanislaw Ulam]] tells of a conversation with [[John von Neumann]] about accelerating change: &lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.&amp;lt;ref name=mathematical/&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些奇点论的支持者认为，通过对过去趋势的推断，特别是那些缩减技术进步的差距有关的趋势，奇点是不可避免的。技术进步的背景下，较早使用“奇点”一词时，Stanislaw Ulam讲述了与冯·诺伊曼关于加速变革的一次谈话：&lt;br /&gt;
一次围绕不断加速的技术进步和生活方式变化的对话，它使得人类历史上出现了一些基本的奇点，超过了这些奇点，人类的事务，如我们所知，将无法继续下去。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil claims that technological progress follows a pattern of&lt;br /&gt;
exponential growth, following what he calls the &amp;quot;law of&lt;br /&gt;
accelerating returns&amp;quot;. Whenever technology approaches a barrier,&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil writes, new technologies will surmount it. He predicts&lt;br /&gt;
paradigm shifts will become increasingly common, leading to&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;technological change so rapid and profound it represents a&lt;br /&gt;
rupture in the fabric of human history&amp;quot;.[43] Kurzweil believes that&lt;br /&gt;
the singularity will occur by approximately 2045.[38] His&lt;br /&gt;
predictions differ from Vinge's in that he predicts a gradual&lt;br /&gt;
ascent to the singularity, rather than Vinge's rapidly self�improving superhuman intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
库兹韦尔声称，技术进步遵循[[指数增长]的模式，遵循他所称的“加速返回定律law of accelerating returns”。库兹韦尔写道，每当一项技术遇到障碍时，新技术就会出来克服这个障碍。他预测范式转变将变得越来越普遍，导致“技术变革非常迅速和深刻，以至于它代表着人类历史结构的一个断裂”。库兹韦尔相信奇点将在2045年之前出现。他和Vinge预测的不同点在于他预测的是一个逐渐上升到奇点的过程，而Vinge预测了一个快速自我更新的超人类智能。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oft-cited dangers include those commonly associated with molecular nanotechnology and genetic engineering. These threats are major issues for both singularity advocates and critics, and were the subject of Bill Joy's Wired magazine article &amp;quot;Why the future doesn't need us&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
经常被引用的危险包括那些与分子纳米技术和基因工程有关的技术。这些威胁是奇点论的倡导者和批评者面临的主要议题，也是比尔 · 乔伊《连线 Wired》杂志上所发表文章《为什么未来不需要我们Why the future doesn't need us》的主题。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===算法改进 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some intelligence technologies, like &amp;quot;seed AI&amp;quot;,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Yampolskiy, Roman V 2015&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceA&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; may also have the potential to not just make themselves faster, but also more efficient, by modifying their [[source code]]. These improvements would make further improvements possible, which would make further improvements possible, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
一些智能技术，比如“种子人工智能”，通过修改自己的源代码，可能使自己不仅更快，而且更高效。这些改进将使进一步的改进成为可能，以此类推。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mechanism for a recursively self-improving set of algorithms differs from an increase in raw computation speed in two ways. First, it does not require external influence: machines designing faster hardware would still require humans to create the improved hardware, or to program factories appropriately.{{citation needed|date=July 2017}} An AI rewriting its own source code could do so while contained in an [[AI box]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
递归自我改进算法集的机制在两个方面不同于原始计算速度的提高。首先，它不需要外部影响：设计更快的硬件的机器仍然需要人类来创造改进的硬件，或者对工厂进行适当的编程。AI可以既身处一个AI盒 AI box里面，又同时改进自己的 源代码。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second, as with [[Vernor Vinge]]’s conception of the singularity, it is much harder to predict the outcome. While speed increases seem to be only a quantitative difference from human intelligence, actual algorithm improvements would be qualitatively different. [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]] compares it to the changes that human intelligence brought: humans changed the world thousands of times more rapidly than evolution had done, and in totally different ways. Similarly, the evolution of life was a massive departure and acceleration from the previous geological rates of change, and improved intelligence could cause change to be as different again.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|author=Eliezer S. Yudkowsky |url=http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/power |title=Power of Intelligence |publisher=Yudkowsky |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第二，和Vernor Vinge关于奇点的概念一样，对结果的预测要困难得多。虽然速度的提高似乎与人类的智能只是数量上的区别，但实际的算法改进在质量上是不同的。Eliezer Yudkowsky将其与人类智能带来的变化相比较：人类改变世界的速度比进化速度快数千倍，而且方式完全不同。同样地，生命的进化与以前的地质变化又有着巨大的不同和加速，而智能的提高可能会使变化再次变得不同。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|author=Eliezer S. Yudkowsky |url=http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/power |title=Power of Intelligence |publisher=Yudkowsky |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are substantial dangers associated with an intelligence explosion singularity originating from a recursively self-improving set of algorithms. First, the goal structure of the AI might not be invariant under self-improvement, potentially causing the AI to optimise for something other than what was originally intended.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008 ]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;kurzweilai&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.kurzweilai.net/artificial-general-intelligence-now-is-the-time |title=Artificial General Intelligence: Now Is the Time |publisher=KurzweilAI |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Secondly, AIs could compete for the same scarce resources mankind uses to survive.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/10/05/paper-on-the-nature-of-self-improving-artificial-intelligence/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence.&amp;quot; Self-Aware Systems. 21 Jan. 2008. Web. 07 Jan. 2010.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|last1=Barrat|first1=James|title=Our Final Invention|year=2013|publisher=St. Martin's Press|location=New York|isbn=978-0312622374|pages=78–98|edition=First|chapter=6, &amp;quot;Four Basic Drives&amp;quot;|title-link=Our Final Invention}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
由递归自我改进的算法集合引起的智能爆炸存在着巨大的危险。首先，人工智能的目标结构在自我完善的情况下可能不是一成不变的，这可能会导致人工智能对原本计划之外的东西进行优化。第二，人工智能可以与人类竞争赖以生存的稀缺资源。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While not actively malicious, there is no reason to think that AIs would actively promote human goals unless they could be programmed as such, and if not, might use the resources currently used to support mankind to promote its own goals, causing human extinction.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;kurzweilai.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.kurzweilai.net/max-more-and-ray-kurzweil-on-the-singularity-2 |title=Max More and Ray Kurzweil on the Singularity |publisher=KurzweilAI |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceB&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/riskintro/index.html |title=Concise Summary &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.nickbostrom.com/fut/evolution.html Bostrom, Nick, The Future of Human Evolution, Death and Anti-Death: Two Hundred Years After Kant, Fifty Years After Turing, ed. Charles Tandy, pp. 339–371, 2004, Ria University Press.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然不是恶意的，但没有理由认为人工智能会积极促进人类目标的实现，除非这些目标可以被编程，否则，它们就可能利用目前用于支持人类的资源来促进自己的目标，从而导致人类灭绝。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Carl Shulman]] and [[Anders Sandberg]] suggest that algorithm improvements may be the limiting factor for a singularity; while hardware efficiency tends to improve at a steady pace, software innovations are more unpredictable and may be bottlenecked by serial, cumulative research. They suggest that in the case of a software-limited singularity, intelligence explosion would actually become more likely than with a hardware-limited singularity, because in the software-limited case, once human-level AI is developed, it could run serially on very fast hardware, and the abundance of cheap hardware would make AI research less constrained.&amp;lt;ref name=ShulmanSandberg2010&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Shulman|first=Carl|author2=Anders Sandberg |title=Implications of a Software-Limited Singularity|journal=ECAP10: VIII European Conference on Computing and Philosophy|year=2010|url=http://intelligence.org/files/SoftwareLimited.pdf|accessdate=17 May 2014|editor1-first=Klaus|editor1-last=Mainzer}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An abundance of accumulated hardware that can be unleashed once the software figures out how to use it has been called &amp;quot;computing overhang.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;MuehlhauserSalamon2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book|last=Muehlhauser|first=Luke|title=Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment|year=2012|publisher=Springer|chapter-url=http://intelligence.org/files/IE-EI.pdf|author2=Anna Salamon |editor=Amnon Eden |editor2=Johnny Søraker |editor3=James H. Moor |editor4=Eric Steinhart|chapter=Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carl Shulman和Anders Sandberg认为，算法改进可能是奇点的限制因素；虽然硬件效率趋于稳步提高，但软件创新更不具可预测性，可能会受到连续、累积的研究的限制。他们认为，智能爆炸在受软件限制的奇点情况中发生的可能性实际上比在受硬件限制的奇点更可能发生，因为在软件受限的情况下，一旦开发出人类水平的人工智能，它可以在非常快的硬件上连续运行，廉价硬件的丰富将使人工智能研究不那么受限制。&amp;lt;ref name=ShulmanSandberg2010&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Shulman|first=Carl|author2=Anders Sandberg |title=Implications of a Software-Limited Singularity|journal=ECAP10: VIII European Conference on Computing and Philosophy|year=2010|url=http://intelligence.org/files/SoftwareLimited.pdf|accessdate=17 May 2014|editor1-first=Klaus|editor1-last=Mainzer}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 一旦软件知道如何使用硬件，大量的硬件就可以被释放出来，这被称为“计算过剩”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;MuehlhauserSalamon2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book|last=Muehlhauser|first=Luke|title=Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment|year=2012|publisher=Springer|chapter-url=http://intelligence.org/files/IE-EI.pdf|author2=Anna Salamon |editor=Amnon Eden |editor2=Johnny Søraker |editor3=James H. Moor |editor4=Eric Steinhart|chapter=Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===危机===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some critics, like philosopher [[Hubert Dreyfus]], assert that computers or machines cannot achieve [[human intelligence]], while others, like physicist [[Stephen Hawking]], hold that the definition of intelligence is irrelevant if the net result is the same.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;dreyfus&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些批评者，如哲学家Hubert Dreyfus断言计算机或机器无法实现人类智能，而其他人，如物理学家史蒂芬·霍金，则认为如果最终结果是相同的，那么智力的定义其实无关紧要。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An early description of the idea was made in John Wood Campbell Jr.'s 1932 short story &amp;quot;The last evolution&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
早在1932年，约翰·W·坎贝尔的短篇小说《最后的进化》中就对这个想法进行了描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psychologist [[Steven Pinker]] stated in 2008:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
心理学家史蒂芬·平克在2008年指出：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|... There is not the slightest reason to believe in a coming singularity. The fact that you can visualize a future in your imagination is not evidence that it is likely or even possible. Look at domed cities, jet-pack commuting, underwater cities, mile-high buildings, and nuclear-powered automobiles—all staples of futuristic fantasies when I was a child that have never arrived. Sheer processing power is not a pixie dust that magically solves all your problems. ...&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
没有一点理由相信奇点即将到来。你可以想象一个未来并不能证明它是可能出现的。看看穹顶城市、喷气式飞行器通勤、水下城市、一英里高的建筑和核动力汽车：这些都是我小时候未来主义幻想的主要内容，然而它们都没有成真。纯粹的计算能力不是能神奇地解决所有问题的仙尘。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[University of California, Berkeley]], [[philosophy]] professor [[John Searle]] writes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[加州大学伯克利分校]，哲学教授约翰·塞尔写道：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{blockquote|[Computers] have, literally ..., no [[intelligence]], no [[motivation]], no [[autonomy]], and no agency.  We design them to behave as if they had certain sorts of [[psychology]], but there is no psychological reality to the corresponding processes or behavior. ...  [T]he machinery has no beliefs, desires, [or] motivations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[John R. Searle]], “What Your Computer Can’t Know”, ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', 9 October 2014, p. 54.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
毫不夸张地说，计算机没有智能，没有动机，没有自主，也没有智能体。我们设计他们，使他们的行为好像表示他们有某种心理，但其实没有对应这些过程或行为的心理现实……机器没有信仰、愿望或动机。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Martin Ford (author)|Martin Ford]] in ''The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thelightsinthetunnel&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; postulates a &amp;quot;technology paradox&amp;quot; in that before the singularity could occur most routine jobs in the economy would be automated, since this would require a level of technology inferior to that of the singularity. This would cause massive unemployment and plummeting consumer demand, which in turn would destroy the incentive to invest in the technologies that would be required to bring about the Singularity. Job displacement is increasingly no longer limited to work traditionally considered to be &amp;quot;routine.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Martin Ford在“隧道中的灯光：自动化、加速技术和未来经济 The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thelightsinthetunnel&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;中提出了一个“技术悖论”：在奇点出现之前，经济体中的大多数日常工作都将自动化，因为这所需的技术水平低于奇点。这将导致大规模的失业和消费者需求的骤降，这反过来又会破坏投资于实现奇点所需技术的动机。工作的替代越来越不再局限于那些传统上被认为是“例行公事”的工作。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Theodore Modis]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; and [[Jonathan Huebner]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological14&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; argue that the rate of technological innovation has not only ceased to rise, but is actually now declining. Evidence for this decline is that the rise in computer [[clock rate]]s is slowing, even while Moore's prediction of exponentially increasing circuit density continues to hold. This is due to excessive heat build-up from the chip, which cannot be dissipated quickly enough to prevent the chip from melting when operating at higher speeds. Advances in speed may be possible in the future by virtue of more power-efficient CPU designs and multi-cell processors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; While Kurzweil used Modis' resources, and Modis' work was around accelerating change, Modis distanced himself from Kurzweil's thesis of a &amp;quot;technological singularity&amp;quot;, claiming that it lacks scientific rigor.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Theodore Modis&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;和Jonathan Huebner&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological14&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 认为技术创新的速度不仅停止上升，而且现在实际上正在下降。这种下降的证据是计算机时钟速率的增长正在放缓，尽管摩尔关于电路密度指数增长的预测仍然成立。这是由于芯片产生过多的热量，当它们以较高的速度运行时，这些热量不能足够快地散去，可能导致芯片熔化。在未来，随着更节能的CPU设计和多单元处理器的发明，速度的提高可能实现。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;尽管 Kurzweil 利用了Modis的（工作成果）作为资源，同时 Modis 的工作围绕着加速变革，但 Modis 与 Kurzweil 的“技术奇点”理论保持距离，称其缺乏科学严谨性。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a detailed empirical accounting, ''The Progress of Computing'', [[William Nordhaus]] argued that, prior to 1940, computers followed the much slower growth of a traditional industrial economy, thus rejecting extrapolations of Moore's law to 19th-century computers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal | doi=10.1017/S0022050707000058|title = Two Centuries of Productivity Growth in Computing| journal=The Journal of Economic History| volume=67|pages = 128–159|year = 2007|last1 = Nordhaus|first1 = William D.| citeseerx=10.1.1.330.1871}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在一份详细的实证报告《计算的进步 The Progress of Computing》中，威廉·诺德豪斯 William Nordhaus 认为，在 1940 年之前，计算机遵循传统工业经济增长缓慢的趋势，因此拒绝了摩尔定律对19世纪计算机的推断。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal | doi=10.1017/S0022050707000058|title = Two Centuries of Productivity Growth in Computing| journal=The Journal of Economic History| volume=67|pages = 128–159|year = 2007|last1 = Nordhaus|first1 = William D.| citeseerx=10.1.1.330.1871}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a 2007 paper, Schmidhuber stated that the frequency of subjectively &amp;quot;notable events&amp;quot; appears to be approaching a 21st-century singularity, but cautioned readers to take such plots of subjective events with a grain of salt: perhaps differences in memory of recent and distant events could create an illusion of accelerating change where none exists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schmidhuber, Jürgen. &amp;quot;New millennium AI and the convergence of history.&amp;quot; Challenges for computational intelligence. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. 15–35.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在2007年的一篇论文中，Schmidhuber指出主观上“值得注意的事件”出现的频率似乎正在接近21世纪的奇点，但他提醒读者，对这些主观事件的情节要持保留态度：也许对近期和远期事件的记忆差异，可能会造成一种在根本不存在的情况下变化加速的错觉。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schmidhuber, Jürgen. &amp;quot;New millennium AI and the convergence of history.&amp;quot; Challenges for computational intelligence. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. 15–35.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paul Allen argued the opposite of accelerating returns, the complexity brake; the more progress science makes towards understanding intelligence, the more difficult it becomes to make additional progress. A study of the number of patents shows that human creativity does not show accelerating returns, but in fact, as suggested by Joseph Tainter in his The Collapse of Complex Societies, a law of diminishing returns. The number of patents per thousand peaked in the period from 1850 to 1900, and has been declining since.[60] The growth of complexity eventually becomes self-limiting, and leads to a widespread &amp;quot;general systems collapse&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
保罗·艾伦 Paul Allen 认为，与加速回报相反的是复杂性制动；科学在理解智力方面取得的进展越多，就越难取得更多的进展。一项对专利数量的研究表明，人类的创造力并没有表现出加速的回报。事实上，正如Joseph Tainter 在他的《复杂社会的崩溃 The Collapse of Complex Societies 》中所指出的那样，存在一个收益递减定律 a law of diminishing returns 的限制。每千人的专利的数量在1850年至1900年期间达到顶峰，此后一直在下降。复杂性的增长最终会自我限制，并导致广泛的“一般系统崩溃 general systems collapse”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jaron Lanier]] refutes the idea that the Singularity is inevitable. He states: &amp;quot;I do not think the technology is creating itself. It's not an autonomous process.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |author=Jaron Lanier |title=Who Owns the Future? |work=New York: Simon &amp;amp; Schuster |date=2013 |url=http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=JCB8D9LA&amp;amp;tocp=59}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He goes on to assert: &amp;quot;The reason to believe in human agency over technological determinism is that you can then have an economy where people earn their own way and invent their own lives. If you structure a society on ''not'' emphasizing individual human agency, it's the same thing operationally as denying people clout, dignity, and self-determination ... to embrace [the idea of the Singularity] would be a celebration of bad data and bad politics.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jaron Lanier驳斥了奇点不可避免的观点。他说：“我不认为这项技术是在创造自我。这不是一个自主的过程。”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |author=Jaron Lanier |title=Who Owns the Future? |work=New York: Simon &amp;amp; Schuster |date=2013 |url=http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=JCB8D9LA&amp;amp;tocp=59}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;他接着断言：“相信人的能动性而不是技术决定论的原因是，这样你就可以有一个经济体，人们在其中可以自己挣钱，创造自己的生活。如果你在不强调个人主观能动性的基础上构建社会，就等于在操作上否认人们的影响力、尊严和自决...接受 [奇点的想法] 将是对糟糕数据和糟糕政治的颂扬。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Economics|Economist]] [[Robert J. Gordon]], in ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'' (2016), points out that measured economic growth has slowed around 1970 and slowed even further since the [[financial crisis of 2007–2008]], and argues that the economic data show no trace of a coming Singularity as imagined by mathematician [[I.J. Good]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[William D. Nordhaus]], &amp;quot;Why Growth Will Fall&amp;quot; (a review of [[Robert J. Gordon]], ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'', Princeton University Press, 2016, {{ISBN|978-0691147727}}, 762 pp., $39.95), ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', vol. LXIII, no. 13 (August 18, 2016), p. 68.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
经济学家 Robert J.Gordon在《美国经济增长的兴衰：内战以来的美国生活水平 The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War》（2016）中指出，据测量，经济增长在1970年左右放缓，自2007-2008年金融危机以来甚至进一步放缓，并认为经济数据显示没有迹象表明数学家I.J.Good所设想的奇点将会到来。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[William D. Nordhaus]], &amp;quot;Why Growth Will Fall&amp;quot; (a review of [[Robert J. Gordon]], ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'', Princeton University Press, 2016, {{ISBN|978-0691147727}}, 762 pp., $39.95), ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', vol. LXIII, no. 13 (August 18, 2016), p. 68.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to general criticisms of the singularity concept, several critics have raised issues with Kurzweil's iconic chart. One line of criticism is that a [[Log-log plot|log-log]] chart of this nature is inherently biased toward a straight-line result. Others identify selection bias in the points that Kurzweil chooses to use. For example, biologist [[PZ Myers]] points out that many of the early evolutionary &amp;quot;events&amp;quot; were picked arbitrarily.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Kurzweil has rebutted this by charting evolutionary events from 15 neutral sources, and showing that they fit a straight line on [[:File:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|a log-log chart]]. ''[[The Economist]]'' mocked the concept with a graph extrapolating that the number of blades on a razor, which has increased over the years from one to as many as five, will increase ever-faster to infinity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
除了对奇点概念的一般性批评外，一些批评者还对库兹韦尔的标志性图表提出了质疑。一种批评是，这种性质的对数图像本质上就会存在倾向于直线的有偏差结果。其他人批评库兹韦尔在数据点的使用上存在选择偏差。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;例如，生物学家P. Z. Myers指出，许多早期的进化“事件”都是随意挑选的。库兹韦尔反驳了这一点，他绘制了15个中立来源的进化事件图，并表明它们都符合一条直线.《经济学人》用一张图表来嘲讽这个概念：一把剃须刀上的刀片数在过去几年里从一个增加到多达五个，并且它将以更快的速度增长到无穷大。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==潜在影响==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dramatic changes in the rate of economic growth have occurred in the past because of some technological advancement. Based on population growth, the economy doubled every 250,000 years from the [[Paleolithic]] era until the [[Neolithic Revolution]]. The new agricultural economy doubled every 900 years, a remarkable increase. In the current era, beginning with the Industrial Revolution, the world's economic output doubles every fifteen years, sixty times faster than during the agricultural era. If the rise of superhuman intelligence causes a similar revolution, argues Robin Hanson, one would expect the economy to double at least quarterly and possibly on a weekly basis.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url=http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/robotics-software/economics-of-the-singularity |title=Economics Of The Singularity |author=Robin Hanson |work=IEEE Spectrum Special Report: The Singularity }} &amp;amp; [http://hanson.gmu.edu/longgrow.pdf Long-Term Growth As A Sequence of Exponential Modes]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
过去由于一些技术进步，经济增长率发生了巨大变化。以人口增长为基础，从[[旧石器时代]]到[[新石器时代]]，经济每25万年翻一番。新农业经济每900年翻一番，增长显著。在当今时代，从工业革命开始，世界经济产出每15年翻一番，比农业时代快60倍。罗宾·汉森Robin Hanson认为，如果超人智能的兴起引发了类似的革命，人们会预期经济至少每季度翻一番，甚至可能每周翻一番。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===不确定性和风险===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Existential risk from artificial general intelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步|来自人工通用智能的存在风险}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;technological singularity&amp;quot; reflects the idea that such change may happen suddenly, and that it is difficult to predict how the resulting new world would operate.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|last=Yudkowsky |first=Eliezer |title=Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk |journal=Global Catastrophic Risks |editor-last=Bostrom |editor-first=Nick |editor2-last=Cirkovic |editor2-first=Milan |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |url=http://singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |bibcode=2008gcr..book..303Y |isbn=978-0-19-857050-9 |page=303 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080807132337/http://www.singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |archivedate=2008-08-07 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;theuncertainfuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; It is unclear whether an intelligence explosion resulting in a singularity would be beneficial or harmful, or even an [[Existential risk|existential threat]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Because AI is a major factor in singularity risk, a number of organizations pursue a technical theory of aligning AI goal-systems with human values, including the [[Future of Humanity Institute]], the [[Machine Intelligence Research Institute]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; the [[Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence]], and the [[Future of Life Institute]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“技术奇点”一词反映了这样一种想法&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|last=Yudkowsky |first=Eliezer |title=Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk |journal=Global Catastrophic Risks |editor-last=Bostrom |editor-first=Nick |editor2-last=Cirkovic |editor2-first=Milan |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |url=http://singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |bibcode=2008gcr..book..303Y |isbn=978-0-19-857050-9 |page=303 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080807132337/http://www.singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |archivedate=2008-08-07 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;theuncertainfuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; ：这种变化可能突然发生，而且很难预测由此产生的新世界将如何运作。目前尚不清楚导致奇点的智能爆炸是有益还是有害，甚至是一种存在威胁。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 由于人工智能是奇点风险的一个主要因素，许多组织追求一种将人工智能的目标系统与人类价值观相协调的技术理论。这些组织包括人类未来研究所 Future of Humanity Institute，机器智能研究所 The Machine Intelligence Research Institute， 人类兼容人工智能中心 &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;The Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence和未来生命研究所 The Future of Life Institute。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Physicist [[Stephen Hawking]] said in 2014 that &amp;quot;Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; Hawking believed that in the coming decades, AI could offer &amp;quot;incalculable benefits and risks&amp;quot; such as &amp;quot;technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; Hawking suggested that artificial intelligence should be taken more seriously and that more should be done to prepare for the singularity:&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-transcendence-looks-at-the-implications-of-artificial-intelligence--but-are-we-taking-ai-seriously-enough-9313474.html |title=Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of artificial intelligence - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'  |work=[[The Independent]] |author=Stephen Hawking |date=1 May 2014 |accessdate=May 5, 2014|author-link=Stephen Hawking }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
物理学家史蒂芬·霍金在2014年表示，“成功创造人工智能将是人类历史上最大的事件。不幸的是，这也可能是最后一次，除非我们学会如何规避风险。”&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt;  霍金认为，在未来几十年里，人工智能可能会带来“无法估量的利益和风险”，例如“技术超越金融市场的聪明程度，超越人类研究人员的创造力，超越人类领袖的操控力，开发我们甚至无法理解的武器”。霍金建议&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; ，人们应该更认真地对待人工智能，并做更多的工作来为奇点做准备：&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-transcendence-looks-at-the-implications-of-artificial-intelligence--but-are-we-taking-ai-seriously-enough-9313474.html |title=Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of artificial intelligence - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'  |work=[[The Independent]] |author=Stephen Hawking |date=1 May 2014 |accessdate=May 5, 2014|author-link=Stephen Hawking }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|So, facing possible futures of incalculable benefits and risks, the experts are surely doing everything possible to ensure the best outcome, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message saying, &amp;quot;We'll arrive in a few decades,&amp;quot; would we just reply, &amp;quot;OK, call us when you get here – we'll leave the lights on&amp;quot;? Probably not – but this is more or less what is happening with AI.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
所以，面对可能的收益和风险难以估量的未来，专家们肯定会尽一切可能确保最好的结果，对吗？错了。如果一个高级的外星文明给我们发了一条信息说，“我们几十年后就会到达”，我们会不会只回答，“好吧，你到了这里就打电话给我们——我们会开着灯的”？可能不会——但这或多或少就是人工智能正在发生的事情。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}} claims that there is no direct evolutionary motivation for an AI to be friendly to humans. Evolution has no inherent tendency to produce outcomes valued by humans, and there is little reason to expect an arbitrary optimisation process to promote an outcome desired by mankind, rather than inadvertently leading to an AI behaving in a way not intended by its creators.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom8&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nick Bostrom, [http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html &amp;quot;Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;], in ''Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making in Humans and in Artificial Intelligence'', Vol. 2, ed. I. Smit et al., Int. Institute of Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics, 2003, pp. 12–17&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]: [http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120611190606/http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf |date=2012-06-11 }}. Draft for a publication in ''Global Catastrophic Risk'' from August 31, 2006, retrieved July 18, 2011 (PDF file)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst9&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/06/11/the-stamp-collecting-device/ The Stamp Collecting Device, Nick Hay]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Anders Sandberg]] has also elaborated on this scenario, addressing various common counter-arguments.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;aleph&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2011/02/why_we_should_fear_the_paperclipper.html 'Why we should fear the Paperclipper'], 2011-02-14 entry of Sandberg's blog 'Andart'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; AI researcher [[Hugo de Garis]] suggests that artificial intelligences may simply eliminate the human race [[instrumental convergence|for access to scarce resources]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems10&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and humans would be powerless to stop them.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;forbes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;de Garis, Hugo. [https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/cosmist-terran-cyborgist-opinions-contributors-artificial-intelligence-09-hugo-de-garis.html &amp;quot;The Coming Artilect War&amp;quot;], Forbes.com, 22 June 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Alternatively, AIs developed under evolutionary pressure to promote their own survival could outcompete humanity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Berglas(2008) 声称, 没有直接的进化动机促使人工智能对人类友好。进化并不倾向于产生人类所重视的结果，也没有理由期望一个任意的优化过程会促进人类所期望的结果，而不是无意中导致人工智能以违背其创造者原有意图的方式行事。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom8&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nick Bostrom, [http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html &amp;quot;Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;], in ''Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making in Humans and in Artificial Intelligence'', Vol. 2, ed. I. Smit et al., Int. Institute of Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics, 2003, pp. 12–17&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]: [http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120611190606/http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf |date=2012-06-11 }}. Draft for a publication in ''Global Catastrophic Risk'' from August 31, 2006, retrieved July 18, 2011 (PDF file)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst9&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/06/11/the-stamp-collecting-device/ The Stamp Collecting Device, Nick Hay]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 安德斯·桑德伯格 Anders Sandberg 也也对这一情景进行了详细阐述，讨论了各种常见的反驳意见&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;aleph&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2011/02/why_we_should_fear_the_paperclipper.html 'Why we should fear the Paperclipper'], 2011-02-14 entry of Sandberg's blog 'Andart'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。人工智能研究员 Hugo de Garis&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems10&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  认为，人工智能可能会为了获取稀缺资源而直接消灭人类，并且人类将无力阻止它们。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;forbes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;de Garis, Hugo. [https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/cosmist-terran-cyborgist-opinions-contributors-artificial-intelligence-09-hugo-de-garis.html &amp;quot;The Coming Artilect War&amp;quot;], Forbes.com, 22 June 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 或者，在进化压力下为了促进自身生存而发展起来的人工智能可能会胜过人类。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bostrom (2002) discusses human extinction scenarios, and lists superintelligence as a possible cause:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bostrom(2002)讨论了人类灭绝的场景，并列举超级智能作为一个可能的原因:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person who asked the question.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the  matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person  who asked the question.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
当我们创造出第一个超级智能实体时，我们可能会犯错并给它一个导致人类毁灭的目标（假设它巨大的智力优势赋予它这样做的力量）。例如，我们可能会错误地将子目标提升为超级目标。我们告诉它去解决一个数学问题，然后它将太阳系中的所有物质变成一个巨大的计算装置，在这个过程中杀死了提出这个问题的人。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]], a significant problem in AI safety is that unfriendly artificial intelligence is likely to be much easier to create than friendly AI. While both require large advances in recursive optimisation process design, friendly AI also requires the ability to make goal structures invariant under self-improvement (or the AI could transform itself into something unfriendly) and a goal structure that aligns with human values and does not automatically destroy the human race. An unfriendly AI, on the other hand, can optimize for an arbitrary goal structure, which does not need to be invariant under self-modification.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst12&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html Coherent Extrapolated Volition, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, May 2004 ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100815055725/http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html |date=2010-08-15 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{harvtxt|Bill Hibbard|2014}} proposes an AI design that avoids several dangers including self-delusion,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JAGI2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| journal=Journal of Artificial General Intelligence| year=2012| volume=3| issue=1| title=Model-Based Utility Functions| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.| doi=10.2478/v10229-011-0013-5| page=1|arxiv = 1111.3934 |bibcode = 2012JAGI....3....1H | s2cid=8434596}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; unintended instrumental actions,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_56.pdf  Avoiding Unintended AI Behaviors.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle. [http://intelligence.org/2012/12/19/december-2012-newsletter/ This paper won the Machine Intelligence Research Institute's 2012 Turing Prize for the Best AGI Safety Paper].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and corruption of the reward generator.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; He also discusses social impacts of AI&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JET2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| url=http://jetpress.org/v17/hibbard.htm| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology| year=2008| volume=17| title=The Technology of Mind and a New Social Contract| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and testing AI.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12b&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_57.pdf  Decision Support for Safe AI Design|.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His 2001 book ''[[Super-Intelligent Machines]]'' advocates the need for public education about AI and public control over AI. It also proposed a simple design that was vulnerable to corruption of the reward generator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
按照[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]的观点，人工智能安全的一个重要问题是，不友好的人工智能可能比友好的人工智能更容易创建。虽然两者都需要递归优化过程的进步，但友好的人工智能还需要目标结构在自我改进过程中保持不变（否则人工智能可以将自己转变成不友好的东西），以及一个与人类价值观相一致且不会自动毁灭人类的目标结构。另一方面，一个不友好的人工智能可以针对任意的目标结构进行优化，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst12&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html Coherent Extrapolated Volition, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, May 2004 ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100815055725/http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html |date=2010-08-15 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 而目标结构不需要在自我改进过程中保持不变。Bill Hibbard (2014)提出了一种人工智能设计&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JAGI2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| journal=Journal of Artificial General Intelligence| year=2012| volume=3| issue=1| title=Model-Based Utility Functions| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.| doi=10.2478/v10229-011-0013-5| page=1|arxiv = 1111.3934 |bibcode = 2012JAGI....3....1H | s2cid=8434596}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ，可以避免包括自欺欺人&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_56.pdf  Avoiding Unintended AI Behaviors.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle. [http://intelligence.org/2012/12/19/december-2012-newsletter/ This paper won the Machine Intelligence Research Institute's 2012 Turing Prize for the Best AGI Safety Paper].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 、无意的工具性行为和奖励机制&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;的腐败等一些危险。他还讨论了人工智能&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JET2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| url=http://jetpress.org/v17/hibbard.htm| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology| year=2008| volume=17| title=The Technology of Mind and a New Social Contract| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;和人工智能测试的社会影响&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12b&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_57.pdf  Decision Support for Safe AI Design|.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。他在2001年出版的“超级智能机器Super-Intelligent Machines”一书中提倡对人工智能的公共教育和公众控制。该书还提出了一个简单的易受奖励机制的腐败影响的设计。It also proposed a simple design that was vulnerable to corruption of the reward generator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===社会生物进化的下一步===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Sociocultural evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{社会文化进化}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Major Evolutionary Transitions digital.jpg|thumb|upright=1.6|Schematic Timeline of Information and Replicators in the Biosphere: Gillings et al.'s &amp;quot;[[The Major Transitions in Evolution|major evolutionary transitions]]&amp;quot; in information processing.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Major_Evolutionary_Transitions_digital.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[档案：主要进化过渡数字.jpg|thumb |直立=1.6 |生物圈中信息和复制因子的示意时间线：Gillings等人在信息处理中的“[[进化中的主要转变|主要进化转变]]”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-99|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[99]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Biological vs. digital information.jpg|thumb|Amount of digital information worldwide (5{{e|21}} bytes) versus human genome information worldwide (10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;19&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; bytes) in 2014.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Biological_vs._digital_information.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[档案：生物vs。数字信息.jpg|2014年，全球数字信息总量（5{e | 21}字节）与全球人类基因组信息（10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;19&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;字节）的对比。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-99|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[99]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the technological singularity is usually seen as a sudden event, some scholars argue the current speed of change already fits this description.{{citation needed|date=April 2018}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然技术奇点通常被视为一个突发事件，但一些学者认为目前的变化速度已经符合这种描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, some argue that we are already in the midst of a [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|major evolutionary transition]] that merges technology, biology, and society. Digital technology has infiltrated the fabric of human society to a degree of indisputable and often life-sustaining dependence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
此外，有人认为，我们已经处在一个融合了技术、生物学和社会学的进化巨变major evolutionary transition之中。数字技术已经无可争辩地渗透到人类社会的结构中，而且生命的维持常常依赖数字技术。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2016 article in ''[[Trends in Ecology &amp;amp; Evolution]]'' argues that &amp;quot;humans already embrace fusions of biology and technology. We spend most of our waking time communicating through digitally mediated channels... we trust [[artificial intelligence]] with our lives through [[Anti-lock braking system|antilock braking in cars]] and [[autopilot]]s in planes... With one in three marriages in America beginning online, digital algorithms are also taking a role in human pair bonding and reproduction&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2016年发表在 生态学和进化进展 Trends in Ecology and Evolution 的一篇文章认为，“人类已经接受了生物和技术的融合。我们清醒时大部分时间都是通过数字媒介进行交流的……我们拿性命做担保信任汽车上的防抱死制动系统 Anti-lock braking system 和飞机上的自动巡航模式 autopilot……在美国，三分之一的婚姻都是在网络上开始的，数字算法也在人类配对和繁殖中也发挥了作用”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article further argues that from the perspective of the [[evolution]], several previous [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|Major Transitions in Evolution]] have transformed life through innovations in information storage and replication ([[RNA]], [[DNA]], [[multicellularity]], and [[culture]] and [[language]]). In the current stage of life's evolution, the carbon-based biosphere has generated a [[cognitive system]] (humans) capable of creating technology that will result in a comparable [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|evolutionary transition]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
文章进一步指出，从进化的角度来看，以前的几次[[进化]]巨变通过信息存储和复制方式（如RNA、DNA、多细胞性、文化和语言的出现）的创新来改变生命。在生命进化的当前阶段，以碳为基础的生物圈产生了一个认知系统（人类），能够创造技术，从而导致一个类似的进化变迁。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The digital information created by humans has reached a similar magnitude to biological information in the biosphere. Since the 1980s, the quantity of digital information stored has doubled about every 2.5 years, reaching about 5 [[zettabyte]]s in 2014 (5{{e|21}} bytes).{{Citation needed|date=April 2019}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
人类创造的数字信息已经达到了与生物圈中生物信息相似的规模。自20世纪80年代以来，存储的数字信息量大约每2.5年翻一番，2014年达到约5泽字节（5e21字节）。{{Citation needed|date=April 2019}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In biological terms, there are 7.2&amp;amp;nbsp;billion humans on the planet, each having a genome of 6.2&amp;amp;nbsp;billion nucleotides. Since one byte can encode four nucleotide pairs, the individual genomes of every human on the planet could be encoded by approximately 1{{e|19}} bytes. The digital realm stored 500 times more information than this in 2014 (see figure). The total amount of DNA contained in all of the cells on Earth is estimated to be about 5.3{{e|37}} base pairs, equivalent to 1.325{{e|37}} bytes of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在生物学方面，地球上有72亿人，每个人的基因组有62亿个核苷酸。由于一个字节可以编码四个核苷酸对，地球上每个人类的个体基因组可以编码大约1{e | 19}字节。2014年，数字领域存储的信息是这个数字的500倍（见图）。据估计，地球上所有细胞所含的DNA总量约为5.3{e | 37}碱基对，相当于1.325{e | 37}字节的信息。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If growth in digital storage continues at its current rate of 30–38% compound annual growth per year,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; it will rival the total information content contained in all of the DNA in all of the cells on Earth in about 110 years. This would represent a doubling of the amount of information stored in the biosphere across a total time period of just 150 years&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal |url=http://escholarship.org/uc/item/38f4b791 |doi=10.1016/j.tree.2015.12.013|pmid=26777788|title=Information in the Biosphere: Biological and Digital Worlds|journal=Trends in Ecology &amp;amp; Evolution|volume=31|issue=3|pages=180–189|year=2016|last1=Kemp|first1=D. J.|last2=Hilbert|first2=M.|last3=Gillings|first3=M. R.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如果数字存储以目前每年30-38%的复合年增长率继续增长，它将在大约110年内与地球上所有细胞中的所有DNA所包含的信息总量相抗衡。这将意味着在仅仅150年的时间里，生物圈中储存的信息量翻了一番”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===对人类社会的影响===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{further|Artificial intelligence in fiction}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{小说中的人工智能}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In February 2009, under the auspices of the [[Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence]] (AAAI), [[Eric Horvitz]] chaired a meeting of leading computer scientists, artificial intelligence researchers and roboticists at Asilomar in Pacific Grove, California. The goal was to discuss the potential impact of the hypothetical possibility that robots could become self-sufficient and able to make their own decisions. They discussed the extent to which computers and robots might be able to acquire [[autonomy]], and to what degree they could use such abilities to pose threats or hazards.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009年2月，在人工智能促进协会Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence(AAAI) 的主持下，Eric Horvitz在加利福尼亚州Pacific Grove 的 Asilomar 主持了一次由主要计算机科学家、人工智能研究人员和机器人学家参加的会议。其目的是讨论机器人能够自给自足并能够自己做决定的假设可能性的潜在影响。他们讨论了计算机和机器人能够在多大程度上获得自主性 autonomy，以及在多大程度上可以利用这些能力对人类构成威胁或危险。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some machines are programmed with various forms of semi-autonomy, including the ability to locate their own power sources and choose targets to attack with weapons. Also, some [[computer viruses]] can evade elimination and, according to scientists in attendance, could therefore be said to have reached a &amp;quot;cockroach&amp;quot; stage of machine intelligence. The conference attendees noted that self-awareness as depicted in science-fiction is probably unlikely, but that other potential hazards and pitfalls exist.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?_r=1&amp;amp;ref=todayspaper Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man] By JOHN MARKOFF, NY Times, July 26, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有些机器被编程成各种形式的半自主 semi-autonomy，包括定位自己的电源和选择武器攻击的目标等。此外，有些计算机病毒可以避免被消除，根据与会科学家的说法，可以说已经达到了机器智能的“蟑螂”阶段。与会者指出，科幻小说中描述的自我意识可能不太可能，但也存在其他潜在的危险和陷阱。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?_r=1&amp;amp;ref=todayspaper Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man] By JOHN MARKOFF, NY Times, July 26, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank S. Robinson predicts that once humans achieve a machine with the intelligence of a human, scientific and technological problems will be tackled and solved with brainpower far superior to that of humans. He notes that artificial systems are able to share data more directly than humans, and predicts that this would result in a global network of super-intelligence that would dwarf human capability.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |last=Robinson |first=Frank S. |title=The Human Future: Upgrade or Replacement? |magazine=[[The Humanist]] |date=27 June 2013 |url=https://thehumanist.com/magazine/july-august-2013/features/the-human-future-upgrade-or-replacement}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Robinson also discusses how vastly different the future would potentially look after such an intelligence explosion. One example of this is solar energy, where the Earth receives vastly more solar energy than humanity captures, so capturing more of that solar energy would hold vast promise for civilizational growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank S. Robinson 预言，一旦人类实现了具有人类智能的机器，科学技术问题将被远远优于人类的智力来解决。他指出，人工系统能够比人类更直接地共享数据，并预测这将导致一个全球的超级智能网络，使人类的能力相形见绌。Robinson还讨论了在这样一次智能爆炸之后，未来可能会有多大的不同。其中一个例子就是太阳能，地球接收到的太阳能远远多于人类捕获的太阳能，因此捕捉更多的太阳能将为文明发展带来巨大的希望。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==硬起飞与软起飞==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Recursive self-improvement.svg|thumb|upright=1.6|In this sample recursive self-improvement scenario, humans modifying an AI's architecture would be able to double its performance every three years through, for example, 30 generations before exhausting all feasible improvements (left). If instead the AI is smart enough to modify its own architecture as well as human researchers can, its time required to complete a redesign halves with each generation, and it progresses all 30 feasible generations in six years (right).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky-global-risk&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]. &amp;quot;Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk.&amp;quot; Global catastrophic risks (2008).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Recursive_self-improvement.svg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[文件：在这个示例递归自我改进场景中，修改人工智能体系结构的人可以每三年将其性能提高一倍，例如，30代人，然后用尽所有可行的改进（左）。相反，如果人工智能足够聪明，能够像人类研究人员那样修改自己的架构，那么每一代人完成一次重新设计所需的时间将减半，并且它在6年内将所有30代可行的代都推进（右图）。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky-global-risk&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]. &amp;quot;Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk.&amp;quot; Global catastrophic risks (2008).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a hard takeoff scenario, an AGI rapidly self-improves, &amp;quot;taking control&amp;quot; of the world (perhaps in a matter of hours), too quickly for significant human-initiated error correction or for a gradual tuning of the AGI's goals. In a soft takeoff scenario, AGI still becomes far more powerful than humanity, but at a human-like pace (perhaps on the order of decades), on a timescale where ongoing human interaction and correction can effectively steer the AGI's development.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bugaj, Stephan Vladimir, and Ben Goertzel. &amp;quot;Five ethical imperatives and their implications for human-AGI interaction.&amp;quot; Dynamical Psychology (2007).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sotala, Kaj, and Roman V. Yampolskiy. &amp;quot;Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a survey.&amp;quot; Physica Scripta 90.1 (2014): 018001.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在硬起飞的情况下，通用人工智能 AGI 迅速自我完善并“掌控”世界（也许在几个小时内）。速度太快，以致于无法进行重大的人为纠错或对 AGI 的目标进行逐步调整。在软起飞的情况下，虽然 AGI 仍然比人类强大得多，但却以一种类似人类的速度进步（也许是几十年的数量级），持续的人类互动和修正可以有效地引导AGI 的发展。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bugaj, Stephan Vladimir, and Ben Goertzel. &amp;quot;Five ethical imperatives and their implications for human-AGI interaction.&amp;quot; Dynamical Psychology (2007).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sotala, Kaj, and Roman V. Yampolskiy. &amp;quot;Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a survey.&amp;quot; Physica Scripta 90.1 (2014): 018001.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ramez Naam]] argues against a hard takeoff. He has pointed that we already see recursive self-improvement by superintelligences, such as corporations. [[Intel]], for example, has &amp;quot;the collective brainpower of tens of thousands of humans and probably millions of CPU cores to... design better CPUs!&amp;quot; However, this has not led to a hard takeoff; rather, it has led to a soft takeoff in the form of [[Moore's law]].&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Further&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=The Singularity Is Further Than It Appears|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/the-singularity-is-further-tha.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Naam further points out that the computational complexity of higher intelligence may be much greater than linear, such that &amp;quot;creating a mind of intelligence 2 is probably ''more'' than twice as hard as creating a mind of intelligence 1.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Ascend&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=Why AIs Won't Ascend in the Blink of an Eye - Some Math|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/why-ais-wont-ascend-in-blink-of-an-eye.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ramez Naam反对硬起飞。他指出，我们已经看到企业等超级智能体的递归式地自我完善。例如，Intel拥有“数万人的集体脑力，可能还有数百万个CPU核心……来设计更好的CPU！”然而，这并没有导致硬起飞；相反，它以摩尔定律的形式实现了软起飞&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Further&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=The Singularity Is Further Than It Appears|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/the-singularity-is-further-tha.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。Naam进一步指出，高等智能的计算复杂度可能比线性大得多，因此，“创建智能系统2的难度可能两倍于是创建智能系统1的两倍多。”&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Ascend&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=Why AIs Won't Ascend in the Blink of an Eye - Some Math|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/why-ais-wont-ascend-in-blink-of-an-eye.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[J. Storrs Hall]] believes that &amp;quot;many of the more commonly seen scenarios for overnight hard takeoff are circular – they seem to assume hyperhuman capabilities at the ''starting point'' of the self-improvement process&amp;quot; in order for an AI to be able to make the dramatic, domain-general improvements required for takeoff. Hall suggests that rather than recursively self-improving its hardware, software, and infrastructure all on its own, a fledgling AI would be better off specializing in one area where it was most effective and then buying the remaining components on the marketplace, because the quality of products on the marketplace continually improves, and the AI would have a hard time keeping up with the cutting-edge technology used by the rest of the world.&amp;lt;ref name=Hall2008&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Hall|first=J. Storrs|title=Engineering Utopia|journal=Artificial General Intelligence, 2008: Proceedings of the First AGI Conference|date=2008|pages=460–467|url=http://www.agiri.org/takeoff_hall.pdf|accessdate=16 May 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J.Storrs Hall认为，“许多常见的一夜之间出现的硬起飞场景都是循环论证——它们似乎在自我提升过程的起点上假设了超人类的能力”，以便人工智能能够实现起飞所需的戏剧性的、领域通用的改进。Hall认为，一个初出茅庐的人工智能与其靠自己不断地自我改进硬件、软件和基础设施，不如专注于一个它最有效的领域，然后在市场上购买剩余的组件，因为市场上产品的质量不断提高，人工智能将很难跟上世界其他地方使用的尖端技术。&amp;lt;ref name=Hall2008&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Hall|first=J. Storrs|title=Engineering Utopia|journal=Artificial General Intelligence, 2008: Proceedings of the First AGI Conference|date=2008|pages=460–467|url=http://www.agiri.org/takeoff_hall.pdf|accessdate=16 May 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ben Goertzel]] agrees with Hall's suggestion that a new human-level AI would do well to use its intelligence to accumulate wealth. The AI's talents might inspire companies and governments to disperse its software throughout society. Goertzel is skeptical of a hard five minute takeoff but speculates that a takeoff from human to superhuman level on the order of five years is reasonable. Goerzel refers to this scenario as a &amp;quot;semihard takeoff&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Goertzel2014&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Goertzel|first1=Ben|title=Superintelligence — Semi-hard Takeoff Scenarios|url=http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/09/26/superintelligence-semi-hard-takeoff-scenarios/|accessdate=25 October 2014|agency=h+ Magazine|date=26 Sep 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ben Goertzel 同意 Hall 的意见，即一种新的人类级别的人工智能将很好地利用其智能来积累财富。人工智能的天赋可能会激励公司和政府将其软件分散到整个社会。Goertzel 对5分钟的硬起飞持怀疑态度，但他推测从人类到超人的水平，以5年的速度起飞是合理的。Goerzel将这种情况称为“半硬起飞semihard takeoff”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Goertzel2014&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Goertzel|first1=Ben|title=Superintelligence — Semi-hard Takeoff Scenarios|url=http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/09/26/superintelligence-semi-hard-takeoff-scenarios/|accessdate=25 October 2014|agency=h+ Magazine|date=26 Sep 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Max More]] disagrees, arguing that if there were only a few superfast human-level AIs, that they would not radically change the world, as they would still depend on other people to get things done and would still have human cognitive constraints. Even if all superfast AIs worked on intelligence augmentation, it is unclear why they would do better in a discontinuous way than existing human cognitive scientists at producing super-human intelligence, although the rate of progress would increase. More further argues that a superintelligence would not transform the world overnight: a superintelligence would need to engage with existing, slow human systems to accomplish physical impacts on the world. &amp;quot;The need for collaboration, for organization, and for putting ideas into physical changes will ensure that all the old rules are not thrown out overnight or even within years.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=More&amp;gt;{{cite web|last1=More|first1=Max|title=Singularity Meets Economy|url=http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#more|accessdate=10 November 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Max More不同意这一观点，他认为，如果只有少数超高速的人类水平的人工智能，它们不会从根本上改变世界，因为它们仍将依赖人来完成任务，并且仍然会受到人类认知的限制。即使所有的超高速人工智能都致力于智能增强，但目前还不清楚为什么它们在产生超人类智能方面比现有的人类认知科学家做得更好，尽管进展速度会加快。更进一步指出，超级智能不会在一夜之间改变世界：超级智能需要与现有的、缓慢的人类系统进行接触，以完成对世界的物理影响。”合作、组织和将想法付诸实际变革的需要将确保所有旧规则不会在一夜之间甚至几年内被抛弃。”&amp;lt;ref name=More&amp;gt;{{cite web|last1=More|first1=Max|title=Singularity Meets Economy|url=http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#more|accessdate=10 November 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==永生==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his 2005 book, ''[[The Singularity is Near]]'', [[Ray Kurzweil|Kurzweil]] suggests that medical advances would allow people to protect their bodies from the effects of aging, making the [[Life extension|life expectancy limitless]]. Kurzweil argues that the technological advances in medicine would allow us to continuously repair and replace defective components in our bodies, prolonging life to an undetermined age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Singularity Is Near'', p.&amp;amp;nbsp;215.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Kurzweil further buttresses his argument by discussing current bio-engineering advances. Kurzweil suggests [[somatic gene therapy]]; after synthetic viruses with specific genetic information, the next step would be to apply this technology to gene therapy, replacing human DNA with synthesized genes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Singularity is Near'', p.&amp;amp;nbsp;216.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在Kurzweil 2005年出版的《奇点近了The Singularity is Near》一书中，他指出，医学的进步将使人们能够保护自己的身体免受衰老的影响，从而延长寿命。Kurzweil认为，医学的技术进步将使我们能够不断地修复和更换我们身体中有缺陷的部件，从而将寿命延长到某个他无法确定的年龄。Kurzweil通过讨论当前的生物工程进展进一步支持了他的论点。Kurzweil建议了体细胞基因疗法somatic gene therapy；在合成具有特定遗传信息的病毒之后，下一步则是把这项技术应用到基因治疗中，用合成的基因取代人类的DNA。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[K. Eric Drexler]], one of the founders of [[nanotechnology]], postulated cell repair devices, including ones operating within cells and utilizing as yet hypothetical [[biological machine]]s, in his 1986 book ''[[Engines of Creation]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[K.Eric Drexler]]，纳米技术nanotechnology的创始人之一，在他1986年的著作“创造的引擎Engines of Creation”中，假设了细胞修复设备，包括在细胞内运行并利用目前假设的[[生物机器]]的设备。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Richard Feynman]], it was his former graduate student and collaborator [[Albert Hibbs]] who originally suggested to him (circa 1959) the idea of a ''medical'' use for Feynman's theoretical micromachines. Hibbs suggested that certain repair machines might one day be reduced in size to the point that it would, in theory, be possible to (as Feynman put it) &amp;quot;[[Molecular machine#Biological|swallow the doctor]]&amp;quot;. The idea was incorporated into Feynman's 1959 essay ''[[There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom]].''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url = http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html|title = There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom|first = Richard P.|last = Feynman |author-link = Richard Feynman|date = December 1959|url-status = dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100211190050/http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html|archive-date = 2010-02-11}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
根据[[Richard Feynman]]，他过去的研究生和合作者[[Albert Hibbs]]最初向他建议（大约在1959年）费曼理论微型机械Feynman's theoretical micromachines的“医学”用途。Hibbs认为，有一天，理论上某些修理机器的尺寸可能会被尽可能地缩小（正如费曼所说的那样）“[[Molecular machine#Biological|swallow the doctor]]”。这个想法被收入了费曼1959年的文章“在底部有很多空间[There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beyond merely extending the operational life of the physical body, [[Jaron Lanier]] argues for a form of immortality called &amp;quot;Digital Ascension&amp;quot; that involves &amp;quot;people dying in the flesh and being uploaded into a computer and remaining conscious&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |title = You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto |last = Lanier |first = Jaron |author-link = Jaron Lanier |publisher = [[Alfred A. Knopf]] |year = 2010 |isbn = 978-0307269645 |location = New York, NY |page = [https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780307269645/page/26 26] |url-access = registration |url = https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780307269645 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
除了仅仅延长物质身体的运行寿命之外，[[Jaron Lanier]]还主张一种称为“数字提升Digital Ascension”的不朽形式，即“人在肉体层面死亡，意识被上传到电脑里并保持清醒”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==概念史==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A paper by Mahendra Prasad, published in ''[[AI Magazine]]'', asserts that the 18th-century mathematician [[Marquis de Condorcet]] was the first person to hypothesize and mathematically model an intelligence explosion and its effects on humanity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Prasad|first=Mahendra|year=2019|title=Nicolas de Condorcet and the First Intelligence Explosion Hypothesis|journal=AI Magazine|volume=40|issue=1|pages=29–33|doi=10.1609/aimag.v40i1.2855}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahendra Prasad在“[[人工智能杂志]]”上发表的一篇论文断言，18世纪的数学家[[Marquis de Condorcet]]是第一个对智能爆炸及其对人类影响进行假设和数学建模的人。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An early description of the idea was made in [[John Wood Campbell Jr.]]'s 1932 short story &amp;quot;The last evolution&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1932年[[约翰.伍德.坎贝尔]的短篇小说《最后的进化》（the last evolution）对这一想法作了早期的描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his 1958 obituary for [[John von Neumann]], Ulam recalled a conversation with von Neumann about the &amp;quot;ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=mathematical/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ulam在1958年为约翰·冯·诺依曼写的讣告中，回忆了与冯·诺依曼的一次对话：“技术的不断进步和人类生活方式的变化，这使我们似乎接近了种族历史上某些基本的奇点，超出了这些奇点，人类的事务就不能继续下去了。”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1965, Good wrote his essay postulating an &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; of recursive self-improvement of a machine intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1965年，古德写了一篇文章，假设机器智能的自我改进迭代是“智能爆炸”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981, [[Stanisław Lem]] published his [[science fiction]] novel ''[[Golem XIV]]''. It describes a military AI computer (Golem XIV) who obtains consciousness and starts to increase his own intelligence, moving towards personal technological singularity. Golem XIV was originally created to aid its builders in fighting wars, but as its intelligence advances to a much higher level than that of humans, it stops being interested in the military requirement because it finds them lacking internal logical consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1981年，[[Stanisław Lem]]出版了他的[[科幻小说]]小说“[[Golem XIV]]”。它描述了一台军用人工智能计算机（Golem XIV）获得了意识并开始增加自己的智能，朝着个体的技术奇点迈进。Golem XIV最初是为了帮助它的建造者打仗，但随着它的智力发展到比人类更高的水平，它不再对军事感兴趣，因为它发现它们缺乏内在的逻辑一致性。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1983, [[Vernor Vinge]] greatly popularized Good's intelligence explosion in a number of writings, first addressing the topic in print in the January 1983 issue of ''[[Omni (magazine)|Omni]]'' magazine. In this op-ed piece, Vinge seems to have been the first to use the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in a way that was specifically tied to the creation of intelligent machines:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google4&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1983年，[[Vernor Vinge]]在许多著作中极大地普及了Good的智能爆炸，他第一次在1983年1月出版的“[[Omni”杂志上提到了这一主题。在这篇评论文章中，Vinge似乎是第一个使用“奇点”一词的人，并将“奇点”的概念特别地与智能机器的创造进行联系：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|We will soon create intelligences greater than our own. When this happens, human history will have reached a kind of singularity, an intellectual transition as impenetrable as the knotted space-time at the center of a black hole, and the world will pass far beyond our understanding. This singularity, I believe, already haunts a number of science-fiction writers. It makes realistic extrapolation to an interstellar future impossible. To write a story set more than a century hence, one needs a nuclear war in between ... so that the world remains intelligible.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{我们很快就会创造出比我们自己更强大的智能。当这种情况发生时，人类历史将达到一种奇点，一种如同黑洞中心打结的时空一样难以逾越的知识转变，世界将远远超出我们的理解。我相信，这种奇点已经困扰了许多科幻作家。这使得对星际未来的现实推断变得不可能。要写一个多世纪以后的故事，科幻小说家需要一场核战争……这样世界就可以理解了。}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1985, in &amp;quot;The Time Scale of Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;, artificial intelligence researcher [[Ray Solomonoff]] articulated mathematically the related notion of what he called an &amp;quot;infinity point&amp;quot;: if a research community of human-level self-improving AIs take four years to double their own speed, then two years, then one year and so on, their capabilities increase infinitely in finite time.&amp;lt;ref name=chalmers /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;std&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1985年，在《人工智能的时间尺度The Time Scale of Artificial Intelligence》一书中，人工智能研究人员[[Ray Solomonoff]]以数学的方式阐述了他所说的“无限点”的相关概念：如果一个人类水平的能自我改进人工智能的研究社区需要四年时间使其速度加倍，那么两年，然后一年，依此类推，它们的能力在有限的时间内无限增长。&amp;lt;ref name=chalmers/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=“std”/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vinge's 1993 article &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; spread widely on the internet and helped to popularize the idea.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google5&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; This article contains the statement, &amp;quot;Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.&amp;quot; Vinge argues that science-fiction authors cannot write realistic post-singularity characters who surpass the human intellect, as the thoughts of such an intellect would be beyond the ability of humans to express.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vinge 1993年的文章《未来的技术奇点：如何在后人类时代生存The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era》在互联网上广为传播，普及了这一理念。“在三十年内，我们将拥有创造超人智慧的技术手段。不久之后，人类时代将结束。”Vinge认为，科幻小说作者无法写出超越人类智力的现实主义后奇点人物，因为这种智力的思想将超出人类的表达能力。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2000, [[Bill Joy]], a prominent technologist and a co-founder of [[Sun Microsystems]], voiced concern over the potential dangers of the singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2000年，著名的技术专家和 Sun Microsystems 的联合创始人 Bill Joy，表达了对奇点潜在危险的担忧。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2005, Kurzweil published ''[[The Singularity is Near]]''. Kurzweil's publicity campaign included an appearance on ''[[The Daily Show with Jon Stewart]]''.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2005年，库兹韦尔发表了《奇点临近 The Singularity is Near》。库兹韦尔的宣传活动包括参加“ Jon Stewart 的每日秀 The Daily Show with Jon Stewart”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2007, [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]] suggested that many of the varied definitions that have been assigned to &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; are mutually incompatible rather than mutually supporting.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sandberg, Anders. &amp;quot;An overview of models of technological singularity.&amp;quot; Roadmaps to AGI and the Future of AGI Workshop, Lugano, Switzerland, March. Vol. 8. 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, Kurzweil extrapolates current technological trajectories past the arrival of self-improving AI or superhuman intelligence, which Yudkowsky argues represents a tension with both I. J. Good's proposed discontinuous upswing in intelligence and Vinge's thesis on unpredictability.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2007年，Eliezer Yudkowsky指出，“奇点”被赋予的许多不同的定义是互不兼容而不是相互支持的&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sandberg, Anders. &amp;quot;An overview of models of technological singularity.&amp;quot; Roadmaps to AGI and the Future of AGI Workshop, Lugano, Switzerland, March. Vol. 8. 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;。例如，库兹韦尔推断了在自我提升的人工智能或超人智能到来之前的当前技术轨迹。Yudkowsky 认为，这与I.J.Good 提出的智能的不连续上升和 Vinge 关于不可预测性的论点存在矛盾。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2009, Kurzweil and [[X-Prize]] founder [[Peter Diamandis]] announced the establishment of [[Singularity University]], a nonaccredited private institute whose stated mission is &amp;quot;to educate, inspire and empower leaders to apply exponential technologies to address humanity's grand challenges.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Funded by [[Google]], [[Autodesk]], [[ePlanet Ventures]], and a group of [[High tech|technology industry]] leaders, Singularity University is based at [[NASA]]'s [[Ames Research Center]] in [[Mountain View, California|Mountain View]], [[California]]. The not-for-profit organization runs an annual ten-week graduate program during summer that covers ten different technology and allied tracks, and a series of executive programs throughout the year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009年，Kurzweil和X-Prize的创始人Peter Diamandis宣布成立奇点大学，这是一所未经认证的私立学院，其宣称的使命是“教育、激励和赋能领导者来使用指数技术应对人类的重大挑战&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 。”奇点大学由Google、Autodesk、ePlanet Ventures和一群高科技产业的领导团队资助，总部设在位于加州山景城的美国宇航局 NASA 的 艾姆斯研究中心 Ames Research Center。这家非营利组织在每年夏季举办为期十周的研究生课程，涵盖十种不同的技术和相关领域，并全年举办一系列高管课程。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==在政治中==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2007, the Joint Economic Committee of the [[United States Congress]] released a report about the future of nanotechnology. It predicts significant technological and political changes in the mid-term future, including possible technological singularity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vyp1AwAAQBAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA375|title=Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society|first=David H.|last=Guston|date=14 July 2010|publisher=SAGE Publications|isbn=978-1-4522-6617-6}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web | url=http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20120213_TheFutureisComingSoonerThanYouThink.pdf | title=Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think | publisher=Joint Economic Committee | date=March 2007}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2007/03/congress_and_th.html|title=Congress and the Singularity}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2007年，美国国会联合经济委员会 the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress 发布了一份关于纳米技术的未来的报告。它预测在中期的未来会发生诸多重大的技术和政治变化，包括可能的技术奇点。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vyp1AwAAQBAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA375|title=Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society|first=David H.|last=Guston|date=14 July 2010|publisher=SAGE Publications|isbn=978-1-4522-6617-6}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web | url=http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20120213_TheFutureisComingSoonerThanYouThink.pdf | title=Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think | publisher=Joint Economic Committee | date=March 2007}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2007/03/congress_and_th.html|title=Congress and the Singularity}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former President of the United States [[Barack Obama]] spoke about singularity in his interview to ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' in 2016:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.wired.com/2016/10/president-obama-mit-joi-ito-interview/|title=Barack Obama Talks AI, Robo Cars, and the Future of the World|first=Scott|last=Dadich|journal=Wired|date=12 October 2016}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2016年，美国前总统巴拉克·奥巴马 Barack Obama 在接受《连线》杂志采访时谈到了奇点:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.wired.com/2016/10/president-obama-mit-joi-ito-interview/|title=Barack Obama Talks AI, Robo Cars, and the Future of the World|first=Scott|last=Dadich|journal=Wired|date=12 October 2016}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|text=One thing that we haven't talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren't spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about &amp;quot;Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?&amp;quot;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that we haven't talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren't spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about &amp;quot;Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有一件事我们没有谈得太多，我还想回过去谈谈，那就是我们真的必须考虑对经济的影响。因为大多数人现在并没有花太多时间去担心奇点，而是在担心“好吧，我的工作会被机器取代吗？”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==参考文献==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20010527181244/http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Authors/Computing/Good-IJ/SCtFUM.html |archive-date = 2001-05-27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archive-url =  https://web.archive.org/web/20010527181244/http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/authors/computing/good-ij/sctfum.html  | archive-date = 2001-05-27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Portal| Technology}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Accelerating change}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| series = Advances in Computers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
系列 = 计算机的进步&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial consciousness}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| isbn = 9780120121069| title = Advances in Computers Volume 6&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9780120121069&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial intelligence arms race}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl = 10919/89424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl = 10919/89424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial intelligence in fiction}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Brain simulation}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Brain–computer interface}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Emerging technologies}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Fermi paradox}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Some Skepticism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些怀疑论者&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Flynn effect}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Robin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一名: 罗宾&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Futures studies}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Global brain}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{sectionlink|Human intelligence|Improving intelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year = 1998&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1998年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Mind uploading}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Neuroenhancement}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| accessdate = 2009-06-19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009-06-19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Outline of transhumanism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20090828023928/http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年3月24日 | archiveurl =  https://web.archive.org/web/20090828023928/http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Robot learning}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archivedate = 2009-08-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archivedate = 2009-08-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Singularitarianism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological determinism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological revolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first=Anthony&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一名: 安东尼&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological unemployment}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last=Berglas&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Berglas&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title=Artificial Intelligence will Kill our Grandchildren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
人工智能会杀死我们的孙子&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year=2008&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2008年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TODO: end here&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Citations引用 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://berglas.org/Articles/AIKillGrandchildren/AIKillGrandchildren.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://berglas.org/articles/aikillgrandchildren/aikillgrandchildren.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Reflist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2008-06-13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2008-06-13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|refs =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url = http://www.technologyreview.com/view/425733/paul-allen-the-singularity-isnt-near |title= Paul Allen: The Singularity Isn't Near |access-date=2015-04-12 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Nick&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一 = 尼克&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation | first=Bill | last=Joy | author-link=Bill Joy | title=Why the future doesn't need us | journal=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired Magazine]] | volume=8 | date= April 2000 | issue=4 |url = https://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html | access-date=2007-08-07 | isbn=978-0-670-03249-5 | publisher=Viking Adult }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Bostrom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
博斯特罗姆&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Nick Bostrom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
作者: 尼克 · 博斯特罗姆&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php |title=Singularly Silly Singularity |access-date=2009-04-13 |first1=PZ |last1=Myers |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090228161422/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php |archive-date=2009-02-28 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title=Existential Risks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
存在风险&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
进化与技术杂志&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil.htm Modis, Theodore. ''The Singularity Myth''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121030072409/http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil.htm |date=2012-10-30 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year=2002&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2002年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| volume=9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| volume = 9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Anders Sandberg|Sandberg, Anders]]. [http://agi-conf.org/2010/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/agi10singmodels2.pdf An overview of models of technological singularity]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date=2007-08-07&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2007-08-07&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3854/global-catastrophic-risks-report.pdf|title=GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS SURVEY (2008) Technical Report 2008/1 Published by Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University. Anders Sandberg and Nick Bostrom|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110516021945/http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3854/global-catastrophic-risks-report.pdf|archivedate=2011-05-16}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Krazit, Tom. [http://news.cnet.com/2100-1006_3-6119618.html Intel pledges 80 cores in five years], ''CNET News'', 26 September 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Bill&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 第一 = 比尔&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;dreyfus&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Harvnb|Dreyfus|Dreyfus|2000|p=xiv}}: 'The truth is that human intelligence can never be replaced with machine intelligence simply because we are not ourselves &amp;quot;thinking machines&amp;quot; in the sense in which that term is commonly understood.' {{Harvtxt|Hawking|1998}}: 'Some people say that computers can never show true intelligence whatever that may be. But it seems to me that if very complicated chemical molecules can operate in humans to make them intelligent then equally complicated electronic circuits can also make computers act in an intelligent way. And if they are intelligent they can presumably design computers that have even greater complexity and intelligence.'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Bill Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 作者链接 = Bill Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Ethical Artificial Intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Ethical Artificial Intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{IMDb title|847969|Episode dated 23 August 2006}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| date = 5 November 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 日期 = 2014年11月5日&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| eprint=1411.1373&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1411.1373&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, ''[[The Age of Spiritual Machines]]'', Viking; 1999,  {{ISBN|978-0-14-028202-3}}. pp. [https://books.google.com/books?id=ldAGcyh0bkUC&amp;amp;pg=PA630 30, 32]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| class = cs.AI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年10月12日 | class = cs.AI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| ref=harv&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= harv&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Theodore Modis, [http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/TedWEB.htm Forecasting the Growth of Complexity and Change], ''Technological Forecasting &amp;amp; Social Change'', 69, No 4, 2002 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120615054939/http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/TedWEB.htm |date=June 15, 2012 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dooling, Richard. ''[[Rapture for the Geeks|Rapture for the Geeks: When AI Outsmarts IQ]]'' (2008), [https://books.google.com/books?id=VbBRsv1lxsUC&amp;amp;lpg=PP1&amp;amp;pg=PA88 p. 88]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dooling, Richard. ''[[Rapture for the Geeks|Rapture for the Geeks: When AI Outsmarts IQ]]'' (2008), [https://books.google.com/books?id=VbBRsv1lxsUC&amp;amp;lpg=PP1&amp;amp;pg=PA89 p. 89]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/nano/singularity-nanotech-or-ai |title=h+ Magazine &amp;amp;#124; Covering technological, scientific, and cultural trends that are changing human beings in fundamental ways |publisher=Hplusmagazine.com |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/whos-who-in-the-singularity |title=Who's Who In The Singularity – IEEE Spectrum |publisher=Spectrum.ieee.org |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1958-64-03/S0002-9904-1958-10189-5/S0002-9904-1958-10189-5.pdf | last=Ulam|first=Stanislaw |title=Tribute to John von Neumann|publisher=Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society|volume=64, #3, part 2|date=May 1958|page=5}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |title=More blades good |author=Anonymous |newspaper=The Economist |date=18 March 2006 |url=http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5624861 |location=London |page=85 |volume=378  |issue=8469 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html |title=Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards |website=nickbostrom.com }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news |url = https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html |newspaper = The New York Times | first=John | last=Markoff | title=Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced by Cheaper Software | date=2011-03-04}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near, pp. 135–136. Penguin Group, 2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, ''The Singularity is Near'', Penguin Group, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near, p. 9. Penguin Group, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Eschatology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 末世论&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Futures studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 未来研究&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singularityu.org/ Singularity University] at its official website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Philosophy of artificial intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
范畴: 人工智能哲学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Existential risk from artificial general intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 来自人工一般智能的世界末日&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;This page was moved from [[wikipedia:en:Technological singularity]]. Its edit history can be viewed at [[技术奇点/edithistory]]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:待整理页面]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Alchemist</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E5%A5%87%E7%82%B9&amp;diff=25829</id>
		<title>技术奇点</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E5%A5%87%E7%82%B9&amp;diff=25829"/>
		<updated>2021-08-15T05:43:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Alchemist：&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;此词条暂由水流心不竞、嘉树初译，徐培审校，带来阅读不便，请见谅。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Redirect|The Singularity||Singularity (disambiguation)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Redirect |奇点| |奇点（释疑)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{short description|Hypothetical point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{简介}技术增长变得不可控制和不可逆转的假设时间点}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The '''technological singularity'''—also, simply, '''the singularity'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cadwalladr, Carole (2014). &amp;quot;[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/22/robots-google-ray-kurzweil-terminator-singularity-artificial-intelligence Are the robots about to rise? Google's new director of engineering thinks so…]&amp;quot; ''The Guardian''. Guardian News and Media Limited.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;—is a [[hypothetical]] point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web |title=Collection of sources defining &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; |url=http://www.singularitysymposium.com/definition-of-singularity.html |website=singularitysymposium.com |accessdate=17 April 2019}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book |author1=Eden, Amnon H. |author2=Moor, James H. |title=Singularity hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment |date=2012 |publisher=Springer |location=Dordrecht |isbn=9783642325601 |pages=1–2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to the most popular version of the singularity hypothesis, called [[Technological singularity#Intelligence explosion|intelligence explosion]], an upgradable [[intelligent agent]] will eventually enter a &amp;quot;runaway reaction&amp;quot; of self-improvement cycles, each new and more intelligent generation appearing more and more rapidly, causing an &amp;quot;explosion&amp;quot; in intelligence and resulting in a powerful [[superintelligence]] that qualitatively far surpasses all [[human intelligence]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
技术奇点Technological singularity——简称 奇点 Singularity &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cadwalladr, Carole (2014). &amp;quot;[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/22/robots-google-ray-kurzweil-terminator-singularity-artificial-intelligence Are the robots about to rise? Google's new director of engineering thinks so…]&amp;quot; ''The Guardian''. Guardian News and Media Limited.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;是一个假设的时间点。在该时间点上，技术的增长变得不可控制和不可逆转，从而导致人类文明发生无法预见的变化。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web |title=Collection of sources defining &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; |url=http://www.singularitysymposium.com/definition-of-singularity.html |website=singularitysymposium.com |accessdate=17 April 2019}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book |author1=Eden, Amnon H. |author2=Moor, James H. |title=Singularity hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment |date=2012 |publisher=Springer |location=Dordrecht |isbn=9783642325601 |pages=1–2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;根据奇点假说（也被称为智能爆炸 intelligence explosion）最流行的版本：一个可升级的智能体终将进入一种自我完善循环的“&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt; 失控反应 runaway reaction &amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”。每个新的、更智能的世代将出现得越来越快，导致智能的“爆炸”，并产生一种在实质上远超所有人类智能的超级智能。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first use of the concept of a &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in the technological context was [[John von Neumann]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Technological Singularity'' by Murray Shanahan, (MIT Press, 2015), page 233&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Stanislaw Ulam]] reports a discussion with von Neumann &amp;quot;centered on the [[Accelerating change|accelerating progress]] of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential [[Wiktionary:singularity|singularity]] in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Subsequent authors have echoed this viewpoint.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;chalmers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Chalmers|first=David|date=2010|title=The singularity: a philosophical analysis|url=|journal=Journal of Consciousness Studies|volume=17|issue=9–10|pages=7–65|via=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一次在科技领域使用“奇点”这一概念的人是冯·诺依曼 John von Neumann&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Technological Singularity'' by Murray Shanahan, (MIT Press, 2015), page 233&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;。Stanislaw Ulam 报告了一次与冯·诺依曼的讨论。“围绕技术的加速进步和人类生活模式的改变，这让我们看到了人类历史上一些本质上的奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; 一旦超越了这些奇点，我们所熟知的人类事务就无法继续下去了”。后来作者也赞同这一观点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;chalmers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Chalmers|first=David|date=2010|title=The singularity: a philosophical analysis|url=|journal=Journal of Consciousness Studies|volume=17|issue=9–10|pages=7–65|via=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. J. Good]]'s &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; model predicts that a future superintelligence will trigger a singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Vinge, Vernor. [http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;], in ''Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace'', G. A. Landis, ed., NASA Publication CP-10129, pp. 11–22, 1993.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I. J.古德的“智能爆炸”模型预测，未来的超级智能将触发一个奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Vinge, Vernor. [http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;], in ''Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace'', G. A. Landis, ed., NASA Publication CP-10129, pp. 11–22, 1993.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The concept and the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; were popularized by [[Vernor Vinge]] in his 1993 essay ''The Coming Technological Singularity'', in which he wrote that it would signal the end of the human era, as the new superintelligence would continue to upgrade itself and would advance technologically at an incomprehensible rate. He wrote that he would be surprised if it occurred before 2005 or after 2030.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
奇点的概念和术语“奇点”是由 Vernor Vinge 在他1993年的文章《即将到来的技术奇点 The Coming Technological Singularity》中得到推广的。他在文中写道，这将标志着人类时代的终结，因为新的超级智能将持续自我升级，并以不可思议的速度在技术上进步。他写道，如果奇点发生在2005年之前或2030年之后，他会感到惊讶。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Public figures such as [[Stephen Hawking]] and [[Elon Musk]] have expressed concern that full [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) could result in human extinction.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Sparkes|first1=Matthew|title=Top scientists call for caution over artificial intelligence|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11342200/Top-scientists-call-for-caution-over-artificial-intelligence.html|accessdate=24 April 2015|work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph (UK)]]|date=13 January 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540|title=Hawking: AI could end human race|date=2 December 2014|publisher=BBC|accessdate=11 November 2017}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The consequences of the singularity and its potential benefit or harm to the human race have been intensely debated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
斯蒂芬·霍金和埃隆·马斯克等公众人物对完全人工智能（AI）可能导致人类灭绝表示担忧。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Sparkes|first1=Matthew|title=Top scientists call for caution over artificial intelligence|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11342200/Top-scientists-call-for-caution-over-artificial-intelligence.html|accessdate=24 April 2015|work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph (UK)]]|date=13 January 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540|title=Hawking: AI could end human race|date=2 December 2014|publisher=BBC|accessdate=11 November 2017}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;奇点的后果及其对人类的潜在利益或伤害一直存在激烈的争论。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Four polls of AI researchers, conducted in 2012 and 2013 by [[Nick Bostrom]] and [[Vincent C. Müller]], suggested a median probability estimate of 50% that [[artificial general intelligence]] (AGI) would be developed by 2040–2050.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;newyorker&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Khatchadourian|first1=Raffi|title=The Doomsday Invention|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=The New Yorker|date=16 November 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Müller, V. C., &amp;amp; Bostrom, N. (2016). &amp;quot;Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion&amp;quot;. In V. C. Müller (ed): ''Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence'' (pp. 555–572). Springer, Berlin. http://philpapers.org/rec/MLLFPI&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年到2013年，Nick Bostrom和Vincent c. Müller 对人工智能研究人员进行了四次调查。结果显示，通用人工智能(artificial general intelligence, AGI)在2040年至2050年被成功开发出来的概率估计的中位数为50% 。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;newyorker&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Khatchadourian|first1=Raffi|title=The Doomsday Invention|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=The New Yorker|date=16 November 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Müller, V. C., &amp;amp; Bostrom, N. (2016). &amp;quot;Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion&amp;quot;. In V. C. Müller (ed): ''Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence'' (pp. 555–572). Springer, Berlin. http://philpapers.org/rec/MLLFPI&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==背景==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although technological progress has been accelerating, it has been limited by the basic intelligence of the human brain, which has not, according to [[Paul R. Ehrlich]], changed significantly for millennia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Paul Ehrlich June 2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ehrlich, Paul. [http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/ The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, with the increasing power of computers and other technologies, it might eventually be possible to build a machine that is significantly more intelligent than humans.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;businessweek&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm Superbrains born of silicon will change everything.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801074729/http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm |date=August 1, 2010 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然技术进步一直在加速，但它一直受到人脑基本智力的限制，而根据Paul R.Ehrlich的说法，人类大脑的基本智力在几千年来并没有发生显著变化。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Paul Ehrlich June 2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ehrlich, Paul. [http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/ The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;然而，随着计算机和其他技术的日益强大，人类最终有可能制造出一台比人类智能得多的机器&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;businessweek&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm Superbrains born of silicon will change everything.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801074729/http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm |date=August 1, 2010 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a superhuman intelligence were to be invented—either through the amplification of human intelligence or through artificial intelligence—it would bring to bear greater problem-solving and inventive skills than current humans are capable of. Such an AI is referred to as Seed AI because if an AI were created with engineering capabilities that matched or surpassed those of its human creators, it would have the potential to autonomously improve its own software and hardware or design an even more capable machine. This more capable machine could then go on to design a machine of yet greater capability. These iterations of recursive self-improvement could accelerate, potentially allowing enormous qualitative change before any upper limits imposed by the laws of physics or theoretical computation set in. It is speculated that over many iterations, such an AI would far surpass human cognitive abilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如果一种超人类智能被发明出来。无论是通过人类智能的放大还是通过人工智能，它将带来比现在的人类更强的问题解决和发明创造能力。这种人工智能被称为种子人工智能 Seed AI。因为如果人工智能的工程能力能够与它的人类创造者相匹敌或超越，那么它就有潜力自主改进自己的软件和硬件，或者设计出更强大的机器。这台能力更强的机器可以继续设计一台能力更强的机器。这种自我递归改进的迭代可以加速，在物理定律或理论计算设定的任何上限之前，可能会发生巨大的质变。据推测，经过多次迭代，这样的人工智能将远远超过人类的认知能力。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==智能爆炸==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligence explosion is a possible outcome of humanity building [[artificial general intelligence]] (AGI). AGI would be capable of recursive self-improvement, leading to the rapid emergence of [[Superintelligence|artificial superintelligence]] (ASI), the limits of which are unknown, shortly after technological singularity is achieved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能爆炸是构建通用人工智能 artificial general intelligence (AGI) 的可能结果。在技术奇点实现后不久，AGI 将能够进行递归式的自我迭代，从而导致人工超级智能 artificial superintelligence (ASI) 的迅速出现，但其局限性尚不清楚。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. J. Good]] speculated in 1965 that artificial general intelligence might bring about an intelligence explosion. He speculated on the effects of superhuman machines, should they ever be invented:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1965年，I.J.Good 曾推测人工通用智能可能会带来智能爆炸。他对超人类及其的影响进行了推测，如果他们真的被发明出来的话：&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an ‘intelligence explosion,’ and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{让我们把超智能机器定义为一种机器，它可以进行远超无论多么聪明的一个人的所有智力活动。由于机器的设计是一种智力活动，那么一台超智能机器可以设计出更好的机器；那么毫无疑问会出现“智能爆炸”，人类的智能将远远落后。因此，第一台超智能机器是人类所需要的最后一项发明，当然，假设机器足够温顺并能够告诉我们如何控制它们的话。}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good's scenario runs as follows: as computers increase in power, it becomes possible for people to build a machine that is more intelligent than humanity; this superhuman intelligence possesses greater problem-solving and inventive skills than current humans are capable of. This superintelligent machine then designs an even more capable machine, or re-writes its own software to become even more intelligent; this (even more capable) machine then goes on to design a machine of yet greater capability, and so on. These iterations of recursive self-improvement accelerate, allowing enormous qualitative change before any upper limits imposed by the laws of physics or theoretical computation set in.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
古德的设想如下：随着计算机能力的增加，人们有可能制造出一台比人类更智能的机器；这种超人的智能拥有比现在人类更强大的问题解决和发明创造的能力。这台超级智能机器随后设计一台功能更强大的机器，或者重写自己的软件来变得更加智能；这台（甚至更强大的）机器接着继续设计功能更强大的机器，以此类推。这些递归式的自我完善的迭代加速，允许在物理定律或理论计算设定的任何上限之内发生巨大的质变。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==其他表现形式==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===超级智能的出现===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Superintelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{超级智能}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A superintelligence, hyperintelligence, or superhuman intelligence is a hypothetical [[intelligent agent|agent]] that possesses intelligence far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human minds. &amp;quot;Superintelligence&amp;quot; may also refer to the form or degree of intelligence possessed by such an agent. [[John von Neumann]], [[Vernor Vinge]] and [[Ray Kurzweil]] define the concept in terms of the technological creation of super intelligence. They argue that it is difficult or impossible for present-day humans to predict what human beings' lives would be like in a post-singularity world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
超级智能、超智能或超人智能是一种假想的智能体。它拥有的智能远远超过最聪明、最有天赋的人类大脑的智能。“超级智能”也可以指这种智能体所拥有的智能的形式或程度。John von Neumann，Vernor Vinge和Ray Kurzweil 从技术创造超级智能的角度定义了这个概念。他们认为，现在的人类很难或不可能预测人类在后奇点世界的生活会是什么样子&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Technology forecasters and researchers disagree about if or when human intelligence is likely to be surpassed. Some argue that advances in [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) will probably result in general reasoning systems that lack human cognitive limitations. Others believe that humans will evolve or directly modify their biology so as to achieve radically greater intelligence. A number of [[futures studies]] scenarios combine elements from both of these possibilities, suggesting that humans are likely to [[brain–computer interface|interface with computers]], or [[mind uploading|upload their minds to computers]], in a way that enables substantial intelligence amplification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
技术预言家和研究人员对人类智能是否或何时可能被超越存在分歧。一些人认为，人工智能（AI）的进步可能会产生没有人类认知局限的一般推理系统。另一些人则认为，人类将进化或直接改变自己的生物性，从而从根本上实现更高的智能。许多未来研究的场景结合了这两种可能的元素，认为人类很可能会与计算机交互，或以将他们的意识上传到计算机的方式实现大量的智能增益。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===非人工智能奇点===&lt;br /&gt;
Some writers use &amp;quot;the singularity&amp;quot; in a broader way to refer to any radical changes in our society brought about by new technologies such as [[molecular nanotechnology]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; although Vinge and other writers specifically state that without superintelligence, such changes would not qualify as a true singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些作家writers更宽泛地使用“奇点”的概念，用来指代任何我们社会中由新技术带来的剧烈变化，如分子纳米技术，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 尽管Vinge和其他作家明确指出，如果没有超级智能，这些改变就不能算作真正的奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===速度超智能===&lt;br /&gt;
A speed superintelligence describes an AI that can do everything that a human can do, where the only difference is that the machine runs faster.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1007/978-3-662-54033-6_2 |year=2017 |publisher=Springer Berlin Heidelberg |pages=11–23 |author=Kaj Sotala and Roman Yampolskiy |title=The Technological Singularity |chapter=Risks of the Journey to the Singularity |series=The Frontiers Collection |isbn=978-3-662-54031-2 |conference=The Frontiers Collection }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, with a million-fold increase in the speed of information processing relative to that of humans, a subjective year would pass in 30 physical seconds.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Such a difference in information processing speed could drive the singularity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1002/9781118922590.ch16 |year=2016 |publisher=John Wiley \&amp;amp; Sons, Inc |pages=171–224 |author=David J. Chalmers |title=Science Fiction and Philosophy |chapter=The Singularity |isbn=9781118922590 |conference=Science Fiction and Philosophy }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
速度超级智能描述了一个人工智能，它可以做任何人类能做的事情，唯一的区别是这个机器运行得更快.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1007/978-3-662-54033-6_2 |year=2017 |publisher=Springer Berlin Heidelberg |pages=11–23 |author=Kaj Sotala and Roman Yampolskiy |title=The Technological Singularity |chapter=Risks of the Journey to the Singularity |series=The Frontiers Collection |isbn=978-3-662-54031-2 |conference=The Frontiers Collection }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。例如，与人类相比，它信息处理的速度提高了一百万倍，一个主观年将在30个物理秒内过去。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;这种在信息处理上的差异可能会导致奇点。.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1002/9781118922590.ch16 |year=2016 |publisher=John Wiley \&amp;amp; Sons, Inc |pages=171–224 |author=David J. Chalmers |title=Science Fiction and Philosophy |chapter=The Singularity |isbn=9781118922590 |conference=Science Fiction and Philosophy }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==合理性==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many prominent technologists and academics dispute the plausibility of a technological singularity, including [[Paul Allen]], [[Jeff Hawkins]], [[John Henry Holland|John Holland]], [[Jaron Lanier]], and [[Gordon Moore]], whose [[Moore's law|law]] is often cited in support of the concept.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
许多著名的技术专家和学者都对技术奇点的合理性提出质疑，包括Paul Allen、Jeff Hawkins、 John Holland、Jaron Lanier和Gordon Moore，他的摩尔定律经常被引用来支持这一概念。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most proposed methods for creating superhuman or [[transhuman]] minds fall into one of two categories: intelligence amplification of human brains and artificial intelligence. The speculated ways to produce intelligence augmentation are many, and include [[bioengineering]], [[genetic engineering]], [[nootropic]] drugs, AI assistants, direct [[brain–computer interface]]s and [[mind uploading]]. Because multiple paths to an intelligence explosion are being explored, it makes a singularity more likely; for a singularity to not occur they would all have to fail.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity |title=What is the Singularity? &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
大多数创造超人或跨人类头脑的方法分为两类：人脑的智能增强和人工智能。据推测，智能增强的方法很多，包括生物工程、基因工程、益智药物、AI 助手、直接脑机接口和思维上传。因为人们正在探索通向智能爆炸的多种途径，这使得奇点出现的可能更大；奇点不发生，所有这些都必将失败。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity |title=What is the Singularity? &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robin Hanson]] expressed skepticism of human intelligence augmentation, writing that once the &amp;quot;low-hanging fruit&amp;quot; of easy methods for increasing human intelligence have been exhausted, further improvements will become increasingly difficult to find.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/vc.html#hanson |title=Some Skepticism |date=1998 |first=Robin |last=Hanson |author-link=Robin Hanson |accessdate=April 8, 2020}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Despite all of the speculated ways for amplifying human intelligence, non-human artificial intelligence (specifically seed AI) is the most popular option among the hypotheses that would advance the singularity.{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Robin Hanson 对人类智能增强表示怀疑，他写道，一旦提高人类智力的“唾手可得的”简单方法用尽，进一步的改进将变得越来越难。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/vc.html#hanson |title=Some Skepticism |date=1998 |first=Robin |last=Hanson |author-link=Robin Hanson |accessdate=April 8, 2020}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;尽管有各种提高人类智能的方法，但非人类人工智能(特别是种子人工智能)仍是所有能推进奇点的假说中最受欢迎的一个。{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether or not an intelligence explosion occurs depends on three factors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Chalmers John Locke Lecture, 10 May, Exam Schools, Oxford, [http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/news/2010/david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available Presenting a philosophical analysis of the possibility of a technological singularity or &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; resulting from recursively self-improving AI] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115205558/http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/news/2010/david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available |date=2013-01-15 }}.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The first accelerating factor is the new intelligence enhancements made possible by each previous improvement. Contrariwise, as the intelligences become more advanced, further advances will become more and more complicated, possibly overcoming the advantage of increased intelligence. Each improvement should beget at least one more improvement, on average, for movement towards singularity to continue. Finally, the laws of physics will eventually prevent any further improvements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能爆炸是否发生取决于三个因素。第一个加速因素是以前的每一次改进都使新的智能增强成为可能。相反，随着智能的进步，进一步的发展将变得越来越复杂，可能会抵消智力增长的优势。平均而言，每一次改进都应该至少带来一次改进，以便继续朝着奇点的方向发展。最后，物理定律最终会阻止任何进一步的改进。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are two logically independent, but mutually reinforcing, causes of intelligence improvements: increases in the speed of computation, and improvements to the [[algorithm]]s used.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;consc.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, David J. Chalmers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The former is predicted by [[Moore's law|Moore's Law]] and the forecasted improvements in hardware,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;itrs&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |title=ITRS |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929173755/http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |archivedate=2011-09-29 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and is comparatively similar to previous technological advances. But there are some AI researchers{{who|date=March 2017}} who believe software is more important than hardware.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|url=https://blog.chronicled.com/why-software-is-more-important-than-hardware-right-now-6a4b58feaa7c|title=Why Software Is More Important Than Hardware Right Now|last=Kulkarni|first=Ajit|date=2017-12-12|website=Chronicled|access-date=2019-02-23}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能改进有两个逻辑上独立但又相互加强的原因：计算速度的提高和使用的算法的改进。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;consc.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, David J. Chalmers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;前者由摩尔定律和硬件方面的预测改进进行预测，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;itrs&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |title=ITRS |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929173755/http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |archivedate=2011-09-29 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;与以前的技术进步比较相似。但也有一些人工智能研究人员认为软件比硬件更重要&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|url=https://blog.chronicled.com/why-software-is-more-important-than-hardware-right-now-6a4b58feaa7c|title=Why Software Is More Important Than Hardware Right Now|last=Kulkarni|first=Ajit|date=2017-12-12|website=Chronicled|access-date=2019-02-23}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2017 email survey of authors with publications at the 2015 [[Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems|NeurIPS]] and [[International Conference on Machine Learning|ICML]] machine learning conferences asked  about the chance of an intelligence explosion. Of the respondents, 12% said it was &amp;quot;quite likely&amp;quot;, 17% said it was &amp;quot;likely&amp;quot;, 21% said it was &amp;quot;about even&amp;quot;, 24% said it was &amp;quot;unlikely&amp;quot; and 26% said it was &amp;quot;quite unlikely&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2017年，一项对2015年 NeurIPS 和 ICML 机器学习会议上发表论文的作者的电子邮件调查询问了智能爆炸的可能性。在受访者中，12% 的人认为“很有可能” ，17% 的人认为“有可能” ，21% 的人认为“可能性中等” ，24% 的人认为“不太可能” ，26% 的人认为“非常不可能”。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===速度改进 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both for human and artificial intelligence, hardware improvements increase the rate of future hardware improvements. Simply put,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arstechnica&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Moore's Law]] suggests that if the first doubling of speed took 18 months, the second would take 18 subjective months; or 9 external months, whereafter, four months, two months, and so on towards a speed singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html &amp;quot;Staring into the Singularity&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An upper limit on speed may eventually be reached, although it is unclear how high this would be.  Jeff Hawkins has stated that a self-improving computer system would inevitably run into upper limits on computing power: &amp;quot;in the end there are limits to how big and fast computers can run. We would end up in the same place; we'd just get there a bit faster. There would be no singularity.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hawkins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
无论对于人类智能还是人工智能，硬件改进都会提高未来硬件改进的速度。简单地说，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arstechnica&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;Moore's Law认为，如果第一次速度翻倍需要18个月，第二次则需要18个主观月；或者9个外部月，之后，4个月、2个月，以此类推，走向速度奇点&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html &amp;quot;Staring into the Singularity&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 速度的上限最终可能会达到，尽管还不清楚这会有多高。杰夫·霍金斯（Jeff Hawkins）曾表示，一个自我完善的计算机系统不可避免地会遇到计算能力的上限：“最终，计算机的运行速度和速度都是有限的。我们最终会在同一个地方；我们只会更快到达那里。不会有奇点。”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hawkins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is difficult to directly compare [[silicon]]-based hardware with [[neuron]]s. But {{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}} notes that computer [[speech recognition]] is approaching human capabilities, and that this capability seems to require 0.01% of the volume of the brain. This analogy suggests that modern computer hardware is within a few orders of magnitude of being as powerful as the human brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
很难直接将基于硅的硬件与神经元相比较。但是{Harvtxt| Berglas|2008}指出计算机语音识别正在接近人类的能力，而且这种能力似乎需要0.01%的脑容量。这个类比表明，现代计算机硬件与人脑一样强大，只差几个数量级。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====指数增长====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Martin Ford in The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
马丁 · 福特Martin Ford的《隧道中的灯光: 自动化，加速技术和未来经济The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future》&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:PPTMooresLawai.jpg|thumb|Ray Kurzweil writes that, due to [[paradigm shift]]s, a trend of exponential growth extends [[Moore's law]] from [[integrated circuits]] to earlier [[transistor]]s, [[vacuum tube]]s, [[relay]]s, and [[electromechanics|electromechanical]] computers. He predicts that the exponential growth will continue, and that in a few decades the computing power of all computers will exceed that of (&amp;quot;unenhanced&amp;quot;) human brains, with superhuman [[artificial intelligence]] appearing around the same time.|链接=Special:FilePath/PPTMooresLawai.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[图片：PPTMooresLawai.jpg|thumb | Ray Kurzweil写道，由于[[范式转换]]s，指数增长的趋势将[[摩尔定律]]从[[集成电路]]扩展到早期的[[晶体管]]、[[真空管]]、[[继电器]]和[[机电机械]]计算机。他预测，这种指数增长将继续下去，在几十年内，所有计算机的计算能力将超过（“未增强的”）人脑，同时出现超人[[人工智能]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Moore's Law over 120 Years.png|thumb|left|An updated version of Moore's law over 120 Years (based on [[Ray Kurzweil|Kurzweil's]] [[c:File:PPTMooresLawai.jpg|graph]]). The 7 most recent data points are all [[Nvidia GPUs|NVIDIA GPUs]].|链接=Special:FilePath/Moore's_Law_over_120_Years.png]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[资料图：摩尔超过120的定律年.png|拇指|左|摩尔定律120年的更新版本（基于[[Ray Kurzweil | Kurzweil's]][[c:文件：PPTMooresLawai.jpg|图形]]）。最近的7个数据点都是[[Nvidia GPU | Nvidia GPU]].]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exponential growth in computing technology suggested by Moore's law is commonly cited as a reason to expect a singularity in the relatively near future, and a number of authors have proposed generalizations of Moore's law. Computer scientist and futurist [[Hans Moravec]] proposed in a 1998 book&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&amp;amp;pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that the exponential growth curve could be extended back through earlier computing technologies prior to the [[integrated circuit]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
摩尔定律所建议的计算技术的指数增长通常被认为是在相对不远的将来出现奇点的一个理由，许多作者已经提出了摩尔定律的推广。计算机科学家和未来主义者Hans Moravec在1998年的一本书中提到&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&amp;amp;pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;指数型增长曲线可以沿着集成电路之前的早期计算技术进行延伸。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ray Kurzweil]] postulates a [[law of accelerating returns]] in which the speed of technological change (and more generally, all evolutionary processes&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;) increases exponentially, generalizing Moore's law in the same manner as Moravec's proposal, and also including material technology (especially as applied to [[nanotechnology]]), [[Medical Technology|medical technology]] and others.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity2&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Between 1986 and 2007, machines' application-specific capacity to compute information per capita roughly doubled every 14 months; the per capita capacity of the world's general-purpose computers has doubled every 18 months; the global telecommunication capacity per capita doubled every 34 months; and the world's storage capacity per capita doubled every 40 months.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 &amp;quot;The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information&amp;quot;], Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), [[Science (journal)|Science]], 332(6025), 60–65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; On the other hand, it has been argued that the global acceleration pattern having the 21st century singularity as its parameter should be characterized as [[Hyperbolic growth|hyperbolic]] rather than exponential.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8 ''The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures. A Big History Perspective''] (Springer, 2020)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ray Kurzweil]]假设了一个[[加速回报定律]]，其中技术变革的速度（更广泛地说，所有进化过程&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;）急剧增长。从1986年到2007年，摩尔定律以与莫拉维克提案相同的方式呈指数增长，并包括材料技术（尤其是应用于[[纳米技术]]）、[[医疗技术|医疗技术]]和其他技术，计算机计算人均信息的特定应用能力大约每14个月翻一番；世界通用计算机的人均容量每18个月翻一番；全球人均电信容量每34个月翻一番；世界人均存储容量每40个月翻一番。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 &amp;quot;The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information&amp;quot;], Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), [[Science (journal)|Science]], 332(6025), 60–65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 另一方面，有人认为，以21世纪奇点为参数的全球加速度模式应该被描述为[[双曲线增长|双曲]]而不是指数型&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8 ''The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures. A Big History Perspective''] (Springer, 2020)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil reserves the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; for a rapid increase in artificial intelligence (as opposed to other technologies), writing for example that &amp;quot;The Singularity will allow us to transcend these limitations of our biological bodies and brains ... There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity3&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; He also defines his predicted date of the singularity (2045) in terms of when he expects computer-based intelligences to significantly exceed the sum total of human brainpower, writing that advances in computing before that date &amp;quot;will not represent the Singularity&amp;quot; because they do &amp;quot;not yet correspond to a profound expansion of our intelligence.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;transformation&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
库兹韦尔将“奇点”一词用于描述人工智能(相对于其他技术)的快速增长，例如他写道: “奇点将允许我们超越生物体和大脑的局限……后奇点时代，人类与机器之间将不再有区别”。库兹韦尔相信奇点将在大约2045年之前出现，那时基于计算机的智能将明显超越人类脑力的总和，在这个日期之前计算机技术的进步“并不代表奇点”，因为它们“还不符合智慧的深刻扩展”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====加速变革====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Main|Accelerating change}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Main |加速变革}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|thumb|According to Kurzweil, his [[logarithmic scale|logarithmic graph]] of 15 lists of [[paradigm shift]]s for key [[human history|historic]] events shows an [[exponential growth|exponential]] trend|链接=Special:FilePath/ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[图片：ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|thumb |根据Kurzweil的说法，他对关键的[[人类历史|历史]]事件的15个[[范式转移]]列表的[[对数标度|对数图]]显示了[[指数增长|指数]]趋势]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some singularity proponents argue its inevitability through extrapolation of past trends, especially those pertaining to shortening gaps between improvements to technology. In one of the first uses of the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in the context of technological progress, [[Stanislaw Ulam]] tells of a conversation with [[John von Neumann]] about accelerating change: &lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.&amp;lt;ref name=mathematical/&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些奇点论的支持者认为，通过对过去趋势的推断，特别是那些缩减技术进步的差距有关的趋势，奇点是不可避免的。技术进步的背景下，较早使用“奇点”一词时，Stanislaw Ulam讲述了与冯·诺伊曼关于加速变革的一次谈话：&lt;br /&gt;
一次围绕不断加速的技术进步和生活方式变化的对话，它使得人类历史上出现了一些基本的奇点，超过了这些奇点，人类的事务，如我们所知，将无法继续下去。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil claims that technological progress follows a pattern of&lt;br /&gt;
exponential growth, following what he calls the &amp;quot;law of&lt;br /&gt;
accelerating returns&amp;quot;. Whenever technology approaches a barrier,&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil writes, new technologies will surmount it. He predicts&lt;br /&gt;
paradigm shifts will become increasingly common, leading to&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;technological change so rapid and profound it represents a&lt;br /&gt;
rupture in the fabric of human history&amp;quot;.[43] Kurzweil believes that&lt;br /&gt;
the singularity will occur by approximately 2045.[38] His&lt;br /&gt;
predictions differ from Vinge's in that he predicts a gradual&lt;br /&gt;
ascent to the singularity, rather than Vinge's rapidly self�improving superhuman intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
库兹韦尔声称，技术进步遵循[[指数增长]的模式，遵循他所称的“加速返回定律law of accelerating returns”。库兹韦尔写道，每当一项技术遇到障碍时，新技术就会出来克服这个障碍。他预测范式转变将变得越来越普遍，导致“技术变革非常迅速和深刻，以至于它代表着人类历史结构的一个断裂”。库兹韦尔相信奇点将在2045年之前出现。他和Vinge预测的不同点在于他预测的是一个逐渐上升到奇点的过程，而Vinge预测了一个快速自我更新的超人类智能。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oft-cited dangers include those commonly associated with molecular nanotechnology and genetic engineering. These threats are major issues for both singularity advocates and critics, and were the subject of Bill Joy's Wired magazine article &amp;quot;Why the future doesn't need us&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
经常被引用的危险包括那些与分子纳米技术和基因工程有关的技术。这些威胁是奇点论的倡导者和批评者面临的主要议题，也是比尔 · 乔伊《连线 Wired》杂志上所发表文章《为什么未来不需要我们Why the future doesn't need us》的主题。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===算法改进 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some intelligence technologies, like &amp;quot;seed AI&amp;quot;,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Yampolskiy, Roman V 2015&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceA&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; may also have the potential to not just make themselves faster, but also more efficient, by modifying their [[source code]]. These improvements would make further improvements possible, which would make further improvements possible, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
一些智能技术，比如“种子人工智能”，通过修改自己的源代码，可能使自己不仅更快，而且更高效。这些改进将使进一步的改进成为可能，以此类推。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mechanism for a recursively self-improving set of algorithms differs from an increase in raw computation speed in two ways. First, it does not require external influence: machines designing faster hardware would still require humans to create the improved hardware, or to program factories appropriately.{{citation needed|date=July 2017}} An AI rewriting its own source code could do so while contained in an [[AI box]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
递归自我改进算法集的机制在两个方面不同于原始计算速度的提高。首先，它不需要外部影响：设计更快的硬件的机器仍然需要人类来创造改进的硬件，或者对工厂进行适当的编程。AI可以既身处一个AI盒 AI box里面，又同时改进自己的 源代码。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second, as with [[Vernor Vinge]]’s conception of the singularity, it is much harder to predict the outcome. While speed increases seem to be only a quantitative difference from human intelligence, actual algorithm improvements would be qualitatively different. [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]] compares it to the changes that human intelligence brought: humans changed the world thousands of times more rapidly than evolution had done, and in totally different ways. Similarly, the evolution of life was a massive departure and acceleration from the previous geological rates of change, and improved intelligence could cause change to be as different again.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|author=Eliezer S. Yudkowsky |url=http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/power |title=Power of Intelligence |publisher=Yudkowsky |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第二，和Vernor Vinge关于奇点的概念一样，对结果的预测要困难得多。虽然速度的提高似乎与人类的智能只是数量上的区别，但实际的算法改进在质量上是不同的。Eliezer Yudkowsky将其与人类智能带来的变化相比较：人类改变世界的速度比进化速度快数千倍，而且方式完全不同。同样地，生命的进化与以前的地质变化又有着巨大的不同和加速，而智能的提高可能会使变化再次变得不同。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|author=Eliezer S. Yudkowsky |url=http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/power |title=Power of Intelligence |publisher=Yudkowsky |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are substantial dangers associated with an intelligence explosion singularity originating from a recursively self-improving set of algorithms. First, the goal structure of the AI might not be invariant under self-improvement, potentially causing the AI to optimise for something other than what was originally intended.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008 ]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;kurzweilai&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.kurzweilai.net/artificial-general-intelligence-now-is-the-time |title=Artificial General Intelligence: Now Is the Time |publisher=KurzweilAI |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Secondly, AIs could compete for the same scarce resources mankind uses to survive.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/10/05/paper-on-the-nature-of-self-improving-artificial-intelligence/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence.&amp;quot; Self-Aware Systems. 21 Jan. 2008. Web. 07 Jan. 2010.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|last1=Barrat|first1=James|title=Our Final Invention|year=2013|publisher=St. Martin's Press|location=New York|isbn=978-0312622374|pages=78–98|edition=First|chapter=6, &amp;quot;Four Basic Drives&amp;quot;|title-link=Our Final Invention}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
由递归自我改进的算法集合引起的智能爆炸存在着巨大的危险。首先，人工智能的目标结构在自我完善的情况下可能不是一成不变的，这可能会导致人工智能对原本计划之外的东西进行优化。第二，人工智能可以与人类竞争赖以生存的稀缺资源。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While not actively malicious, there is no reason to think that AIs would actively promote human goals unless they could be programmed as such, and if not, might use the resources currently used to support mankind to promote its own goals, causing human extinction.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;kurzweilai.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.kurzweilai.net/max-more-and-ray-kurzweil-on-the-singularity-2 |title=Max More and Ray Kurzweil on the Singularity |publisher=KurzweilAI |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceB&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/riskintro/index.html |title=Concise Summary &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.nickbostrom.com/fut/evolution.html Bostrom, Nick, The Future of Human Evolution, Death and Anti-Death: Two Hundred Years After Kant, Fifty Years After Turing, ed. Charles Tandy, pp. 339–371, 2004, Ria University Press.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然不是恶意的，但没有理由认为人工智能会积极促进人类目标的实现，除非这些目标可以被编程，否则，它们就可能利用目前用于支持人类的资源来促进自己的目标，从而导致人类灭绝。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Carl Shulman]] and [[Anders Sandberg]] suggest that algorithm improvements may be the limiting factor for a singularity; while hardware efficiency tends to improve at a steady pace, software innovations are more unpredictable and may be bottlenecked by serial, cumulative research. They suggest that in the case of a software-limited singularity, intelligence explosion would actually become more likely than with a hardware-limited singularity, because in the software-limited case, once human-level AI is developed, it could run serially on very fast hardware, and the abundance of cheap hardware would make AI research less constrained.&amp;lt;ref name=ShulmanSandberg2010&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Shulman|first=Carl|author2=Anders Sandberg |title=Implications of a Software-Limited Singularity|journal=ECAP10: VIII European Conference on Computing and Philosophy|year=2010|url=http://intelligence.org/files/SoftwareLimited.pdf|accessdate=17 May 2014|editor1-first=Klaus|editor1-last=Mainzer}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An abundance of accumulated hardware that can be unleashed once the software figures out how to use it has been called &amp;quot;computing overhang.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;MuehlhauserSalamon2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book|last=Muehlhauser|first=Luke|title=Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment|year=2012|publisher=Springer|chapter-url=http://intelligence.org/files/IE-EI.pdf|author2=Anna Salamon |editor=Amnon Eden |editor2=Johnny Søraker |editor3=James H. Moor |editor4=Eric Steinhart|chapter=Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carl Shulman和Anders Sandberg认为，算法改进可能是奇点的限制因素；虽然硬件效率趋于稳步提高，但软件创新更不具可预测性，可能会受到连续、累积的研究的限制。他们认为，智能爆炸在受软件限制的奇点情况中发生的可能性实际上比在受硬件限制的奇点更可能发生，因为在软件受限的情况下，一旦开发出人类水平的人工智能，它可以在非常快的硬件上连续运行，廉价硬件的丰富将使人工智能研究不那么受限制。&amp;lt;ref name=ShulmanSandberg2010&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Shulman|first=Carl|author2=Anders Sandberg |title=Implications of a Software-Limited Singularity|journal=ECAP10: VIII European Conference on Computing and Philosophy|year=2010|url=http://intelligence.org/files/SoftwareLimited.pdf|accessdate=17 May 2014|editor1-first=Klaus|editor1-last=Mainzer}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 一旦软件知道如何使用硬件，大量的硬件就可以被释放出来，这被称为“计算过剩”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;MuehlhauserSalamon2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book|last=Muehlhauser|first=Luke|title=Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment|year=2012|publisher=Springer|chapter-url=http://intelligence.org/files/IE-EI.pdf|author2=Anna Salamon |editor=Amnon Eden |editor2=Johnny Søraker |editor3=James H. Moor |editor4=Eric Steinhart|chapter=Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===危机===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some critics, like philosopher [[Hubert Dreyfus]], assert that computers or machines cannot achieve [[human intelligence]], while others, like physicist [[Stephen Hawking]], hold that the definition of intelligence is irrelevant if the net result is the same.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;dreyfus&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些批评者，如哲学家Hubert Dreyfus断言计算机或机器无法实现人类智能，而其他人，如物理学家史蒂芬·霍金，则认为如果最终结果是相同的，那么智力的定义其实无关紧要。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An early description of the idea was made in John Wood Campbell Jr.'s 1932 short story &amp;quot;The last evolution&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
早在1932年，约翰·W·坎贝尔的短篇小说《最后的进化》中就对这个想法进行了描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psychologist [[Steven Pinker]] stated in 2008:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
心理学家史蒂芬·平克在2008年指出：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|... There is not the slightest reason to believe in a coming singularity. The fact that you can visualize a future in your imagination is not evidence that it is likely or even possible. Look at domed cities, jet-pack commuting, underwater cities, mile-high buildings, and nuclear-powered automobiles—all staples of futuristic fantasies when I was a child that have never arrived. Sheer processing power is not a pixie dust that magically solves all your problems. ...&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
没有一点理由相信奇点即将到来。你可以想象一个未来并不能证明它是可能出现的。看看穹顶城市、喷气式飞行器通勤、水下城市、一英里高的建筑和核动力汽车：这些都是我小时候未来主义幻想的主要内容，然而它们都没有成真。纯粹的计算能力不是能神奇地解决所有问题的仙尘。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[University of California, Berkeley]], [[philosophy]] professor [[John Searle]] writes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[加州大学伯克利分校]，哲学教授约翰·塞尔写道：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{blockquote|[Computers] have, literally ..., no [[intelligence]], no [[motivation]], no [[autonomy]], and no agency.  We design them to behave as if they had certain sorts of [[psychology]], but there is no psychological reality to the corresponding processes or behavior. ...  [T]he machinery has no beliefs, desires, [or] motivations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[John R. Searle]], “What Your Computer Can’t Know”, ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', 9 October 2014, p. 54.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
毫不夸张地说，计算机没有智能，没有动机，没有自主，也没有智能体。我们设计他们，使他们的行为好像表示他们有某种心理，但其实没有对应这些过程或行为的心理现实……机器没有信仰、愿望或动机。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Martin Ford (author)|Martin Ford]] in ''The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thelightsinthetunnel&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; postulates a &amp;quot;technology paradox&amp;quot; in that before the singularity could occur most routine jobs in the economy would be automated, since this would require a level of technology inferior to that of the singularity. This would cause massive unemployment and plummeting consumer demand, which in turn would destroy the incentive to invest in the technologies that would be required to bring about the Singularity. Job displacement is increasingly no longer limited to work traditionally considered to be &amp;quot;routine.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Martin Ford在“隧道中的灯光：自动化、加速技术和未来经济 The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thelightsinthetunnel&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;中提出了一个“技术悖论”：在奇点出现之前，经济体中的大多数日常工作都将自动化，因为这所需的技术水平低于奇点。这将导致大规模的失业和消费者需求的骤降，这反过来又会破坏投资于实现奇点所需技术的动机。工作的替代越来越不再局限于那些传统上被认为是“例行公事”的工作。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Theodore Modis]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; and [[Jonathan Huebner]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological14&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; argue that the rate of technological innovation has not only ceased to rise, but is actually now declining. Evidence for this decline is that the rise in computer [[clock rate]]s is slowing, even while Moore's prediction of exponentially increasing circuit density continues to hold. This is due to excessive heat build-up from the chip, which cannot be dissipated quickly enough to prevent the chip from melting when operating at higher speeds. Advances in speed may be possible in the future by virtue of more power-efficient CPU designs and multi-cell processors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; While Kurzweil used Modis' resources, and Modis' work was around accelerating change, Modis distanced himself from Kurzweil's thesis of a &amp;quot;technological singularity&amp;quot;, claiming that it lacks scientific rigor.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Theodore Modis&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;和Jonathan Huebner&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological14&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 认为技术创新的速度不仅停止上升，而且现在实际上正在下降。这种下降的证据是计算机时钟速率的增长正在放缓，尽管摩尔关于电路密度指数增长的预测仍然成立。这是由于芯片产生过多的热量，当它们以较高的速度运行时，这些热量不能足够快地散去，可能导致芯片熔化。在未来，随着更节能的CPU设计和多单元处理器的发明，速度的提高可能实现。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;尽管 Kurzweil 利用了Modis的（工作成果）作为资源，同时 Modis 的工作围绕着加速变革，但 Modis 与 Kurzweil 的“技术奇点”理论保持距离，称其缺乏科学严谨性。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a detailed empirical accounting, ''The Progress of Computing'', [[William Nordhaus]] argued that, prior to 1940, computers followed the much slower growth of a traditional industrial economy, thus rejecting extrapolations of Moore's law to 19th-century computers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal | doi=10.1017/S0022050707000058|title = Two Centuries of Productivity Growth in Computing| journal=The Journal of Economic History| volume=67|pages = 128–159|year = 2007|last1 = Nordhaus|first1 = William D.| citeseerx=10.1.1.330.1871}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在一份详细的实证报告《计算的进步 The Progress of Computing》中，威廉·诺德豪斯 William Nordhaus 认为，在 1940 年之前，计算机遵循传统工业经济增长缓慢的趋势，因此拒绝了摩尔定律对19世纪计算机的推断。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal | doi=10.1017/S0022050707000058|title = Two Centuries of Productivity Growth in Computing| journal=The Journal of Economic History| volume=67|pages = 128–159|year = 2007|last1 = Nordhaus|first1 = William D.| citeseerx=10.1.1.330.1871}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a 2007 paper, Schmidhuber stated that the frequency of subjectively &amp;quot;notable events&amp;quot; appears to be approaching a 21st-century singularity, but cautioned readers to take such plots of subjective events with a grain of salt: perhaps differences in memory of recent and distant events could create an illusion of accelerating change where none exists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schmidhuber, Jürgen. &amp;quot;New millennium AI and the convergence of history.&amp;quot; Challenges for computational intelligence. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. 15–35.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在2007年的一篇论文中，Schmidhuber指出主观上“值得注意的事件”出现的频率似乎正在接近21世纪的奇点，但他提醒读者，对这些主观事件的情节要持保留态度：也许对近期和远期事件的记忆差异，可能会造成一种在根本不存在的情况下变化加速的错觉。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schmidhuber, Jürgen. &amp;quot;New millennium AI and the convergence of history.&amp;quot; Challenges for computational intelligence. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. 15–35.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paul Allen argued the opposite of accelerating returns, the complexity brake; the more progress science makes towards understanding intelligence, the more difficult it becomes to make additional progress. A study of the number of patents shows that human creativity does not show accelerating returns, but in fact, as suggested by Joseph Tainter in his The Collapse of Complex Societies, a law of diminishing returns. The number of patents per thousand peaked in the period from 1850 to 1900, and has been declining since.[60] The growth of complexity eventually becomes self-limiting, and leads to a widespread &amp;quot;general systems collapse&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
保罗·艾伦 Paul Allen 认为，与加速回报相反的是复杂性制动；科学在理解智力方面取得的进展越多，就越难取得更多的进展。一项对专利数量的研究表明，人类的创造力并没有表现出加速的回报。事实上，正如Joseph Tainter 在他的《复杂社会的崩溃 The Collapse of Complex Societies 》中所指出的那样，存在一个收益递减定律 a law of diminishing returns 的限制。每千人的专利的数量在1850年至1900年期间达到顶峰，此后一直在下降。复杂性的增长最终会自我限制，并导致广泛的“一般系统崩溃 general systems collapse”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jaron Lanier]] refutes the idea that the Singularity is inevitable. He states: &amp;quot;I do not think the technology is creating itself. It's not an autonomous process.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |author=Jaron Lanier |title=Who Owns the Future? |work=New York: Simon &amp;amp; Schuster |date=2013 |url=http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=JCB8D9LA&amp;amp;tocp=59}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He goes on to assert: &amp;quot;The reason to believe in human agency over technological determinism is that you can then have an economy where people earn their own way and invent their own lives. If you structure a society on ''not'' emphasizing individual human agency, it's the same thing operationally as denying people clout, dignity, and self-determination ... to embrace [the idea of the Singularity] would be a celebration of bad data and bad politics.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jaron Lanier驳斥了奇点不可避免的观点。他说：“我不认为这项技术是在创造自我。这不是一个自主的过程。”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |author=Jaron Lanier |title=Who Owns the Future? |work=New York: Simon &amp;amp; Schuster |date=2013 |url=http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=JCB8D9LA&amp;amp;tocp=59}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;他接着断言：“相信人的能动性而不是技术决定论的原因是，这样你就可以有一个经济体，人们在其中可以自己挣钱，创造自己的生活。如果你在不强调个人主观能动性的基础上构建社会，就等于在操作上否认人们的影响力、尊严和自决...接受 [奇点的想法] 将是对糟糕数据和糟糕政治的颂扬。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Economics|Economist]] [[Robert J. Gordon]], in ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'' (2016), points out that measured economic growth has slowed around 1970 and slowed even further since the [[financial crisis of 2007–2008]], and argues that the economic data show no trace of a coming Singularity as imagined by mathematician [[I.J. Good]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[William D. Nordhaus]], &amp;quot;Why Growth Will Fall&amp;quot; (a review of [[Robert J. Gordon]], ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'', Princeton University Press, 2016, {{ISBN|978-0691147727}}, 762 pp., $39.95), ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', vol. LXIII, no. 13 (August 18, 2016), p. 68.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
经济学家 Robert J.Gordon在《美国经济增长的兴衰：内战以来的美国生活水平 The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War》（2016）中指出，据测量，经济增长在1970年左右放缓，自2007-2008年金融危机以来甚至进一步放缓，并认为经济数据显示没有迹象表明数学家I.J.Good所设想的奇点将会到来。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[William D. Nordhaus]], &amp;quot;Why Growth Will Fall&amp;quot; (a review of [[Robert J. Gordon]], ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'', Princeton University Press, 2016, {{ISBN|978-0691147727}}, 762 pp., $39.95), ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', vol. LXIII, no. 13 (August 18, 2016), p. 68.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to general criticisms of the singularity concept, several critics have raised issues with Kurzweil's iconic chart. One line of criticism is that a [[Log-log plot|log-log]] chart of this nature is inherently biased toward a straight-line result. Others identify selection bias in the points that Kurzweil chooses to use. For example, biologist [[PZ Myers]] points out that many of the early evolutionary &amp;quot;events&amp;quot; were picked arbitrarily.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Kurzweil has rebutted this by charting evolutionary events from 15 neutral sources, and showing that they fit a straight line on [[:File:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|a log-log chart]]. ''[[The Economist]]'' mocked the concept with a graph extrapolating that the number of blades on a razor, which has increased over the years from one to as many as five, will increase ever-faster to infinity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
除了对奇点概念的一般性批评外，一些批评者还对库兹韦尔的标志性图表提出了质疑。一种批评是，这种性质的对数图像本质上就会存在倾向于直线的有偏差结果。其他人批评库兹韦尔在数据点的使用上存在选择偏差。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;例如，生物学家P. Z. Myers指出，许多早期的进化“事件”都是随意挑选的。库兹韦尔反驳了这一点，他绘制了15个中立来源的进化事件图，并表明它们都符合一条直线.《经济学人》用一张图表来嘲讽这个概念：一把剃须刀上的刀片数在过去几年里从一个增加到多达五个，并且它将以更快的速度增长到无穷大。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==潜在影响==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dramatic changes in the rate of economic growth have occurred in the past because of some technological advancement. Based on population growth, the economy doubled every 250,000 years from the [[Paleolithic]] era until the [[Neolithic Revolution]]. The new agricultural economy doubled every 900 years, a remarkable increase. In the current era, beginning with the Industrial Revolution, the world's economic output doubles every fifteen years, sixty times faster than during the agricultural era. If the rise of superhuman intelligence causes a similar revolution, argues Robin Hanson, one would expect the economy to double at least quarterly and possibly on a weekly basis.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url=http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/robotics-software/economics-of-the-singularity |title=Economics Of The Singularity |author=Robin Hanson |work=IEEE Spectrum Special Report: The Singularity }} &amp;amp; [http://hanson.gmu.edu/longgrow.pdf Long-Term Growth As A Sequence of Exponential Modes]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
过去由于一些技术进步，经济增长率发生了巨大变化。以人口增长为基础，从[[旧石器时代]]到[[新石器时代]]，经济每25万年翻一番。新农业经济每900年翻一番，增长显著。在当今时代，从工业革命开始，世界经济产出每15年翻一番，比农业时代快60倍。罗宾·汉森Robin Hanson认为，如果超人智能的兴起引发了类似的革命，人们会预期经济至少每季度翻一番，甚至可能每周翻一番。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===不确定性和风险===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Existential risk from artificial general intelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步|来自人工通用智能的存在风险}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;technological singularity&amp;quot; reflects the idea that such change may happen suddenly, and that it is difficult to predict how the resulting new world would operate.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|last=Yudkowsky |first=Eliezer |title=Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk |journal=Global Catastrophic Risks |editor-last=Bostrom |editor-first=Nick |editor2-last=Cirkovic |editor2-first=Milan |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |url=http://singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |bibcode=2008gcr..book..303Y |isbn=978-0-19-857050-9 |page=303 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080807132337/http://www.singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |archivedate=2008-08-07 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;theuncertainfuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; It is unclear whether an intelligence explosion resulting in a singularity would be beneficial or harmful, or even an [[Existential risk|existential threat]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Because AI is a major factor in singularity risk, a number of organizations pursue a technical theory of aligning AI goal-systems with human values, including the [[Future of Humanity Institute]], the [[Machine Intelligence Research Institute]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; the [[Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence]], and the [[Future of Life Institute]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“技术奇点”一词反映了这样一种想法&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|last=Yudkowsky |first=Eliezer |title=Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk |journal=Global Catastrophic Risks |editor-last=Bostrom |editor-first=Nick |editor2-last=Cirkovic |editor2-first=Milan |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |url=http://singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |bibcode=2008gcr..book..303Y |isbn=978-0-19-857050-9 |page=303 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080807132337/http://www.singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |archivedate=2008-08-07 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;theuncertainfuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; ：这种变化可能突然发生，而且很难预测由此产生的新世界将如何运作。目前尚不清楚导致奇点的智能爆炸是有益还是有害，甚至是一种存在威胁。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 由于人工智能是奇点风险的一个主要因素，许多组织追求一种将人工智能的目标系统与人类价值观相协调的技术理论。这些组织包括人类未来研究所 Future of Humanity Institute，机器智能研究所 The Machine Intelligence Research Institute， 人类兼容人工智能中心 &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;The Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence和未来生命研究所 The Future of Life Institute。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Physicist [[Stephen Hawking]] said in 2014 that &amp;quot;Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; Hawking believed that in the coming decades, AI could offer &amp;quot;incalculable benefits and risks&amp;quot; such as &amp;quot;technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; Hawking suggested that artificial intelligence should be taken more seriously and that more should be done to prepare for the singularity:&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-transcendence-looks-at-the-implications-of-artificial-intelligence--but-are-we-taking-ai-seriously-enough-9313474.html |title=Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of artificial intelligence - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'  |work=[[The Independent]] |author=Stephen Hawking |date=1 May 2014 |accessdate=May 5, 2014|author-link=Stephen Hawking }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
物理学家史蒂芬·霍金在2014年表示，“成功创造人工智能将是人类历史上最大的事件。不幸的是，这也可能是最后一次，除非我们学会如何规避风险。”&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt;  霍金认为，在未来几十年里，人工智能可能会带来“无法估量的利益和风险”，例如“技术超越金融市场的聪明程度，超越人类研究人员的创造力，超越人类领袖的操控力，开发我们甚至无法理解的武器”。霍金建议&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; ，人们应该更认真地对待人工智能，并做更多的工作来为奇点做准备：&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-transcendence-looks-at-the-implications-of-artificial-intelligence--but-are-we-taking-ai-seriously-enough-9313474.html |title=Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of artificial intelligence - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'  |work=[[The Independent]] |author=Stephen Hawking |date=1 May 2014 |accessdate=May 5, 2014|author-link=Stephen Hawking }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|So, facing possible futures of incalculable benefits and risks, the experts are surely doing everything possible to ensure the best outcome, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message saying, &amp;quot;We'll arrive in a few decades,&amp;quot; would we just reply, &amp;quot;OK, call us when you get here – we'll leave the lights on&amp;quot;? Probably not – but this is more or less what is happening with AI.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
所以，面对可能的收益和风险难以估量的未来，专家们肯定会尽一切可能确保最好的结果，对吗？错了。如果一个高级的外星文明给我们发了一条信息说，“我们几十年后就会到达”，我们会不会只回答，“好吧，你到了这里就打电话给我们——我们会开着灯的”？可能不会——但这或多或少就是人工智能正在发生的事情。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}} claims that there is no direct evolutionary motivation for an AI to be friendly to humans. Evolution has no inherent tendency to produce outcomes valued by humans, and there is little reason to expect an arbitrary optimisation process to promote an outcome desired by mankind, rather than inadvertently leading to an AI behaving in a way not intended by its creators.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom8&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nick Bostrom, [http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html &amp;quot;Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;], in ''Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making in Humans and in Artificial Intelligence'', Vol. 2, ed. I. Smit et al., Int. Institute of Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics, 2003, pp. 12–17&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]: [http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120611190606/http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf |date=2012-06-11 }}. Draft for a publication in ''Global Catastrophic Risk'' from August 31, 2006, retrieved July 18, 2011 (PDF file)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst9&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/06/11/the-stamp-collecting-device/ The Stamp Collecting Device, Nick Hay]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Anders Sandberg]] has also elaborated on this scenario, addressing various common counter-arguments.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;aleph&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2011/02/why_we_should_fear_the_paperclipper.html 'Why we should fear the Paperclipper'], 2011-02-14 entry of Sandberg's blog 'Andart'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; AI researcher [[Hugo de Garis]] suggests that artificial intelligences may simply eliminate the human race [[instrumental convergence|for access to scarce resources]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems10&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and humans would be powerless to stop them.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;forbes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;de Garis, Hugo. [https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/cosmist-terran-cyborgist-opinions-contributors-artificial-intelligence-09-hugo-de-garis.html &amp;quot;The Coming Artilect War&amp;quot;], Forbes.com, 22 June 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Alternatively, AIs developed under evolutionary pressure to promote their own survival could outcompete humanity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Berglas(2008) 声称, 没有直接的进化动机促使人工智能对人类友好。进化并不倾向于产生人类所重视的结果，也没有理由期望一个任意的优化过程会促进人类所期望的结果，而不是无意中导致人工智能以违背其创造者原有意图的方式行事。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom8&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nick Bostrom, [http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html &amp;quot;Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;], in ''Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making in Humans and in Artificial Intelligence'', Vol. 2, ed. I. Smit et al., Int. Institute of Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics, 2003, pp. 12–17&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]: [http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120611190606/http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf |date=2012-06-11 }}. Draft for a publication in ''Global Catastrophic Risk'' from August 31, 2006, retrieved July 18, 2011 (PDF file)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst9&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/06/11/the-stamp-collecting-device/ The Stamp Collecting Device, Nick Hay]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 安德斯·桑德伯格 Anders Sandberg 也也对这一情景进行了详细阐述，讨论了各种常见的反驳意见&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;aleph&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2011/02/why_we_should_fear_the_paperclipper.html 'Why we should fear the Paperclipper'], 2011-02-14 entry of Sandberg's blog 'Andart'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。人工智能研究员 Hugo de Garis&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems10&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  认为，人工智能可能会为了获取稀缺资源而直接消灭人类，并且人类将无力阻止它们。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;forbes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;de Garis, Hugo. [https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/cosmist-terran-cyborgist-opinions-contributors-artificial-intelligence-09-hugo-de-garis.html &amp;quot;The Coming Artilect War&amp;quot;], Forbes.com, 22 June 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 或者，在进化压力下为了促进自身生存而发展起来的人工智能可能会胜过人类。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bostrom (2002) discusses human extinction scenarios, and lists superintelligence as a possible cause:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bostrom(2002)讨论了人类灭绝的场景，并列举超级智能作为一个可能的原因:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person who asked the question.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the  matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person  who asked the question.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
当我们创造出第一个超级智能实体时，我们可能会犯错并给它一个导致人类毁灭的目标（假设它巨大的智力优势赋予它这样做的力量）。例如，我们可能会错误地将子目标提升为超级目标。我们告诉它去解决一个数学问题，然后它将太阳系中的所有物质变成一个巨大的计算装置，在这个过程中杀死了提出这个问题的人。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]], a significant problem in AI safety is that unfriendly artificial intelligence is likely to be much easier to create than friendly AI. While both require large advances in recursive optimisation process design, friendly AI also requires the ability to make goal structures invariant under self-improvement (or the AI could transform itself into something unfriendly) and a goal structure that aligns with human values and does not automatically destroy the human race. An unfriendly AI, on the other hand, can optimize for an arbitrary goal structure, which does not need to be invariant under self-modification.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst12&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html Coherent Extrapolated Volition, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, May 2004 ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100815055725/http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html |date=2010-08-15 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{harvtxt|Bill Hibbard|2014}} proposes an AI design that avoids several dangers including self-delusion,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JAGI2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| journal=Journal of Artificial General Intelligence| year=2012| volume=3| issue=1| title=Model-Based Utility Functions| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.| doi=10.2478/v10229-011-0013-5| page=1|arxiv = 1111.3934 |bibcode = 2012JAGI....3....1H | s2cid=8434596}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; unintended instrumental actions,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_56.pdf  Avoiding Unintended AI Behaviors.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle. [http://intelligence.org/2012/12/19/december-2012-newsletter/ This paper won the Machine Intelligence Research Institute's 2012 Turing Prize for the Best AGI Safety Paper].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and corruption of the reward generator.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; He also discusses social impacts of AI&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JET2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| url=http://jetpress.org/v17/hibbard.htm| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology| year=2008| volume=17| title=The Technology of Mind and a New Social Contract| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and testing AI.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12b&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_57.pdf  Decision Support for Safe AI Design|.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His 2001 book ''[[Super-Intelligent Machines]]'' advocates the need for public education about AI and public control over AI. It also proposed a simple design that was vulnerable to corruption of the reward generator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
按照[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]的观点，人工智能安全的一个重要问题是，不友好的人工智能可能比友好的人工智能更容易创建。虽然两者都需要递归优化过程的进步，但友好的人工智能还需要目标结构在自我改进过程中保持不变（否则人工智能可以将自己转变成不友好的东西），以及一个与人类价值观相一致且不会自动毁灭人类的目标结构。另一方面，一个不友好的人工智能可以针对任意的目标结构进行优化，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst12&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html Coherent Extrapolated Volition, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, May 2004 ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100815055725/http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html |date=2010-08-15 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 而目标结构不需要在自我改进过程中保持不变。Bill Hibbard (2014)提出了一种人工智能设计&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JAGI2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| journal=Journal of Artificial General Intelligence| year=2012| volume=3| issue=1| title=Model-Based Utility Functions| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.| doi=10.2478/v10229-011-0013-5| page=1|arxiv = 1111.3934 |bibcode = 2012JAGI....3....1H | s2cid=8434596}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ，可以避免包括自欺欺人&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_56.pdf  Avoiding Unintended AI Behaviors.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle. [http://intelligence.org/2012/12/19/december-2012-newsletter/ This paper won the Machine Intelligence Research Institute's 2012 Turing Prize for the Best AGI Safety Paper].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 、无意的工具性行为和奖励机制&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;的腐败等一些危险。他还讨论了人工智能&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JET2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| url=http://jetpress.org/v17/hibbard.htm| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology| year=2008| volume=17| title=The Technology of Mind and a New Social Contract| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;和人工智能测试的社会影响&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12b&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_57.pdf  Decision Support for Safe AI Design|.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。他在2001年出版的“超级智能机器Super-Intelligent Machines”一书中提倡对人工智能的公共教育和公众控制。该书还提出了一个简单的易受奖励机制的腐败影响的设计。It also proposed a simple design that was vulnerable to corruption of the reward generator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===社会生物进化的下一步===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Sociocultural evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{社会文化进化}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Major Evolutionary Transitions digital.jpg|thumb|upright=1.6|Schematic Timeline of Information and Replicators in the Biosphere: Gillings et al.'s &amp;quot;[[The Major Transitions in Evolution|major evolutionary transitions]]&amp;quot; in information processing.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Major_Evolutionary_Transitions_digital.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[档案：主要进化过渡数字.jpg|thumb |直立=1.6 |生物圈中信息和复制因子的示意时间线：Gillings等人在信息处理中的“[[进化中的主要转变|主要进化转变]]”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-99|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[99]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Biological vs. digital information.jpg|thumb|Amount of digital information worldwide (5{{e|21}} bytes) versus human genome information worldwide (10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;19&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; bytes) in 2014.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Biological_vs._digital_information.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[档案：生物vs。数字信息.jpg|2014年，全球数字信息总量（5{e | 21}字节）与全球人类基因组信息（10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;19&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;字节）的对比。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-99|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[99]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the technological singularity is usually seen as a sudden event, some scholars argue the current speed of change already fits this description.{{citation needed|date=April 2018}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然技术奇点通常被视为一个突发事件，但一些学者认为目前的变化速度已经符合这种描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, some argue that we are already in the midst of a [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|major evolutionary transition]] that merges technology, biology, and society. Digital technology has infiltrated the fabric of human society to a degree of indisputable and often life-sustaining dependence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
此外，有人认为，我们已经处在一个融合了技术、生物学和社会学的进化巨变major evolutionary transition之中。数字技术已经无可争辩地渗透到人类社会的结构中，而且生命的维持常常依赖数字技术。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2016 article in ''[[Trends in Ecology &amp;amp; Evolution]]'' argues that &amp;quot;humans already embrace fusions of biology and technology. We spend most of our waking time communicating through digitally mediated channels... we trust [[artificial intelligence]] with our lives through [[Anti-lock braking system|antilock braking in cars]] and [[autopilot]]s in planes... With one in three marriages in America beginning online, digital algorithms are also taking a role in human pair bonding and reproduction&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2016年发表在 生态学和进化进展 Trends in Ecology and Evolution 的一篇文章认为，“人类已经接受了生物和技术的融合。我们清醒时大部分时间都是通过数字媒介进行交流的……我们拿性命做担保信任汽车上的防抱死制动系统 Anti-lock braking system 和飞机上的自动巡航模式 autopilot……在美国，三分之一的婚姻都是在网络上开始的，数字算法也在人类配对和繁殖中也发挥了作用”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article further argues that from the perspective of the [[evolution]], several previous [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|Major Transitions in Evolution]] have transformed life through innovations in information storage and replication ([[RNA]], [[DNA]], [[multicellularity]], and [[culture]] and [[language]]). In the current stage of life's evolution, the carbon-based biosphere has generated a [[cognitive system]] (humans) capable of creating technology that will result in a comparable [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|evolutionary transition]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
文章进一步指出，从进化的角度来看，以前的几次[[进化]]巨变通过信息存储和复制方式（如RNA、DNA、多细胞性、文化和语言的出现）的创新来改变生命。在生命进化的当前阶段，以碳为基础的生物圈产生了一个认知系统（人类），能够创造技术，从而导致一个类似的进化变迁。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The digital information created by humans has reached a similar magnitude to biological information in the biosphere. Since the 1980s, the quantity of digital information stored has doubled about every 2.5 years, reaching about 5 [[zettabyte]]s in 2014 (5{{e|21}} bytes).{{Citation needed|date=April 2019}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
人类创造的数字信息已经达到了与生物圈中生物信息相似的规模。自20世纪80年代以来，存储的数字信息量大约每2.5年翻一番，2014年达到约5泽字节（5e21字节）。{{Citation needed|date=April 2019}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In biological terms, there are 7.2&amp;amp;nbsp;billion humans on the planet, each having a genome of 6.2&amp;amp;nbsp;billion nucleotides. Since one byte can encode four nucleotide pairs, the individual genomes of every human on the planet could be encoded by approximately 1{{e|19}} bytes. The digital realm stored 500 times more information than this in 2014 (see figure). The total amount of DNA contained in all of the cells on Earth is estimated to be about 5.3{{e|37}} base pairs, equivalent to 1.325{{e|37}} bytes of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在生物学方面，地球上有72亿人，每个人的基因组有62亿个核苷酸。由于一个字节可以编码四个核苷酸对，地球上每个人类的个体基因组可以编码大约1{e | 19}字节。2014年，数字领域存储的信息是这个数字的500倍（见图）。据估计，地球上所有细胞所含的DNA总量约为5.3{e | 37}碱基对，相当于1.325{e | 37}字节的信息。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If growth in digital storage continues at its current rate of 30–38% compound annual growth per year,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; it will rival the total information content contained in all of the DNA in all of the cells on Earth in about 110 years. This would represent a doubling of the amount of information stored in the biosphere across a total time period of just 150 years&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal |url=http://escholarship.org/uc/item/38f4b791 |doi=10.1016/j.tree.2015.12.013|pmid=26777788|title=Information in the Biosphere: Biological and Digital Worlds|journal=Trends in Ecology &amp;amp; Evolution|volume=31|issue=3|pages=180–189|year=2016|last1=Kemp|first1=D. J.|last2=Hilbert|first2=M.|last3=Gillings|first3=M. R.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如果数字存储以目前每年30-38%的复合年增长率继续增长，它将在大约110年内与地球上所有细胞中的所有DNA所包含的信息总量相抗衡。这将意味着在仅仅150年的时间里，生物圈中储存的信息量翻了一番”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===对人类社会的影响===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{further|Artificial intelligence in fiction}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{小说中的人工智能}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In February 2009, under the auspices of the [[Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence]] (AAAI), [[Eric Horvitz]] chaired a meeting of leading computer scientists, artificial intelligence researchers and roboticists at Asilomar in Pacific Grove, California. The goal was to discuss the potential impact of the hypothetical possibility that robots could become self-sufficient and able to make their own decisions. They discussed the extent to which computers and robots might be able to acquire [[autonomy]], and to what degree they could use such abilities to pose threats or hazards.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009年2月，在人工智能促进协会Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence(AAAI) 的主持下，Eric Horvitz在加利福尼亚州Pacific Grove 的 Asilomar 主持了一次由主要计算机科学家、人工智能研究人员和机器人学家参加的会议。其目的是讨论机器人能够自给自足并能够自己做决定的假设可能性的潜在影响。他们讨论了计算机和机器人能够在多大程度上获得自主性 autonomy，以及在多大程度上可以利用这些能力对人类构成威胁或危险。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some machines are programmed with various forms of semi-autonomy, including the ability to locate their own power sources and choose targets to attack with weapons. Also, some [[computer viruses]] can evade elimination and, according to scientists in attendance, could therefore be said to have reached a &amp;quot;cockroach&amp;quot; stage of machine intelligence. The conference attendees noted that self-awareness as depicted in science-fiction is probably unlikely, but that other potential hazards and pitfalls exist.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?_r=1&amp;amp;ref=todayspaper Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man] By JOHN MARKOFF, NY Times, July 26, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有些机器被编程成各种形式的半自主 semi-autonomy，包括定位自己的电源和选择武器攻击的目标等。此外，有些计算机病毒可以避免被消除，根据与会科学家的说法，可以说已经达到了机器智能的“蟑螂”阶段。与会者指出，科幻小说中描述的自我意识可能不太可能，但也存在其他潜在的危险和陷阱。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?_r=1&amp;amp;ref=todayspaper Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man] By JOHN MARKOFF, NY Times, July 26, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank S. Robinson predicts that once humans achieve a machine with the intelligence of a human, scientific and technological problems will be tackled and solved with brainpower far superior to that of humans. He notes that artificial systems are able to share data more directly than humans, and predicts that this would result in a global network of super-intelligence that would dwarf human capability.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |last=Robinson |first=Frank S. |title=The Human Future: Upgrade or Replacement? |magazine=[[The Humanist]] |date=27 June 2013 |url=https://thehumanist.com/magazine/july-august-2013/features/the-human-future-upgrade-or-replacement}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Robinson also discusses how vastly different the future would potentially look after such an intelligence explosion. One example of this is solar energy, where the Earth receives vastly more solar energy than humanity captures, so capturing more of that solar energy would hold vast promise for civilizational growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank S. Robinson 预言，一旦人类实现了具有人类智能的机器，科学技术问题将被远远优于人类的智力来解决。他指出，人工系统能够比人类更直接地共享数据，并预测这将导致一个全球的超级智能网络，使人类的能力相形见绌。Robinson还讨论了在这样一次智能爆炸之后，未来可能会有多大的不同。其中一个例子就是太阳能，地球接收到的太阳能远远多于人类捕获的太阳能，因此捕捉更多的太阳能将为文明发展带来巨大的希望。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==硬起飞与软起飞==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Recursive self-improvement.svg|thumb|upright=1.6|In this sample recursive self-improvement scenario, humans modifying an AI's architecture would be able to double its performance every three years through, for example, 30 generations before exhausting all feasible improvements (left). If instead the AI is smart enough to modify its own architecture as well as human researchers can, its time required to complete a redesign halves with each generation, and it progresses all 30 feasible generations in six years (right).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky-global-risk&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]. &amp;quot;Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk.&amp;quot; Global catastrophic risks (2008).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Recursive_self-improvement.svg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[文件：在这个示例递归自我改进场景中，修改人工智能体系结构的人可以每三年将其性能提高一倍，例如，30代人，然后用尽所有可行的改进（左）。相反，如果人工智能足够聪明，能够像人类研究人员那样修改自己的架构，那么每一代人完成一次重新设计所需的时间将减半，并且它在6年内将所有30代可行的代都推进（右图）。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky-global-risk&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]. &amp;quot;Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk.&amp;quot; Global catastrophic risks (2008).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a hard takeoff scenario, an AGI rapidly self-improves, &amp;quot;taking control&amp;quot; of the world (perhaps in a matter of hours), too quickly for significant human-initiated error correction or for a gradual tuning of the AGI's goals. In a soft takeoff scenario, AGI still becomes far more powerful than humanity, but at a human-like pace (perhaps on the order of decades), on a timescale where ongoing human interaction and correction can effectively steer the AGI's development.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bugaj, Stephan Vladimir, and Ben Goertzel. &amp;quot;Five ethical imperatives and their implications for human-AGI interaction.&amp;quot; Dynamical Psychology (2007).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sotala, Kaj, and Roman V. Yampolskiy. &amp;quot;Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a survey.&amp;quot; Physica Scripta 90.1 (2014): 018001.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在硬起飞的情况下，通用人工智能 AGI 迅速自我完善并“掌控”世界（也许在几个小时内）。速度太快，以致于无法进行重大的人为纠错或对 AGI 的目标进行逐步调整。在软起飞的情况下，虽然 AGI 仍然比人类强大得多，但却以一种类似人类的速度进步（也许是几十年的数量级），持续的人类互动和修正可以有效地引导AGI 的发展。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bugaj, Stephan Vladimir, and Ben Goertzel. &amp;quot;Five ethical imperatives and their implications for human-AGI interaction.&amp;quot; Dynamical Psychology (2007).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sotala, Kaj, and Roman V. Yampolskiy. &amp;quot;Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a survey.&amp;quot; Physica Scripta 90.1 (2014): 018001.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ramez Naam]] argues against a hard takeoff. He has pointed that we already see recursive self-improvement by superintelligences, such as corporations. [[Intel]], for example, has &amp;quot;the collective brainpower of tens of thousands of humans and probably millions of CPU cores to... design better CPUs!&amp;quot; However, this has not led to a hard takeoff; rather, it has led to a soft takeoff in the form of [[Moore's law]].&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Further&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=The Singularity Is Further Than It Appears|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/the-singularity-is-further-tha.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Naam further points out that the computational complexity of higher intelligence may be much greater than linear, such that &amp;quot;creating a mind of intelligence 2 is probably ''more'' than twice as hard as creating a mind of intelligence 1.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Ascend&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=Why AIs Won't Ascend in the Blink of an Eye - Some Math|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/why-ais-wont-ascend-in-blink-of-an-eye.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ramez Naam反对硬起飞。他指出，我们已经看到企业等超级智能体的递归式地自我完善。例如，Intel拥有“数万人的集体脑力，可能还有数百万个CPU核心……来设计更好的CPU！”然而，这并没有导致硬起飞；相反，它以摩尔定律的形式实现了软起飞&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Further&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=The Singularity Is Further Than It Appears|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/the-singularity-is-further-tha.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。Naam进一步指出，高等智能的计算复杂度可能比线性大得多，因此，“创建智能系统2的难度可能两倍于是创建智能系统1的两倍多。”&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Ascend&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=Why AIs Won't Ascend in the Blink of an Eye - Some Math|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/why-ais-wont-ascend-in-blink-of-an-eye.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[J. Storrs Hall]] believes that &amp;quot;many of the more commonly seen scenarios for overnight hard takeoff are circular – they seem to assume hyperhuman capabilities at the ''starting point'' of the self-improvement process&amp;quot; in order for an AI to be able to make the dramatic, domain-general improvements required for takeoff. Hall suggests that rather than recursively self-improving its hardware, software, and infrastructure all on its own, a fledgling AI would be better off specializing in one area where it was most effective and then buying the remaining components on the marketplace, because the quality of products on the marketplace continually improves, and the AI would have a hard time keeping up with the cutting-edge technology used by the rest of the world.&amp;lt;ref name=Hall2008&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Hall|first=J. Storrs|title=Engineering Utopia|journal=Artificial General Intelligence, 2008: Proceedings of the First AGI Conference|date=2008|pages=460–467|url=http://www.agiri.org/takeoff_hall.pdf|accessdate=16 May 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J.Storrs Hall认为，“许多常见的一夜之间出现的硬起飞场景都是循环论证——它们似乎在自我提升过程的起点上假设了超人类的能力”，以便人工智能能够实现起飞所需的戏剧性的、领域通用的改进。Hall认为，一个初出茅庐的人工智能与其靠自己不断地自我改进硬件、软件和基础设施，不如专注于一个它最有效的领域，然后在市场上购买剩余的组件，因为市场上产品的质量不断提高，人工智能将很难跟上世界其他地方使用的尖端技术。&amp;lt;ref name=Hall2008&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Hall|first=J. Storrs|title=Engineering Utopia|journal=Artificial General Intelligence, 2008: Proceedings of the First AGI Conference|date=2008|pages=460–467|url=http://www.agiri.org/takeoff_hall.pdf|accessdate=16 May 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ben Goertzel]] agrees with Hall's suggestion that a new human-level AI would do well to use its intelligence to accumulate wealth. The AI's talents might inspire companies and governments to disperse its software throughout society. Goertzel is skeptical of a hard five minute takeoff but speculates that a takeoff from human to superhuman level on the order of five years is reasonable. Goerzel refers to this scenario as a &amp;quot;semihard takeoff&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Goertzel2014&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Goertzel|first1=Ben|title=Superintelligence — Semi-hard Takeoff Scenarios|url=http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/09/26/superintelligence-semi-hard-takeoff-scenarios/|accessdate=25 October 2014|agency=h+ Magazine|date=26 Sep 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ben Goertzel 同意 Hall 的意见，即一种新的人类级别的人工智能将很好地利用其智能来积累财富。人工智能的天赋可能会激励公司和政府将其软件分散到整个社会。Goertzel 对5分钟的硬起飞持怀疑态度，但他推测从人类到超人的水平，以5年的速度起飞是合理的。Goerzel将这种情况称为“半硬起飞semihard takeoff”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Goertzel2014&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Goertzel|first1=Ben|title=Superintelligence — Semi-hard Takeoff Scenarios|url=http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/09/26/superintelligence-semi-hard-takeoff-scenarios/|accessdate=25 October 2014|agency=h+ Magazine|date=26 Sep 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Max More]] disagrees, arguing that if there were only a few superfast human-level AIs, that they would not radically change the world, as they would still depend on other people to get things done and would still have human cognitive constraints. Even if all superfast AIs worked on intelligence augmentation, it is unclear why they would do better in a discontinuous way than existing human cognitive scientists at producing super-human intelligence, although the rate of progress would increase. More further argues that a superintelligence would not transform the world overnight: a superintelligence would need to engage with existing, slow human systems to accomplish physical impacts on the world. &amp;quot;The need for collaboration, for organization, and for putting ideas into physical changes will ensure that all the old rules are not thrown out overnight or even within years.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=More&amp;gt;{{cite web|last1=More|first1=Max|title=Singularity Meets Economy|url=http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#more|accessdate=10 November 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Max More不同意这一观点，他认为，如果只有少数超高速的人类水平的人工智能，它们不会从根本上改变世界，因为它们仍将依赖人来完成任务，并且仍然会受到人类认知的限制。即使所有的超高速人工智能都致力于智能增强，但目前还不清楚为什么它们在产生超人类智能方面比现有的人类认知科学家做得更好，尽管进展速度会加快。更进一步指出，超级智能不会在一夜之间改变世界：超级智能需要与现有的、缓慢的人类系统进行接触，以完成对世界的物理影响。”合作、组织和将想法付诸实际变革的需要将确保所有旧规则不会在一夜之间甚至几年内被抛弃。”&amp;lt;ref name=More&amp;gt;{{cite web|last1=More|first1=Max|title=Singularity Meets Economy|url=http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#more|accessdate=10 November 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==永生==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his 2005 book, ''[[The Singularity is Near]]'', [[Ray Kurzweil|Kurzweil]] suggests that medical advances would allow people to protect their bodies from the effects of aging, making the [[Life extension|life expectancy limitless]]. Kurzweil argues that the technological advances in medicine would allow us to continuously repair and replace defective components in our bodies, prolonging life to an undetermined age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Singularity Is Near'', p.&amp;amp;nbsp;215.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Kurzweil further buttresses his argument by discussing current bio-engineering advances. Kurzweil suggests [[somatic gene therapy]]; after synthetic viruses with specific genetic information, the next step would be to apply this technology to gene therapy, replacing human DNA with synthesized genes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Singularity is Near'', p.&amp;amp;nbsp;216.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在Kurzweil 2005年出版的《奇点近了The Singularity is Near》一书中，他指出，医学的进步将使人们能够保护自己的身体免受衰老的影响，从而延长寿命。Kurzweil认为，医学的技术进步将使我们能够不断地修复和更换我们身体中有缺陷的部件，从而将寿命延长到某个他无法确定的年龄。Kurzweil通过讨论当前的生物工程进展进一步支持了他的论点。Kurzweil建议了体细胞基因疗法somatic gene therapy；在合成具有特定遗传信息的病毒之后，下一步则是把这项技术应用到基因治疗中，用合成的基因取代人类的DNA。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[K. Eric Drexler]], one of the founders of [[nanotechnology]], postulated cell repair devices, including ones operating within cells and utilizing as yet hypothetical [[biological machine]]s, in his 1986 book ''[[Engines of Creation]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[K.Eric Drexler]]，纳米技术nanotechnology的创始人之一，在他1986年的著作“创造的引擎Engines of Creation”中，假设了细胞修复设备，包括在细胞内运行并利用目前假设的[[生物机器]]的设备。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Richard Feynman]], it was his former graduate student and collaborator [[Albert Hibbs]] who originally suggested to him (circa 1959) the idea of a ''medical'' use for Feynman's theoretical micromachines. Hibbs suggested that certain repair machines might one day be reduced in size to the point that it would, in theory, be possible to (as Feynman put it) &amp;quot;[[Molecular machine#Biological|swallow the doctor]]&amp;quot;. The idea was incorporated into Feynman's 1959 essay ''[[There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom]].''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url = http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html|title = There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom|first = Richard P.|last = Feynman |author-link = Richard Feynman|date = December 1959|url-status = dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100211190050/http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html|archive-date = 2010-02-11}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
根据[[Richard Feynman]]，他过去的研究生和合作者[[Albert Hibbs]]最初向他建议（大约在1959年）费曼理论微型机械Feynman's theoretical micromachines的“医学”用途。Hibbs认为，有一天，理论上某些修理机器的尺寸可能会被尽可能地缩小（正如费曼所说的那样）“[[Molecular machine#Biological|swallow the doctor]]”。这个想法被收入了费曼1959年的文章“在底部有很多空间[There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beyond merely extending the operational life of the physical body, [[Jaron Lanier]] argues for a form of immortality called &amp;quot;Digital Ascension&amp;quot; that involves &amp;quot;people dying in the flesh and being uploaded into a computer and remaining conscious&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |title = You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto |last = Lanier |first = Jaron |author-link = Jaron Lanier |publisher = [[Alfred A. Knopf]] |year = 2010 |isbn = 978-0307269645 |location = New York, NY |page = [https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780307269645/page/26 26] |url-access = registration |url = https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780307269645 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
除了仅仅延长物质身体的运行寿命之外，[[Jaron Lanier]]还主张一种称为“数字提升Digital Ascension”的不朽形式，即“人在肉体层面死亡，意识被上传到电脑里并保持清醒”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==概念史==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A paper by Mahendra Prasad, published in ''[[AI Magazine]]'', asserts that the 18th-century mathematician [[Marquis de Condorcet]] was the first person to hypothesize and mathematically model an intelligence explosion and its effects on humanity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Prasad|first=Mahendra|year=2019|title=Nicolas de Condorcet and the First Intelligence Explosion Hypothesis|journal=AI Magazine|volume=40|issue=1|pages=29–33|doi=10.1609/aimag.v40i1.2855}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahendra Prasad在“[[人工智能杂志]]”上发表的一篇论文断言，18世纪的数学家[[Marquis de Condorcet]]是第一个对智能爆炸及其对人类影响进行假设和数学建模的人。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An early description of the idea was made in [[John Wood Campbell Jr.]]'s 1932 short story &amp;quot;The last evolution&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1932年[[约翰.伍德.坎贝尔]的短篇小说《最后的进化》（the last evolution）对这一想法作了早期的描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his 1958 obituary for [[John von Neumann]], Ulam recalled a conversation with von Neumann about the &amp;quot;ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=mathematical/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ulam在1958年为约翰·冯·诺依曼写的讣告中，回忆了与冯·诺依曼的一次对话：“技术的不断进步和人类生活方式的变化，这使我们似乎接近了种族历史上某些基本的奇点，超出了这些奇点，人类的事务就不能继续下去了。”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1965, Good wrote his essay postulating an &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; of recursive self-improvement of a machine intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1965年，古德写了一篇文章，假设机器智能的自我改进迭代是“智能爆炸”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981, [[Stanisław Lem]] published his [[science fiction]] novel ''[[Golem XIV]]''. It describes a military AI computer (Golem XIV) who obtains consciousness and starts to increase his own intelligence, moving towards personal technological singularity. Golem XIV was originally created to aid its builders in fighting wars, but as its intelligence advances to a much higher level than that of humans, it stops being interested in the military requirement because it finds them lacking internal logical consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1981年，[[Stanisław Lem]]出版了他的[[科幻小说]]小说“[[Golem XIV]]”。它描述了一台军用人工智能计算机（Golem XIV）获得了意识并开始增加自己的智能，朝着个体的技术奇点迈进。Golem XIV最初是为了帮助它的建造者打仗，但随着它的智力发展到比人类更高的水平，它不再对军事感兴趣，因为它发现它们缺乏内在的逻辑一致性。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1983, [[Vernor Vinge]] greatly popularized Good's intelligence explosion in a number of writings, first addressing the topic in print in the January 1983 issue of ''[[Omni (magazine)|Omni]]'' magazine. In this op-ed piece, Vinge seems to have been the first to use the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in a way that was specifically tied to the creation of intelligent machines:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google4&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1983年，[[Vernor Vinge]]在许多著作中极大地普及了Good的智能爆炸，他第一次在1983年1月出版的“[[Omni”杂志上提到了这一主题。在这篇评论文章中，Vinge似乎是第一个使用“奇点”一词的人，并将“奇点”的概念特别地与智能机器的创造进行联系：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|We will soon create intelligences greater than our own. When this happens, human history will have reached a kind of singularity, an intellectual transition as impenetrable as the knotted space-time at the center of a black hole, and the world will pass far beyond our understanding. This singularity, I believe, already haunts a number of science-fiction writers. It makes realistic extrapolation to an interstellar future impossible. To write a story set more than a century hence, one needs a nuclear war in between ... so that the world remains intelligible.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{我们很快就会创造出比我们自己更强大的智能。当这种情况发生时，人类历史将达到一种奇点，一种如同黑洞中心打结的时空一样难以逾越的知识转变，世界将远远超出我们的理解。我相信，这种奇点已经困扰了许多科幻作家。这使得对星际未来的现实推断变得不可能。要写一个多世纪以后的故事，科幻小说家需要一场核战争……这样世界就可以理解了。}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1985, in &amp;quot;The Time Scale of Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;, artificial intelligence researcher [[Ray Solomonoff]] articulated mathematically the related notion of what he called an &amp;quot;infinity point&amp;quot;: if a research community of human-level self-improving AIs take four years to double their own speed, then two years, then one year and so on, their capabilities increase infinitely in finite time.&amp;lt;ref name=chalmers /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;std&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1985年，在《人工智能的时间尺度The Time Scale of Artificial Intelligence》一书中，人工智能研究人员[[Ray Solomonoff]]以数学的方式阐述了他所说的“无限点”的相关概念：如果一个人类水平的能自我改进人工智能的研究社区需要四年时间使其速度加倍，那么两年，然后一年，依此类推，它们的能力在有限的时间内无限增长。&amp;lt;ref name=chalmers/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=“std”/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vinge's 1993 article &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; spread widely on the internet and helped to popularize the idea.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google5&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; This article contains the statement, &amp;quot;Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.&amp;quot; Vinge argues that science-fiction authors cannot write realistic post-singularity characters who surpass the human intellect, as the thoughts of such an intellect would be beyond the ability of humans to express.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vinge 1993年的文章《未来的技术奇点：如何在后人类时代生存The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era》在互联网上广为传播，普及了这一理念。“在三十年内，我们将拥有创造超人智慧的技术手段。不久之后，人类时代将结束。”Vinge认为，科幻小说作者无法写出超越人类智力的现实主义后奇点人物，因为这种智力的思想将超出人类的表达能力。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2000, [[Bill Joy]], a prominent technologist and a co-founder of [[Sun Microsystems]], voiced concern over the potential dangers of the singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2000年，著名的技术专家和 Sun Microsystems 的联合创始人 Bill Joy，表达了对奇点潜在危险的担忧。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2005, Kurzweil published ''[[The Singularity is Near]]''. Kurzweil's publicity campaign included an appearance on ''[[The Daily Show with Jon Stewart]]''.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2005年，库兹韦尔发表了《奇点临近 The Singularity is Near》。库兹韦尔的宣传活动包括参加“ Jon Stewart 的每日秀 The Daily Show with Jon Stewart”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2007, [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]] suggested that many of the varied definitions that have been assigned to &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; are mutually incompatible rather than mutually supporting.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sandberg, Anders. &amp;quot;An overview of models of technological singularity.&amp;quot; Roadmaps to AGI and the Future of AGI Workshop, Lugano, Switzerland, March. Vol. 8. 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, Kurzweil extrapolates current technological trajectories past the arrival of self-improving AI or superhuman intelligence, which Yudkowsky argues represents a tension with both I. J. Good's proposed discontinuous upswing in intelligence and Vinge's thesis on unpredictability.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2007年，Eliezer Yudkowsky指出，“奇点”被赋予的许多不同的定义是互不兼容而不是相互支持的&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sandberg, Anders. &amp;quot;An overview of models of technological singularity.&amp;quot; Roadmaps to AGI and the Future of AGI Workshop, Lugano, Switzerland, March. Vol. 8. 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;。例如，库兹韦尔推断了在自我提升的人工智能或超人智能到来之前的当前技术轨迹。Yudkowsky 认为，这与I.J.Good 提出的智能的不连续上升和 Vinge 关于不可预测性的论点存在矛盾。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2009, Kurzweil and [[X-Prize]] founder [[Peter Diamandis]] announced the establishment of [[Singularity University]], a nonaccredited private institute whose stated mission is &amp;quot;to educate, inspire and empower leaders to apply exponential technologies to address humanity's grand challenges.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Funded by [[Google]], [[Autodesk]], [[ePlanet Ventures]], and a group of [[High tech|technology industry]] leaders, Singularity University is based at [[NASA]]'s [[Ames Research Center]] in [[Mountain View, California|Mountain View]], [[California]]. The not-for-profit organization runs an annual ten-week graduate program during summer that covers ten different technology and allied tracks, and a series of executive programs throughout the year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009年，Kurzweil和X-Prize的创始人Peter Diamandis宣布成立奇点大学，这是一所未经认证的私立学院，其宣称的使命是“教育、激励和赋能领导者来使用指数技术应对人类的重大挑战&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 。”奇点大学由Google、Autodesk、ePlanet Ventures和一群高科技产业的领导团队资助，总部设在位于加州山景城的美国宇航局 NASA 的 艾姆斯研究中心 Ames Research Center。这家非营利组织在每年夏季举办为期十周的研究生课程，涵盖十种不同的技术和相关领域，并全年举办一系列高管课程。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==在政治中==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2007, the Joint Economic Committee of the [[United States Congress]] released a report about the future of nanotechnology. It predicts significant technological and political changes in the mid-term future, including possible technological singularity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vyp1AwAAQBAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA375|title=Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society|first=David H.|last=Guston|date=14 July 2010|publisher=SAGE Publications|isbn=978-1-4522-6617-6}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web | url=http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20120213_TheFutureisComingSoonerThanYouThink.pdf | title=Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think | publisher=Joint Economic Committee | date=March 2007}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2007/03/congress_and_th.html|title=Congress and the Singularity}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2007年，美国国会联合经济委员会 the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress 发布了一份关于纳米技术的未来的报告。它预测在中期的未来会发生诸多重大的技术和政治变化，包括可能的技术奇点。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vyp1AwAAQBAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA375|title=Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society|first=David H.|last=Guston|date=14 July 2010|publisher=SAGE Publications|isbn=978-1-4522-6617-6}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web | url=http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20120213_TheFutureisComingSoonerThanYouThink.pdf | title=Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think | publisher=Joint Economic Committee | date=March 2007}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2007/03/congress_and_th.html|title=Congress and the Singularity}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former President of the United States [[Barack Obama]] spoke about singularity in his interview to ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' in 2016:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.wired.com/2016/10/president-obama-mit-joi-ito-interview/|title=Barack Obama Talks AI, Robo Cars, and the Future of the World|first=Scott|last=Dadich|journal=Wired|date=12 October 2016}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2016年，美国前总统巴拉克·奥巴马 Barack Obama 在接受《连线》杂志采访时谈到了奇点:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.wired.com/2016/10/president-obama-mit-joi-ito-interview/|title=Barack Obama Talks AI, Robo Cars, and the Future of the World|first=Scott|last=Dadich|journal=Wired|date=12 October 2016}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|text=One thing that we haven't talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren't spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about &amp;quot;Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?&amp;quot;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that we haven't talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren't spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about &amp;quot;Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有一件事我们没有谈得太多，我还想回过去谈谈，那就是我们真的必须考虑对经济的影响。因为大多数人现在并没有花太多时间去担心奇点，而是在担心“好吧，我的工作会被机器取代吗？”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==参考文献==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20010527181244/http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Authors/Computing/Good-IJ/SCtFUM.html |archive-date = 2001-05-27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archive-url =  https://web.archive.org/web/20010527181244/http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/authors/computing/good-ij/sctfum.html  | archive-date = 2001-05-27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Portal| Technology}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Accelerating change}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| series = Advances in Computers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
系列 = 计算机的进步&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial consciousness}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| isbn = 9780120121069| title = Advances in Computers Volume 6&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9780120121069&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial intelligence arms race}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl = 10919/89424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl = 10919/89424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial intelligence in fiction}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Brain simulation}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Brain–computer interface}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Emerging technologies}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Fermi paradox}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Some Skepticism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些怀疑论者&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Flynn effect}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Robin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一名: 罗宾&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Futures studies}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Global brain}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{sectionlink|Human intelligence|Improving intelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year = 1998&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1998年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Mind uploading}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Neuroenhancement}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| accessdate = 2009-06-19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009-06-19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Outline of transhumanism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20090828023928/http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年3月24日 | archiveurl =  https://web.archive.org/web/20090828023928/http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Robot learning}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archivedate = 2009-08-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archivedate = 2009-08-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Singularitarianism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological determinism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological revolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first=Anthony&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一名: 安东尼&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological unemployment}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last=Berglas&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Berglas&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title=Artificial Intelligence will Kill our Grandchildren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
人工智能会杀死我们的孙子&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year=2008&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2008年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TODO: end here&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Citations引用 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://berglas.org/Articles/AIKillGrandchildren/AIKillGrandchildren.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://berglas.org/articles/aikillgrandchildren/aikillgrandchildren.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Reflist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2008-06-13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2008-06-13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|refs =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url = http://www.technologyreview.com/view/425733/paul-allen-the-singularity-isnt-near |title= Paul Allen: The Singularity Isn't Near |access-date=2015-04-12 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Nick&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一 = 尼克&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation | first=Bill | last=Joy | author-link=Bill Joy | title=Why the future doesn't need us | journal=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired Magazine]] | volume=8 | date= April 2000 | issue=4 |url = https://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html | access-date=2007-08-07 | isbn=978-0-670-03249-5 | publisher=Viking Adult }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Bostrom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
博斯特罗姆&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Nick Bostrom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
作者: 尼克 · 博斯特罗姆&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php |title=Singularly Silly Singularity |access-date=2009-04-13 |first1=PZ |last1=Myers |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090228161422/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php |archive-date=2009-02-28 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title=Existential Risks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
存在风险&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
进化与技术杂志&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil.htm Modis, Theodore. ''The Singularity Myth''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121030072409/http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil.htm |date=2012-10-30 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year=2002&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2002年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| volume=9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| volume = 9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Anders Sandberg|Sandberg, Anders]]. [http://agi-conf.org/2010/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/agi10singmodels2.pdf An overview of models of technological singularity]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date=2007-08-07&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2007-08-07&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3854/global-catastrophic-risks-report.pdf|title=GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS SURVEY (2008) Technical Report 2008/1 Published by Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University. Anders Sandberg and Nick Bostrom|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110516021945/http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3854/global-catastrophic-risks-report.pdf|archivedate=2011-05-16}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Krazit, Tom. [http://news.cnet.com/2100-1006_3-6119618.html Intel pledges 80 cores in five years], ''CNET News'', 26 September 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Bill&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 第一 = 比尔&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;dreyfus&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Harvnb|Dreyfus|Dreyfus|2000|p=xiv}}: 'The truth is that human intelligence can never be replaced with machine intelligence simply because we are not ourselves &amp;quot;thinking machines&amp;quot; in the sense in which that term is commonly understood.' {{Harvtxt|Hawking|1998}}: 'Some people say that computers can never show true intelligence whatever that may be. But it seems to me that if very complicated chemical molecules can operate in humans to make them intelligent then equally complicated electronic circuits can also make computers act in an intelligent way. And if they are intelligent they can presumably design computers that have even greater complexity and intelligence.'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Bill Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 作者链接 = Bill Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Ethical Artificial Intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Ethical Artificial Intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{IMDb title|847969|Episode dated 23 August 2006}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| date = 5 November 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 日期 = 2014年11月5日&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| eprint=1411.1373&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1411.1373&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, ''[[The Age of Spiritual Machines]]'', Viking; 1999,  {{ISBN|978-0-14-028202-3}}. pp. [https://books.google.com/books?id=ldAGcyh0bkUC&amp;amp;pg=PA630 30, 32]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| class = cs.AI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年10月12日 | class = cs.AI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| ref=harv&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= harv&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Theodore Modis, [http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/TedWEB.htm Forecasting the Growth of Complexity and Change], ''Technological Forecasting &amp;amp; Social Change'', 69, No 4, 2002 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120615054939/http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/TedWEB.htm |date=June 15, 2012 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dooling, Richard. ''[[Rapture for the Geeks|Rapture for the Geeks: When AI Outsmarts IQ]]'' (2008), [https://books.google.com/books?id=VbBRsv1lxsUC&amp;amp;lpg=PP1&amp;amp;pg=PA88 p. 88]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dooling, Richard. ''[[Rapture for the Geeks|Rapture for the Geeks: When AI Outsmarts IQ]]'' (2008), [https://books.google.com/books?id=VbBRsv1lxsUC&amp;amp;lpg=PP1&amp;amp;pg=PA89 p. 89]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/nano/singularity-nanotech-or-ai |title=h+ Magazine &amp;amp;#124; Covering technological, scientific, and cultural trends that are changing human beings in fundamental ways |publisher=Hplusmagazine.com |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/whos-who-in-the-singularity |title=Who's Who In The Singularity – IEEE Spectrum |publisher=Spectrum.ieee.org |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1958-64-03/S0002-9904-1958-10189-5/S0002-9904-1958-10189-5.pdf | last=Ulam|first=Stanislaw |title=Tribute to John von Neumann|publisher=Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society|volume=64, #3, part 2|date=May 1958|page=5}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |title=More blades good |author=Anonymous |newspaper=The Economist |date=18 March 2006 |url=http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5624861 |location=London |page=85 |volume=378  |issue=8469 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html |title=Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards |website=nickbostrom.com }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news |url = https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html |newspaper = The New York Times | first=John | last=Markoff | title=Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced by Cheaper Software | date=2011-03-04}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near, pp. 135–136. Penguin Group, 2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, ''The Singularity is Near'', Penguin Group, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near, p. 9. Penguin Group, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Eschatology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 末世论&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Futures studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 未来研究&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singularityu.org/ Singularity University] at its official website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Philosophy of artificial intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
范畴: 人工智能哲学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Existential risk from artificial general intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 来自人工一般智能的世界末日&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;This page was moved from [[wikipedia:en:Technological singularity]]. Its edit history can be viewed at [[技术奇点/edithistory]]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:待整理页面]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Alchemist</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E5%A5%87%E7%82%B9&amp;diff=25827</id>
		<title>技术奇点</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E5%A5%87%E7%82%B9&amp;diff=25827"/>
		<updated>2021-08-15T05:41:07Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Alchemist：&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;此词条暂由水流心不竞、嘉树初译，徐培审校，带来阅读不便，请见谅。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Redirect|The Singularity||Singularity (disambiguation)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Redirect |奇点| |奇点（释疑)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{short description|Hypothetical point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{简介}技术增长变得不可控制和不可逆转的假设时间点}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The '''technological singularity'''—also, simply, '''the singularity'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cadwalladr, Carole (2014). &amp;quot;[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/22/robots-google-ray-kurzweil-terminator-singularity-artificial-intelligence Are the robots about to rise? Google's new director of engineering thinks so…]&amp;quot; ''The Guardian''. Guardian News and Media Limited.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;—is a [[hypothetical]] point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web |title=Collection of sources defining &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; |url=http://www.singularitysymposium.com/definition-of-singularity.html |website=singularitysymposium.com |accessdate=17 April 2019}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book |author1=Eden, Amnon H. |author2=Moor, James H. |title=Singularity hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment |date=2012 |publisher=Springer |location=Dordrecht |isbn=9783642325601 |pages=1–2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to the most popular version of the singularity hypothesis, called [[Technological singularity#Intelligence explosion|intelligence explosion]], an upgradable [[intelligent agent]] will eventually enter a &amp;quot;runaway reaction&amp;quot; of self-improvement cycles, each new and more intelligent generation appearing more and more rapidly, causing an &amp;quot;explosion&amp;quot; in intelligence and resulting in a powerful [[superintelligence]] that qualitatively far surpasses all [[human intelligence]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
技术奇点Technological singularity——简称 奇点 Singularity &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cadwalladr, Carole (2014). &amp;quot;[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/22/robots-google-ray-kurzweil-terminator-singularity-artificial-intelligence Are the robots about to rise? Google's new director of engineering thinks so…]&amp;quot; ''The Guardian''. Guardian News and Media Limited.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;是一个假设的时间点。在该时间点上，技术的增长变得不可控制和不可逆转，从而导致人类文明发生无法预见的变化。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web |title=Collection of sources defining &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; |url=http://www.singularitysymposium.com/definition-of-singularity.html |website=singularitysymposium.com |accessdate=17 April 2019}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book |author1=Eden, Amnon H. |author2=Moor, James H. |title=Singularity hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment |date=2012 |publisher=Springer |location=Dordrecht |isbn=9783642325601 |pages=1–2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;根据奇点假说（也被称为智能爆炸 intelligence explosion）最流行的版本：一个可升级的智能体终将进入一种自我完善循环的“失控反应 runaway reaction”。每个新的、更智能的世代将出现得越来越快，导致智能的“爆炸”，并产生一种在实质上远超所有人类智能的超级智能。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first use of the concept of a &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in the technological context was [[John von Neumann]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Technological Singularity'' by Murray Shanahan, (MIT Press, 2015), page 233&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Stanislaw Ulam]] reports a discussion with von Neumann &amp;quot;centered on the [[Accelerating change|accelerating progress]] of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential [[Wiktionary:singularity|singularity]] in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Subsequent authors have echoed this viewpoint.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;chalmers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Chalmers|first=David|date=2010|title=The singularity: a philosophical analysis|url=|journal=Journal of Consciousness Studies|volume=17|issue=9–10|pages=7–65|via=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一次在科技领域使用“奇点”这一概念的人是冯·诺依曼 John von Neumann&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Technological Singularity'' by Murray Shanahan, (MIT Press, 2015), page 233&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;。Stanislaw Ulam 报告了一次与冯·诺依曼的讨论。“围绕技术的加速进步和人类生活模式的改变，这让我们看到了人类历史上一些本质上的奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; 一旦超越了这些奇点，我们所熟知的人类事务就无法继续下去了”。后来作者也赞同这一观点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;chalmers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Chalmers|first=David|date=2010|title=The singularity: a philosophical analysis|url=|journal=Journal of Consciousness Studies|volume=17|issue=9–10|pages=7–65|via=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. J. Good]]'s &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; model predicts that a future superintelligence will trigger a singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Vinge, Vernor. [http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;], in ''Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace'', G. A. Landis, ed., NASA Publication CP-10129, pp. 11–22, 1993.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I. J.古德的“智能爆炸”模型预测，未来的超级智能将触发一个奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Vinge, Vernor. [http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;], in ''Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace'', G. A. Landis, ed., NASA Publication CP-10129, pp. 11–22, 1993.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The concept and the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; were popularized by [[Vernor Vinge]] in his 1993 essay ''The Coming Technological Singularity'', in which he wrote that it would signal the end of the human era, as the new superintelligence would continue to upgrade itself and would advance technologically at an incomprehensible rate. He wrote that he would be surprised if it occurred before 2005 or after 2030.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
奇点的概念和术语“奇点”是由 Vernor Vinge 在他1993年的文章《即将到来的技术奇点 The Coming Technological Singularity》中得到推广的。他在文中写道，这将标志着人类时代的终结，因为新的超级智能将持续自我升级，并以不可思议的速度在技术上进步。他写道，如果奇点发生在2005年之前或2030年之后，他会感到惊讶。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Public figures such as [[Stephen Hawking]] and [[Elon Musk]] have expressed concern that full [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) could result in human extinction.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Sparkes|first1=Matthew|title=Top scientists call for caution over artificial intelligence|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11342200/Top-scientists-call-for-caution-over-artificial-intelligence.html|accessdate=24 April 2015|work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph (UK)]]|date=13 January 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540|title=Hawking: AI could end human race|date=2 December 2014|publisher=BBC|accessdate=11 November 2017}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The consequences of the singularity and its potential benefit or harm to the human race have been intensely debated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
斯蒂芬·霍金和埃隆·马斯克等公众人物对完全人工智能（AI）可能导致人类灭绝表示担忧。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Sparkes|first1=Matthew|title=Top scientists call for caution over artificial intelligence|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11342200/Top-scientists-call-for-caution-over-artificial-intelligence.html|accessdate=24 April 2015|work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph (UK)]]|date=13 January 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540|title=Hawking: AI could end human race|date=2 December 2014|publisher=BBC|accessdate=11 November 2017}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;奇点的后果及其对人类的潜在利益或伤害一直存在激烈的争论。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Four polls of AI researchers, conducted in 2012 and 2013 by [[Nick Bostrom]] and [[Vincent C. Müller]], suggested a median probability estimate of 50% that [[artificial general intelligence]] (AGI) would be developed by 2040–2050.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;newyorker&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Khatchadourian|first1=Raffi|title=The Doomsday Invention|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=The New Yorker|date=16 November 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Müller, V. C., &amp;amp; Bostrom, N. (2016). &amp;quot;Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion&amp;quot;. In V. C. Müller (ed): ''Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence'' (pp. 555–572). Springer, Berlin. http://philpapers.org/rec/MLLFPI&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年到2013年，Nick Bostrom和Vincent c. Müller 对人工智能研究人员进行了四次调查。结果显示，通用人工智能(artificial general intelligence, AGI)在2040年至2050年被成功开发出来的概率估计的中位数为50% 。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;newyorker&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Khatchadourian|first1=Raffi|title=The Doomsday Invention|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=The New Yorker|date=16 November 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Müller, V. C., &amp;amp; Bostrom, N. (2016). &amp;quot;Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion&amp;quot;. In V. C. Müller (ed): ''Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence'' (pp. 555–572). Springer, Berlin. http://philpapers.org/rec/MLLFPI&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==背景==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although technological progress has been accelerating, it has been limited by the basic intelligence of the human brain, which has not, according to [[Paul R. Ehrlich]], changed significantly for millennia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Paul Ehrlich June 2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ehrlich, Paul. [http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/ The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, with the increasing power of computers and other technologies, it might eventually be possible to build a machine that is significantly more intelligent than humans.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;businessweek&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm Superbrains born of silicon will change everything.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801074729/http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm |date=August 1, 2010 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然技术进步一直在加速，但它一直受到人脑基本智力的限制，而根据Paul R.Ehrlich的说法，人类大脑的基本智力在几千年来并没有发生显著变化。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Paul Ehrlich June 2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ehrlich, Paul. [http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/ The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;然而，随着计算机和其他技术的日益强大，人类最终有可能制造出一台比人类智能得多的机器&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;businessweek&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm Superbrains born of silicon will change everything.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801074729/http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm |date=August 1, 2010 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a superhuman intelligence were to be invented—either through the amplification of human intelligence or through artificial intelligence—it would bring to bear greater problem-solving and inventive skills than current humans are capable of. Such an AI is referred to as Seed AI because if an AI were created with engineering capabilities that matched or surpassed those of its human creators, it would have the potential to autonomously improve its own software and hardware or design an even more capable machine. This more capable machine could then go on to design a machine of yet greater capability. These iterations of recursive self-improvement could accelerate, potentially allowing enormous qualitative change before any upper limits imposed by the laws of physics or theoretical computation set in. It is speculated that over many iterations, such an AI would far surpass human cognitive abilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如果一种超人类智能被发明出来。无论是通过人类智能的放大还是通过人工智能，它将带来比现在的人类更强的问题解决和发明创造能力。这种人工智能被称为种子人工智能 Seed AI。因为如果人工智能的工程能力能够与它的人类创造者相匹敌或超越，那么它就有潜力自主改进自己的软件和硬件，或者设计出更强大的机器。这台能力更强的机器可以继续设计一台能力更强的机器。这种自我递归改进的迭代可以加速，在物理定律或理论计算设定的任何上限之前，可能会发生巨大的质变。据推测，经过多次迭代，这样的人工智能将远远超过人类的认知能力。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==智能爆炸==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligence explosion is a possible outcome of humanity building [[artificial general intelligence]] (AGI). AGI would be capable of recursive self-improvement, leading to the rapid emergence of [[Superintelligence|artificial superintelligence]] (ASI), the limits of which are unknown, shortly after technological singularity is achieved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能爆炸是构建通用人工智能 artificial general intelligence (AGI) 的可能结果。在技术奇点实现后不久，AGI 将能够进行递归式的自我迭代，从而导致人工超级智能 artificial superintelligence (ASI) 的迅速出现，但其局限性尚不清楚。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. J. Good]] speculated in 1965 that artificial general intelligence might bring about an intelligence explosion. He speculated on the effects of superhuman machines, should they ever be invented:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1965年，I.J.Good 曾推测人工通用智能可能会带来智能爆炸。他对超人类及其的影响进行了推测，如果他们真的被发明出来的话：&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an ‘intelligence explosion,’ and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{让我们把超智能机器定义为一种机器，它可以进行远超无论多么聪明的一个人的所有智力活动。由于机器的设计是一种智力活动，那么一台超智能机器可以设计出更好的机器；那么毫无疑问会出现“智能爆炸”，人类的智能将远远落后。因此，第一台超智能机器是人类所需要的最后一项发明，当然，假设机器足够温顺并能够告诉我们如何控制它们的话。}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good's scenario runs as follows: as computers increase in power, it becomes possible for people to build a machine that is more intelligent than humanity; this superhuman intelligence possesses greater problem-solving and inventive skills than current humans are capable of. This superintelligent machine then designs an even more capable machine, or re-writes its own software to become even more intelligent; this (even more capable) machine then goes on to design a machine of yet greater capability, and so on. These iterations of recursive self-improvement accelerate, allowing enormous qualitative change before any upper limits imposed by the laws of physics or theoretical computation set in.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
古德的设想如下：随着计算机能力的增加，人们有可能制造出一台比人类更智能的机器；这种超人的智能拥有比现在人类更强大的问题解决和发明创造的能力。这台超级智能机器随后设计一台功能更强大的机器，或者重写自己的软件来变得更加智能；这台（甚至更强大的）机器接着继续设计功能更强大的机器，以此类推。这些递归式的自我完善的迭代加速，允许在物理定律或理论计算设定的任何上限之内发生巨大的质变。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==其他表现形式==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===超级智能的出现===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Superintelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{超级智能}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A superintelligence, hyperintelligence, or superhuman intelligence is a hypothetical [[intelligent agent|agent]] that possesses intelligence far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human minds. &amp;quot;Superintelligence&amp;quot; may also refer to the form or degree of intelligence possessed by such an agent. [[John von Neumann]], [[Vernor Vinge]] and [[Ray Kurzweil]] define the concept in terms of the technological creation of super intelligence. They argue that it is difficult or impossible for present-day humans to predict what human beings' lives would be like in a post-singularity world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
超级智能、超智能或超人智能是一种假想的智能体。它拥有的智能远远超过最聪明、最有天赋的人类大脑的智能。“超级智能”也可以指这种智能体所拥有的智能的形式或程度。John von Neumann，Vernor Vinge和Ray Kurzweil 从技术创造超级智能的角度定义了这个概念。他们认为，现在的人类很难或不可能预测人类在后奇点世界的生活会是什么样子&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Technology forecasters and researchers disagree about if or when human intelligence is likely to be surpassed. Some argue that advances in [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) will probably result in general reasoning systems that lack human cognitive limitations. Others believe that humans will evolve or directly modify their biology so as to achieve radically greater intelligence. A number of [[futures studies]] scenarios combine elements from both of these possibilities, suggesting that humans are likely to [[brain–computer interface|interface with computers]], or [[mind uploading|upload their minds to computers]], in a way that enables substantial intelligence amplification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
技术预言家和研究人员对人类智能是否或何时可能被超越存在分歧。一些人认为，人工智能（AI）的进步可能会产生没有人类认知局限的一般推理系统。另一些人则认为，人类将进化或直接改变自己的生物性，从而从根本上实现更高的智能。许多未来研究的场景结合了这两种可能的元素，认为人类很可能会与计算机交互，或以将他们的意识上传到计算机的方式实现大量的智能增益。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===非人工智能奇点===&lt;br /&gt;
Some writers use &amp;quot;the singularity&amp;quot; in a broader way to refer to any radical changes in our society brought about by new technologies such as [[molecular nanotechnology]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; although Vinge and other writers specifically state that without superintelligence, such changes would not qualify as a true singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些作家writers更宽泛地使用“奇点”的概念，用来指代任何我们社会中由新技术带来的剧烈变化，如分子纳米技术，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 尽管Vinge和其他作家明确指出，如果没有超级智能，这些改变就不能算作真正的奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===速度超智能===&lt;br /&gt;
A speed superintelligence describes an AI that can do everything that a human can do, where the only difference is that the machine runs faster.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1007/978-3-662-54033-6_2 |year=2017 |publisher=Springer Berlin Heidelberg |pages=11–23 |author=Kaj Sotala and Roman Yampolskiy |title=The Technological Singularity |chapter=Risks of the Journey to the Singularity |series=The Frontiers Collection |isbn=978-3-662-54031-2 |conference=The Frontiers Collection }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, with a million-fold increase in the speed of information processing relative to that of humans, a subjective year would pass in 30 physical seconds.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Such a difference in information processing speed could drive the singularity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1002/9781118922590.ch16 |year=2016 |publisher=John Wiley \&amp;amp; Sons, Inc |pages=171–224 |author=David J. Chalmers |title=Science Fiction and Philosophy |chapter=The Singularity |isbn=9781118922590 |conference=Science Fiction and Philosophy }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
速度超级智能描述了一个人工智能，它可以做任何人类能做的事情，唯一的区别是这个机器运行得更快.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1007/978-3-662-54033-6_2 |year=2017 |publisher=Springer Berlin Heidelberg |pages=11–23 |author=Kaj Sotala and Roman Yampolskiy |title=The Technological Singularity |chapter=Risks of the Journey to the Singularity |series=The Frontiers Collection |isbn=978-3-662-54031-2 |conference=The Frontiers Collection }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。例如，与人类相比，它信息处理的速度提高了一百万倍，一个主观年将在30个物理秒内过去。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;这种在信息处理上的差异可能会导致奇点。.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1002/9781118922590.ch16 |year=2016 |publisher=John Wiley \&amp;amp; Sons, Inc |pages=171–224 |author=David J. Chalmers |title=Science Fiction and Philosophy |chapter=The Singularity |isbn=9781118922590 |conference=Science Fiction and Philosophy }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==合理性==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many prominent technologists and academics dispute the plausibility of a technological singularity, including [[Paul Allen]], [[Jeff Hawkins]], [[John Henry Holland|John Holland]], [[Jaron Lanier]], and [[Gordon Moore]], whose [[Moore's law|law]] is often cited in support of the concept.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
许多著名的技术专家和学者都对技术奇点的合理性提出质疑，包括Paul Allen、Jeff Hawkins、 John Holland、Jaron Lanier和Gordon Moore，他的摩尔定律经常被引用来支持这一概念。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most proposed methods for creating superhuman or [[transhuman]] minds fall into one of two categories: intelligence amplification of human brains and artificial intelligence. The speculated ways to produce intelligence augmentation are many, and include [[bioengineering]], [[genetic engineering]], [[nootropic]] drugs, AI assistants, direct [[brain–computer interface]]s and [[mind uploading]]. Because multiple paths to an intelligence explosion are being explored, it makes a singularity more likely; for a singularity to not occur they would all have to fail.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity |title=What is the Singularity? &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
大多数创造超人或跨人类头脑的方法分为两类：人脑的智能增强和人工智能。据推测，智能增强的方法很多，包括生物工程、基因工程、益智药物、AI 助手、直接脑机接口和思维上传。因为人们正在探索通向智能爆炸的多种途径，这使得奇点出现的可能更大；奇点不发生，所有这些都必将失败。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity |title=What is the Singularity? &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robin Hanson]] expressed skepticism of human intelligence augmentation, writing that once the &amp;quot;low-hanging fruit&amp;quot; of easy methods for increasing human intelligence have been exhausted, further improvements will become increasingly difficult to find.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/vc.html#hanson |title=Some Skepticism |date=1998 |first=Robin |last=Hanson |author-link=Robin Hanson |accessdate=April 8, 2020}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Despite all of the speculated ways for amplifying human intelligence, non-human artificial intelligence (specifically seed AI) is the most popular option among the hypotheses that would advance the singularity.{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Robin Hanson 对人类智能增强表示怀疑，他写道，一旦提高人类智力的“唾手可得的”简单方法用尽，进一步的改进将变得越来越难。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/vc.html#hanson |title=Some Skepticism |date=1998 |first=Robin |last=Hanson |author-link=Robin Hanson |accessdate=April 8, 2020}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;尽管有各种提高人类智能的方法，但非人类人工智能(特别是种子人工智能)仍是所有能推进奇点的假说中最受欢迎的一个。{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether or not an intelligence explosion occurs depends on three factors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Chalmers John Locke Lecture, 10 May, Exam Schools, Oxford, [http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/news/2010/david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available Presenting a philosophical analysis of the possibility of a technological singularity or &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; resulting from recursively self-improving AI] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115205558/http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/news/2010/david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available |date=2013-01-15 }}.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The first accelerating factor is the new intelligence enhancements made possible by each previous improvement. Contrariwise, as the intelligences become more advanced, further advances will become more and more complicated, possibly overcoming the advantage of increased intelligence. Each improvement should beget at least one more improvement, on average, for movement towards singularity to continue. Finally, the laws of physics will eventually prevent any further improvements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能爆炸是否发生取决于三个因素。第一个加速因素是以前的每一次改进都使新的智能增强成为可能。相反，随着智能的进步，进一步的发展将变得越来越复杂，可能会抵消智力增长的优势。平均而言，每一次改进都应该至少带来一次改进，以便继续朝着奇点的方向发展。最后，物理定律最终会阻止任何进一步的改进。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are two logically independent, but mutually reinforcing, causes of intelligence improvements: increases in the speed of computation, and improvements to the [[algorithm]]s used.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;consc.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, David J. Chalmers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The former is predicted by [[Moore's law|Moore's Law]] and the forecasted improvements in hardware,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;itrs&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |title=ITRS |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929173755/http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |archivedate=2011-09-29 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and is comparatively similar to previous technological advances. But there are some AI researchers{{who|date=March 2017}} who believe software is more important than hardware.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|url=https://blog.chronicled.com/why-software-is-more-important-than-hardware-right-now-6a4b58feaa7c|title=Why Software Is More Important Than Hardware Right Now|last=Kulkarni|first=Ajit|date=2017-12-12|website=Chronicled|access-date=2019-02-23}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能改进有两个逻辑上独立但又相互加强的原因：计算速度的提高和使用的算法的改进。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;consc.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, David J. Chalmers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;前者由摩尔定律和硬件方面的预测改进进行预测，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;itrs&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |title=ITRS |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929173755/http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |archivedate=2011-09-29 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;与以前的技术进步比较相似。但也有一些人工智能研究人员认为软件比硬件更重要&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|url=https://blog.chronicled.com/why-software-is-more-important-than-hardware-right-now-6a4b58feaa7c|title=Why Software Is More Important Than Hardware Right Now|last=Kulkarni|first=Ajit|date=2017-12-12|website=Chronicled|access-date=2019-02-23}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2017 email survey of authors with publications at the 2015 [[Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems|NeurIPS]] and [[International Conference on Machine Learning|ICML]] machine learning conferences asked  about the chance of an intelligence explosion. Of the respondents, 12% said it was &amp;quot;quite likely&amp;quot;, 17% said it was &amp;quot;likely&amp;quot;, 21% said it was &amp;quot;about even&amp;quot;, 24% said it was &amp;quot;unlikely&amp;quot; and 26% said it was &amp;quot;quite unlikely&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2017年，一项对2015年 NeurIPS 和 ICML 机器学习会议上发表论文的作者的电子邮件调查询问了智能爆炸的可能性。在受访者中，12% 的人认为“很有可能” ，17% 的人认为“有可能” ，21% 的人认为“可能性中等” ，24% 的人认为“不太可能” ，26% 的人认为“非常不可能”。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===速度改进 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both for human and artificial intelligence, hardware improvements increase the rate of future hardware improvements. Simply put,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arstechnica&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Moore's Law]] suggests that if the first doubling of speed took 18 months, the second would take 18 subjective months; or 9 external months, whereafter, four months, two months, and so on towards a speed singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html &amp;quot;Staring into the Singularity&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An upper limit on speed may eventually be reached, although it is unclear how high this would be.  Jeff Hawkins has stated that a self-improving computer system would inevitably run into upper limits on computing power: &amp;quot;in the end there are limits to how big and fast computers can run. We would end up in the same place; we'd just get there a bit faster. There would be no singularity.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hawkins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
无论对于人类智能还是人工智能，硬件改进都会提高未来硬件改进的速度。简单地说，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arstechnica&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;Moore's Law认为，如果第一次速度翻倍需要18个月，第二次则需要18个主观月；或者9个外部月，之后，4个月、2个月，以此类推，走向速度奇点&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html &amp;quot;Staring into the Singularity&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 速度的上限最终可能会达到，尽管还不清楚这会有多高。杰夫·霍金斯（Jeff Hawkins）曾表示，一个自我完善的计算机系统不可避免地会遇到计算能力的上限：“最终，计算机的运行速度和速度都是有限的。我们最终会在同一个地方；我们只会更快到达那里。不会有奇点。”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hawkins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is difficult to directly compare [[silicon]]-based hardware with [[neuron]]s. But {{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}} notes that computer [[speech recognition]] is approaching human capabilities, and that this capability seems to require 0.01% of the volume of the brain. This analogy suggests that modern computer hardware is within a few orders of magnitude of being as powerful as the human brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
很难直接将基于硅的硬件与神经元相比较。但是{Harvtxt| Berglas|2008}指出计算机语音识别正在接近人类的能力，而且这种能力似乎需要0.01%的脑容量。这个类比表明，现代计算机硬件与人脑一样强大，只差几个数量级。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====指数增长====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Martin Ford in The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
马丁 · 福特Martin Ford的《隧道中的灯光: 自动化，加速技术和未来经济The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future》&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:PPTMooresLawai.jpg|thumb|Ray Kurzweil writes that, due to [[paradigm shift]]s, a trend of exponential growth extends [[Moore's law]] from [[integrated circuits]] to earlier [[transistor]]s, [[vacuum tube]]s, [[relay]]s, and [[electromechanics|electromechanical]] computers. He predicts that the exponential growth will continue, and that in a few decades the computing power of all computers will exceed that of (&amp;quot;unenhanced&amp;quot;) human brains, with superhuman [[artificial intelligence]] appearing around the same time.|链接=Special:FilePath/PPTMooresLawai.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[图片：PPTMooresLawai.jpg|thumb | Ray Kurzweil写道，由于[[范式转换]]s，指数增长的趋势将[[摩尔定律]]从[[集成电路]]扩展到早期的[[晶体管]]、[[真空管]]、[[继电器]]和[[机电机械]]计算机。他预测，这种指数增长将继续下去，在几十年内，所有计算机的计算能力将超过（“未增强的”）人脑，同时出现超人[[人工智能]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Moore's Law over 120 Years.png|thumb|left|An updated version of Moore's law over 120 Years (based on [[Ray Kurzweil|Kurzweil's]] [[c:File:PPTMooresLawai.jpg|graph]]). The 7 most recent data points are all [[Nvidia GPUs|NVIDIA GPUs]].|链接=Special:FilePath/Moore's_Law_over_120_Years.png]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[资料图：摩尔超过120的定律年.png|拇指|左|摩尔定律120年的更新版本（基于[[Ray Kurzweil | Kurzweil's]][[c:文件：PPTMooresLawai.jpg|图形]]）。最近的7个数据点都是[[Nvidia GPU | Nvidia GPU]].]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exponential growth in computing technology suggested by Moore's law is commonly cited as a reason to expect a singularity in the relatively near future, and a number of authors have proposed generalizations of Moore's law. Computer scientist and futurist [[Hans Moravec]] proposed in a 1998 book&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&amp;amp;pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that the exponential growth curve could be extended back through earlier computing technologies prior to the [[integrated circuit]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
摩尔定律所建议的计算技术的指数增长通常被认为是在相对不远的将来出现奇点的一个理由，许多作者已经提出了摩尔定律的推广。计算机科学家和未来主义者Hans Moravec在1998年的一本书中提到&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&amp;amp;pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;指数型增长曲线可以沿着集成电路之前的早期计算技术进行延伸。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ray Kurzweil]] postulates a [[law of accelerating returns]] in which the speed of technological change (and more generally, all evolutionary processes&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;) increases exponentially, generalizing Moore's law in the same manner as Moravec's proposal, and also including material technology (especially as applied to [[nanotechnology]]), [[Medical Technology|medical technology]] and others.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity2&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Between 1986 and 2007, machines' application-specific capacity to compute information per capita roughly doubled every 14 months; the per capita capacity of the world's general-purpose computers has doubled every 18 months; the global telecommunication capacity per capita doubled every 34 months; and the world's storage capacity per capita doubled every 40 months.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 &amp;quot;The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information&amp;quot;], Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), [[Science (journal)|Science]], 332(6025), 60–65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; On the other hand, it has been argued that the global acceleration pattern having the 21st century singularity as its parameter should be characterized as [[Hyperbolic growth|hyperbolic]] rather than exponential.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8 ''The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures. A Big History Perspective''] (Springer, 2020)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ray Kurzweil]]假设了一个[[加速回报定律]]，其中技术变革的速度（更广泛地说，所有进化过程&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;）急剧增长。从1986年到2007年，摩尔定律以与莫拉维克提案相同的方式呈指数增长，并包括材料技术（尤其是应用于[[纳米技术]]）、[[医疗技术|医疗技术]]和其他技术，计算机计算人均信息的特定应用能力大约每14个月翻一番；世界通用计算机的人均容量每18个月翻一番；全球人均电信容量每34个月翻一番；世界人均存储容量每40个月翻一番。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 &amp;quot;The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information&amp;quot;], Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), [[Science (journal)|Science]], 332(6025), 60–65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 另一方面，有人认为，以21世纪奇点为参数的全球加速度模式应该被描述为[[双曲线增长|双曲]]而不是指数型&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8 ''The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures. A Big History Perspective''] (Springer, 2020)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil reserves the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; for a rapid increase in artificial intelligence (as opposed to other technologies), writing for example that &amp;quot;The Singularity will allow us to transcend these limitations of our biological bodies and brains ... There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity3&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; He also defines his predicted date of the singularity (2045) in terms of when he expects computer-based intelligences to significantly exceed the sum total of human brainpower, writing that advances in computing before that date &amp;quot;will not represent the Singularity&amp;quot; because they do &amp;quot;not yet correspond to a profound expansion of our intelligence.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;transformation&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
库兹韦尔将“奇点”一词用于描述人工智能(相对于其他技术)的快速增长，例如他写道: “奇点将允许我们超越生物体和大脑的局限……后奇点时代，人类与机器之间将不再有区别”。库兹韦尔相信奇点将在大约2045年之前出现，那时基于计算机的智能将明显超越人类脑力的总和，在这个日期之前计算机技术的进步“并不代表奇点”，因为它们“还不符合智慧的深刻扩展”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====加速变革====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Main|Accelerating change}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Main |加速变革}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|thumb|According to Kurzweil, his [[logarithmic scale|logarithmic graph]] of 15 lists of [[paradigm shift]]s for key [[human history|historic]] events shows an [[exponential growth|exponential]] trend|链接=Special:FilePath/ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[图片：ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|thumb |根据Kurzweil的说法，他对关键的[[人类历史|历史]]事件的15个[[范式转移]]列表的[[对数标度|对数图]]显示了[[指数增长|指数]]趋势]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some singularity proponents argue its inevitability through extrapolation of past trends, especially those pertaining to shortening gaps between improvements to technology. In one of the first uses of the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in the context of technological progress, [[Stanislaw Ulam]] tells of a conversation with [[John von Neumann]] about accelerating change: &lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.&amp;lt;ref name=mathematical/&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些奇点论的支持者认为，通过对过去趋势的推断，特别是那些缩减技术进步的差距有关的趋势，奇点是不可避免的。技术进步的背景下，较早使用“奇点”一词时，Stanislaw Ulam讲述了与冯·诺伊曼关于加速变革的一次谈话：&lt;br /&gt;
一次围绕不断加速的技术进步和生活方式变化的对话，它使得人类历史上出现了一些基本的奇点，超过了这些奇点，人类的事务，如我们所知，将无法继续下去。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil claims that technological progress follows a pattern of&lt;br /&gt;
exponential growth, following what he calls the &amp;quot;law of&lt;br /&gt;
accelerating returns&amp;quot;. Whenever technology approaches a barrier,&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil writes, new technologies will surmount it. He predicts&lt;br /&gt;
paradigm shifts will become increasingly common, leading to&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;technological change so rapid and profound it represents a&lt;br /&gt;
rupture in the fabric of human history&amp;quot;.[43] Kurzweil believes that&lt;br /&gt;
the singularity will occur by approximately 2045.[38] His&lt;br /&gt;
predictions differ from Vinge's in that he predicts a gradual&lt;br /&gt;
ascent to the singularity, rather than Vinge's rapidly self�improving superhuman intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
库兹韦尔声称，技术进步遵循[[指数增长]的模式，遵循他所称的“加速返回定律law of accelerating returns”。库兹韦尔写道，每当一项技术遇到障碍时，新技术就会出来克服这个障碍。他预测范式转变将变得越来越普遍，导致“技术变革非常迅速和深刻，以至于它代表着人类历史结构的一个断裂”。库兹韦尔相信奇点将在2045年之前出现。他和Vinge预测的不同点在于他预测的是一个逐渐上升到奇点的过程，而Vinge预测了一个快速自我更新的超人类智能。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oft-cited dangers include those commonly associated with molecular nanotechnology and genetic engineering. These threats are major issues for both singularity advocates and critics, and were the subject of Bill Joy's Wired magazine article &amp;quot;Why the future doesn't need us&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
经常被引用的危险包括那些与分子纳米技术和基因工程有关的技术。这些威胁是奇点论的倡导者和批评者面临的主要议题，也是比尔 · 乔伊《连线 Wired》杂志上所发表文章《为什么未来不需要我们Why the future doesn't need us》的主题。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===算法改进 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some intelligence technologies, like &amp;quot;seed AI&amp;quot;,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Yampolskiy, Roman V 2015&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceA&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; may also have the potential to not just make themselves faster, but also more efficient, by modifying their [[source code]]. These improvements would make further improvements possible, which would make further improvements possible, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
一些智能技术，比如“种子人工智能”，通过修改自己的源代码，可能使自己不仅更快，而且更高效。这些改进将使进一步的改进成为可能，以此类推。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mechanism for a recursively self-improving set of algorithms differs from an increase in raw computation speed in two ways. First, it does not require external influence: machines designing faster hardware would still require humans to create the improved hardware, or to program factories appropriately.{{citation needed|date=July 2017}} An AI rewriting its own source code could do so while contained in an [[AI box]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
递归自我改进算法集的机制在两个方面不同于原始计算速度的提高。首先，它不需要外部影响：设计更快的硬件的机器仍然需要人类来创造改进的硬件，或者对工厂进行适当的编程。AI可以既身处一个AI盒 AI box里面，又同时改进自己的 源代码。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second, as with [[Vernor Vinge]]’s conception of the singularity, it is much harder to predict the outcome. While speed increases seem to be only a quantitative difference from human intelligence, actual algorithm improvements would be qualitatively different. [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]] compares it to the changes that human intelligence brought: humans changed the world thousands of times more rapidly than evolution had done, and in totally different ways. Similarly, the evolution of life was a massive departure and acceleration from the previous geological rates of change, and improved intelligence could cause change to be as different again.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|author=Eliezer S. Yudkowsky |url=http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/power |title=Power of Intelligence |publisher=Yudkowsky |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第二，和Vernor Vinge关于奇点的概念一样，对结果的预测要困难得多。虽然速度的提高似乎与人类的智能只是数量上的区别，但实际的算法改进在质量上是不同的。Eliezer Yudkowsky将其与人类智能带来的变化相比较：人类改变世界的速度比进化速度快数千倍，而且方式完全不同。同样地，生命的进化与以前的地质变化又有着巨大的不同和加速，而智能的提高可能会使变化再次变得不同。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|author=Eliezer S. Yudkowsky |url=http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/power |title=Power of Intelligence |publisher=Yudkowsky |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are substantial dangers associated with an intelligence explosion singularity originating from a recursively self-improving set of algorithms. First, the goal structure of the AI might not be invariant under self-improvement, potentially causing the AI to optimise for something other than what was originally intended.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008 ]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;kurzweilai&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.kurzweilai.net/artificial-general-intelligence-now-is-the-time |title=Artificial General Intelligence: Now Is the Time |publisher=KurzweilAI |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Secondly, AIs could compete for the same scarce resources mankind uses to survive.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/10/05/paper-on-the-nature-of-self-improving-artificial-intelligence/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence.&amp;quot; Self-Aware Systems. 21 Jan. 2008. Web. 07 Jan. 2010.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|last1=Barrat|first1=James|title=Our Final Invention|year=2013|publisher=St. Martin's Press|location=New York|isbn=978-0312622374|pages=78–98|edition=First|chapter=6, &amp;quot;Four Basic Drives&amp;quot;|title-link=Our Final Invention}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
由递归自我改进的算法集合引起的智能爆炸存在着巨大的危险。首先，人工智能的目标结构在自我完善的情况下可能不是一成不变的，这可能会导致人工智能对原本计划之外的东西进行优化。第二，人工智能可以与人类竞争赖以生存的稀缺资源。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While not actively malicious, there is no reason to think that AIs would actively promote human goals unless they could be programmed as such, and if not, might use the resources currently used to support mankind to promote its own goals, causing human extinction.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;kurzweilai.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.kurzweilai.net/max-more-and-ray-kurzweil-on-the-singularity-2 |title=Max More and Ray Kurzweil on the Singularity |publisher=KurzweilAI |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceB&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/riskintro/index.html |title=Concise Summary &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.nickbostrom.com/fut/evolution.html Bostrom, Nick, The Future of Human Evolution, Death and Anti-Death: Two Hundred Years After Kant, Fifty Years After Turing, ed. Charles Tandy, pp. 339–371, 2004, Ria University Press.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然不是恶意的，但没有理由认为人工智能会积极促进人类目标的实现，除非这些目标可以被编程，否则，它们就可能利用目前用于支持人类的资源来促进自己的目标，从而导致人类灭绝。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Carl Shulman]] and [[Anders Sandberg]] suggest that algorithm improvements may be the limiting factor for a singularity; while hardware efficiency tends to improve at a steady pace, software innovations are more unpredictable and may be bottlenecked by serial, cumulative research. They suggest that in the case of a software-limited singularity, intelligence explosion would actually become more likely than with a hardware-limited singularity, because in the software-limited case, once human-level AI is developed, it could run serially on very fast hardware, and the abundance of cheap hardware would make AI research less constrained.&amp;lt;ref name=ShulmanSandberg2010&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Shulman|first=Carl|author2=Anders Sandberg |title=Implications of a Software-Limited Singularity|journal=ECAP10: VIII European Conference on Computing and Philosophy|year=2010|url=http://intelligence.org/files/SoftwareLimited.pdf|accessdate=17 May 2014|editor1-first=Klaus|editor1-last=Mainzer}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An abundance of accumulated hardware that can be unleashed once the software figures out how to use it has been called &amp;quot;computing overhang.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;MuehlhauserSalamon2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book|last=Muehlhauser|first=Luke|title=Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment|year=2012|publisher=Springer|chapter-url=http://intelligence.org/files/IE-EI.pdf|author2=Anna Salamon |editor=Amnon Eden |editor2=Johnny Søraker |editor3=James H. Moor |editor4=Eric Steinhart|chapter=Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carl Shulman和Anders Sandberg认为，算法改进可能是奇点的限制因素；虽然硬件效率趋于稳步提高，但软件创新更不具可预测性，可能会受到连续、累积的研究的限制。他们认为，智能爆炸在受软件限制的奇点情况中发生的可能性实际上比在受硬件限制的奇点更可能发生，因为在软件受限的情况下，一旦开发出人类水平的人工智能，它可以在非常快的硬件上连续运行，廉价硬件的丰富将使人工智能研究不那么受限制。&amp;lt;ref name=ShulmanSandberg2010&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Shulman|first=Carl|author2=Anders Sandberg |title=Implications of a Software-Limited Singularity|journal=ECAP10: VIII European Conference on Computing and Philosophy|year=2010|url=http://intelligence.org/files/SoftwareLimited.pdf|accessdate=17 May 2014|editor1-first=Klaus|editor1-last=Mainzer}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 一旦软件知道如何使用硬件，大量的硬件就可以被释放出来，这被称为“计算过剩”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;MuehlhauserSalamon2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book|last=Muehlhauser|first=Luke|title=Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment|year=2012|publisher=Springer|chapter-url=http://intelligence.org/files/IE-EI.pdf|author2=Anna Salamon |editor=Amnon Eden |editor2=Johnny Søraker |editor3=James H. Moor |editor4=Eric Steinhart|chapter=Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===危机===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some critics, like philosopher [[Hubert Dreyfus]], assert that computers or machines cannot achieve [[human intelligence]], while others, like physicist [[Stephen Hawking]], hold that the definition of intelligence is irrelevant if the net result is the same.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;dreyfus&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些批评者，如哲学家Hubert Dreyfus断言计算机或机器无法实现人类智能，而其他人，如物理学家史蒂芬·霍金，则认为如果最终结果是相同的，那么智力的定义其实无关紧要。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An early description of the idea was made in John Wood Campbell Jr.'s 1932 short story &amp;quot;The last evolution&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
早在1932年，约翰·W·坎贝尔的短篇小说《最后的进化》中就对这个想法进行了描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psychologist [[Steven Pinker]] stated in 2008:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
心理学家史蒂芬·平克在2008年指出：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|... There is not the slightest reason to believe in a coming singularity. The fact that you can visualize a future in your imagination is not evidence that it is likely or even possible. Look at domed cities, jet-pack commuting, underwater cities, mile-high buildings, and nuclear-powered automobiles—all staples of futuristic fantasies when I was a child that have never arrived. Sheer processing power is not a pixie dust that magically solves all your problems. ...&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
没有一点理由相信奇点即将到来。你可以想象一个未来并不能证明它是可能出现的。看看穹顶城市、喷气式飞行器通勤、水下城市、一英里高的建筑和核动力汽车：这些都是我小时候未来主义幻想的主要内容，然而它们都没有成真。纯粹的计算能力不是能神奇地解决所有问题的仙尘。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[University of California, Berkeley]], [[philosophy]] professor [[John Searle]] writes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[加州大学伯克利分校]，哲学教授约翰·塞尔写道：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{blockquote|[Computers] have, literally ..., no [[intelligence]], no [[motivation]], no [[autonomy]], and no agency.  We design them to behave as if they had certain sorts of [[psychology]], but there is no psychological reality to the corresponding processes or behavior. ...  [T]he machinery has no beliefs, desires, [or] motivations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[John R. Searle]], “What Your Computer Can’t Know”, ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', 9 October 2014, p. 54.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
毫不夸张地说，计算机没有智能，没有动机，没有自主，也没有智能体。我们设计他们，使他们的行为好像表示他们有某种心理，但其实没有对应这些过程或行为的心理现实……机器没有信仰、愿望或动机。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Martin Ford (author)|Martin Ford]] in ''The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thelightsinthetunnel&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; postulates a &amp;quot;technology paradox&amp;quot; in that before the singularity could occur most routine jobs in the economy would be automated, since this would require a level of technology inferior to that of the singularity. This would cause massive unemployment and plummeting consumer demand, which in turn would destroy the incentive to invest in the technologies that would be required to bring about the Singularity. Job displacement is increasingly no longer limited to work traditionally considered to be &amp;quot;routine.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Martin Ford在“隧道中的灯光：自动化、加速技术和未来经济 The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thelightsinthetunnel&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;中提出了一个“技术悖论”：在奇点出现之前，经济体中的大多数日常工作都将自动化，因为这所需的技术水平低于奇点。这将导致大规模的失业和消费者需求的骤降，这反过来又会破坏投资于实现奇点所需技术的动机。工作的替代越来越不再局限于那些传统上被认为是“例行公事”的工作。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Theodore Modis]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; and [[Jonathan Huebner]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological14&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; argue that the rate of technological innovation has not only ceased to rise, but is actually now declining. Evidence for this decline is that the rise in computer [[clock rate]]s is slowing, even while Moore's prediction of exponentially increasing circuit density continues to hold. This is due to excessive heat build-up from the chip, which cannot be dissipated quickly enough to prevent the chip from melting when operating at higher speeds. Advances in speed may be possible in the future by virtue of more power-efficient CPU designs and multi-cell processors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; While Kurzweil used Modis' resources, and Modis' work was around accelerating change, Modis distanced himself from Kurzweil's thesis of a &amp;quot;technological singularity&amp;quot;, claiming that it lacks scientific rigor.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Theodore Modis&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;和Jonathan Huebner&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological14&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 认为技术创新的速度不仅停止上升，而且现在实际上正在下降。这种下降的证据是计算机时钟速率的增长正在放缓，尽管摩尔关于电路密度指数增长的预测仍然成立。这是由于芯片产生过多的热量，当它们以较高的速度运行时，这些热量不能足够快地散去，可能导致芯片熔化。在未来，随着更节能的CPU设计和多单元处理器的发明，速度的提高可能实现。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;尽管 Kurzweil 利用了Modis的（工作成果）作为资源，同时 Modis 的工作围绕着加速变革，但 Modis 与 Kurzweil 的“技术奇点”理论保持距离，称其缺乏科学严谨性。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a detailed empirical accounting, ''The Progress of Computing'', [[William Nordhaus]] argued that, prior to 1940, computers followed the much slower growth of a traditional industrial economy, thus rejecting extrapolations of Moore's law to 19th-century computers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal | doi=10.1017/S0022050707000058|title = Two Centuries of Productivity Growth in Computing| journal=The Journal of Economic History| volume=67|pages = 128–159|year = 2007|last1 = Nordhaus|first1 = William D.| citeseerx=10.1.1.330.1871}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在一份详细的实证报告《计算的进步 The Progress of Computing》中，威廉·诺德豪斯 William Nordhaus 认为，在 1940 年之前，计算机遵循传统工业经济增长缓慢的趋势，因此拒绝了摩尔定律对19世纪计算机的推断。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal | doi=10.1017/S0022050707000058|title = Two Centuries of Productivity Growth in Computing| journal=The Journal of Economic History| volume=67|pages = 128–159|year = 2007|last1 = Nordhaus|first1 = William D.| citeseerx=10.1.1.330.1871}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a 2007 paper, Schmidhuber stated that the frequency of subjectively &amp;quot;notable events&amp;quot; appears to be approaching a 21st-century singularity, but cautioned readers to take such plots of subjective events with a grain of salt: perhaps differences in memory of recent and distant events could create an illusion of accelerating change where none exists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schmidhuber, Jürgen. &amp;quot;New millennium AI and the convergence of history.&amp;quot; Challenges for computational intelligence. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. 15–35.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在2007年的一篇论文中，Schmidhuber指出主观上“值得注意的事件”出现的频率似乎正在接近21世纪的奇点，但他提醒读者，对这些主观事件的情节要持保留态度：也许对近期和远期事件的记忆差异，可能会造成一种在根本不存在的情况下变化加速的错觉。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schmidhuber, Jürgen. &amp;quot;New millennium AI and the convergence of history.&amp;quot; Challenges for computational intelligence. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. 15–35.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paul Allen argued the opposite of accelerating returns, the complexity brake; the more progress science makes towards understanding intelligence, the more difficult it becomes to make additional progress. A study of the number of patents shows that human creativity does not show accelerating returns, but in fact, as suggested by Joseph Tainter in his The Collapse of Complex Societies, a law of diminishing returns. The number of patents per thousand peaked in the period from 1850 to 1900, and has been declining since.[60] The growth of complexity eventually becomes self-limiting, and leads to a widespread &amp;quot;general systems collapse&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
保罗·艾伦 Paul Allen 认为，与加速回报相反的是复杂性制动；科学在理解智力方面取得的进展越多，就越难取得更多的进展。一项对专利数量的研究表明，人类的创造力并没有表现出加速的回报。事实上，正如Joseph Tainter 在他的《复杂社会的崩溃 The Collapse of Complex Societies 》中所指出的那样，存在一个收益递减定律 a law of diminishing returns 的限制。每千人的专利的数量在1850年至1900年期间达到顶峰，此后一直在下降。复杂性的增长最终会自我限制，并导致广泛的“一般系统崩溃 general systems collapse”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jaron Lanier]] refutes the idea that the Singularity is inevitable. He states: &amp;quot;I do not think the technology is creating itself. It's not an autonomous process.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |author=Jaron Lanier |title=Who Owns the Future? |work=New York: Simon &amp;amp; Schuster |date=2013 |url=http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=JCB8D9LA&amp;amp;tocp=59}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He goes on to assert: &amp;quot;The reason to believe in human agency over technological determinism is that you can then have an economy where people earn their own way and invent their own lives. If you structure a society on ''not'' emphasizing individual human agency, it's the same thing operationally as denying people clout, dignity, and self-determination ... to embrace [the idea of the Singularity] would be a celebration of bad data and bad politics.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jaron Lanier驳斥了奇点不可避免的观点。他说：“我不认为这项技术是在创造自我。这不是一个自主的过程。”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |author=Jaron Lanier |title=Who Owns the Future? |work=New York: Simon &amp;amp; Schuster |date=2013 |url=http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=JCB8D9LA&amp;amp;tocp=59}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;他接着断言：“相信人的能动性而不是技术决定论的原因是，这样你就可以有一个经济体，人们在其中可以自己挣钱，创造自己的生活。如果你在不强调个人主观能动性的基础上构建社会，就等于在操作上否认人们的影响力、尊严和自决...接受 [奇点的想法] 将是对糟糕数据和糟糕政治的颂扬。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Economics|Economist]] [[Robert J. Gordon]], in ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'' (2016), points out that measured economic growth has slowed around 1970 and slowed even further since the [[financial crisis of 2007–2008]], and argues that the economic data show no trace of a coming Singularity as imagined by mathematician [[I.J. Good]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[William D. Nordhaus]], &amp;quot;Why Growth Will Fall&amp;quot; (a review of [[Robert J. Gordon]], ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'', Princeton University Press, 2016, {{ISBN|978-0691147727}}, 762 pp., $39.95), ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', vol. LXIII, no. 13 (August 18, 2016), p. 68.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
经济学家 Robert J.Gordon在《美国经济增长的兴衰：内战以来的美国生活水平 The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War》（2016）中指出，据测量，经济增长在1970年左右放缓，自2007-2008年金融危机以来甚至进一步放缓，并认为经济数据显示没有迹象表明数学家I.J.Good所设想的奇点将会到来。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[William D. Nordhaus]], &amp;quot;Why Growth Will Fall&amp;quot; (a review of [[Robert J. Gordon]], ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'', Princeton University Press, 2016, {{ISBN|978-0691147727}}, 762 pp., $39.95), ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', vol. LXIII, no. 13 (August 18, 2016), p. 68.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to general criticisms of the singularity concept, several critics have raised issues with Kurzweil's iconic chart. One line of criticism is that a [[Log-log plot|log-log]] chart of this nature is inherently biased toward a straight-line result. Others identify selection bias in the points that Kurzweil chooses to use. For example, biologist [[PZ Myers]] points out that many of the early evolutionary &amp;quot;events&amp;quot; were picked arbitrarily.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Kurzweil has rebutted this by charting evolutionary events from 15 neutral sources, and showing that they fit a straight line on [[:File:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|a log-log chart]]. ''[[The Economist]]'' mocked the concept with a graph extrapolating that the number of blades on a razor, which has increased over the years from one to as many as five, will increase ever-faster to infinity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
除了对奇点概念的一般性批评外，一些批评者还对库兹韦尔的标志性图表提出了质疑。一种批评是，这种性质的对数图像本质上就会存在倾向于直线的有偏差结果。其他人批评库兹韦尔在数据点的使用上存在选择偏差。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;例如，生物学家P. Z. Myers指出，许多早期的进化“事件”都是随意挑选的。库兹韦尔反驳了这一点，他绘制了15个中立来源的进化事件图，并表明它们都符合一条直线.《经济学人》用一张图表来嘲讽这个概念：一把剃须刀上的刀片数在过去几年里从一个增加到多达五个，并且它将以更快的速度增长到无穷大。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==潜在影响==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dramatic changes in the rate of economic growth have occurred in the past because of some technological advancement. Based on population growth, the economy doubled every 250,000 years from the [[Paleolithic]] era until the [[Neolithic Revolution]]. The new agricultural economy doubled every 900 years, a remarkable increase. In the current era, beginning with the Industrial Revolution, the world's economic output doubles every fifteen years, sixty times faster than during the agricultural era. If the rise of superhuman intelligence causes a similar revolution, argues Robin Hanson, one would expect the economy to double at least quarterly and possibly on a weekly basis.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url=http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/robotics-software/economics-of-the-singularity |title=Economics Of The Singularity |author=Robin Hanson |work=IEEE Spectrum Special Report: The Singularity }} &amp;amp; [http://hanson.gmu.edu/longgrow.pdf Long-Term Growth As A Sequence of Exponential Modes]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
过去由于一些技术进步，经济增长率发生了巨大变化。以人口增长为基础，从[[旧石器时代]]到[[新石器时代]]，经济每25万年翻一番。新农业经济每900年翻一番，增长显著。在当今时代，从工业革命开始，世界经济产出每15年翻一番，比农业时代快60倍。罗宾·汉森Robin Hanson认为，如果超人智能的兴起引发了类似的革命，人们会预期经济至少每季度翻一番，甚至可能每周翻一番。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===不确定性和风险===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Existential risk from artificial general intelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步|来自人工通用智能的存在风险}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;technological singularity&amp;quot; reflects the idea that such change may happen suddenly, and that it is difficult to predict how the resulting new world would operate.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|last=Yudkowsky |first=Eliezer |title=Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk |journal=Global Catastrophic Risks |editor-last=Bostrom |editor-first=Nick |editor2-last=Cirkovic |editor2-first=Milan |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |url=http://singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |bibcode=2008gcr..book..303Y |isbn=978-0-19-857050-9 |page=303 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080807132337/http://www.singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |archivedate=2008-08-07 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;theuncertainfuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; It is unclear whether an intelligence explosion resulting in a singularity would be beneficial or harmful, or even an [[Existential risk|existential threat]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Because AI is a major factor in singularity risk, a number of organizations pursue a technical theory of aligning AI goal-systems with human values, including the [[Future of Humanity Institute]], the [[Machine Intelligence Research Institute]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; the [[Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence]], and the [[Future of Life Institute]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“技术奇点”一词反映了这样一种想法&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|last=Yudkowsky |first=Eliezer |title=Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk |journal=Global Catastrophic Risks |editor-last=Bostrom |editor-first=Nick |editor2-last=Cirkovic |editor2-first=Milan |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |url=http://singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |bibcode=2008gcr..book..303Y |isbn=978-0-19-857050-9 |page=303 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080807132337/http://www.singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |archivedate=2008-08-07 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;theuncertainfuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; ：这种变化可能突然发生，而且很难预测由此产生的新世界将如何运作。目前尚不清楚导致奇点的智能爆炸是有益还是有害，甚至是一种存在威胁。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 由于人工智能是奇点风险的一个主要因素，许多组织追求一种将人工智能的目标系统与人类价值观相协调的技术理论。这些组织包括人类未来研究所 Future of Humanity Institute，机器智能研究所 The Machine Intelligence Research Institute， 人类兼容人工智能中心 &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;The Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence和未来生命研究所 The Future of Life Institute。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Physicist [[Stephen Hawking]] said in 2014 that &amp;quot;Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; Hawking believed that in the coming decades, AI could offer &amp;quot;incalculable benefits and risks&amp;quot; such as &amp;quot;technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; Hawking suggested that artificial intelligence should be taken more seriously and that more should be done to prepare for the singularity:&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-transcendence-looks-at-the-implications-of-artificial-intelligence--but-are-we-taking-ai-seriously-enough-9313474.html |title=Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of artificial intelligence - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'  |work=[[The Independent]] |author=Stephen Hawking |date=1 May 2014 |accessdate=May 5, 2014|author-link=Stephen Hawking }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
物理学家史蒂芬·霍金在2014年表示，“成功创造人工智能将是人类历史上最大的事件。不幸的是，这也可能是最后一次，除非我们学会如何规避风险。”&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt;  霍金认为，在未来几十年里，人工智能可能会带来“无法估量的利益和风险”，例如“技术超越金融市场的聪明程度，超越人类研究人员的创造力，超越人类领袖的操控力，开发我们甚至无法理解的武器”。霍金建议&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; ，人们应该更认真地对待人工智能，并做更多的工作来为奇点做准备：&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-transcendence-looks-at-the-implications-of-artificial-intelligence--but-are-we-taking-ai-seriously-enough-9313474.html |title=Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of artificial intelligence - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'  |work=[[The Independent]] |author=Stephen Hawking |date=1 May 2014 |accessdate=May 5, 2014|author-link=Stephen Hawking }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|So, facing possible futures of incalculable benefits and risks, the experts are surely doing everything possible to ensure the best outcome, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message saying, &amp;quot;We'll arrive in a few decades,&amp;quot; would we just reply, &amp;quot;OK, call us when you get here – we'll leave the lights on&amp;quot;? Probably not – but this is more or less what is happening with AI.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
所以，面对可能的收益和风险难以估量的未来，专家们肯定会尽一切可能确保最好的结果，对吗？错了。如果一个高级的外星文明给我们发了一条信息说，“我们几十年后就会到达”，我们会不会只回答，“好吧，你到了这里就打电话给我们——我们会开着灯的”？可能不会——但这或多或少就是人工智能正在发生的事情。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}} claims that there is no direct evolutionary motivation for an AI to be friendly to humans. Evolution has no inherent tendency to produce outcomes valued by humans, and there is little reason to expect an arbitrary optimisation process to promote an outcome desired by mankind, rather than inadvertently leading to an AI behaving in a way not intended by its creators.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom8&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nick Bostrom, [http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html &amp;quot;Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;], in ''Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making in Humans and in Artificial Intelligence'', Vol. 2, ed. I. Smit et al., Int. Institute of Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics, 2003, pp. 12–17&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]: [http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120611190606/http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf |date=2012-06-11 }}. Draft for a publication in ''Global Catastrophic Risk'' from August 31, 2006, retrieved July 18, 2011 (PDF file)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst9&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/06/11/the-stamp-collecting-device/ The Stamp Collecting Device, Nick Hay]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Anders Sandberg]] has also elaborated on this scenario, addressing various common counter-arguments.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;aleph&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2011/02/why_we_should_fear_the_paperclipper.html 'Why we should fear the Paperclipper'], 2011-02-14 entry of Sandberg's blog 'Andart'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; AI researcher [[Hugo de Garis]] suggests that artificial intelligences may simply eliminate the human race [[instrumental convergence|for access to scarce resources]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems10&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and humans would be powerless to stop them.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;forbes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;de Garis, Hugo. [https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/cosmist-terran-cyborgist-opinions-contributors-artificial-intelligence-09-hugo-de-garis.html &amp;quot;The Coming Artilect War&amp;quot;], Forbes.com, 22 June 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Alternatively, AIs developed under evolutionary pressure to promote their own survival could outcompete humanity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Berglas(2008) 声称, 没有直接的进化动机促使人工智能对人类友好。进化并不倾向于产生人类所重视的结果，也没有理由期望一个任意的优化过程会促进人类所期望的结果，而不是无意中导致人工智能以违背其创造者原有意图的方式行事。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom8&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nick Bostrom, [http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html &amp;quot;Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;], in ''Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making in Humans and in Artificial Intelligence'', Vol. 2, ed. I. Smit et al., Int. Institute of Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics, 2003, pp. 12–17&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]: [http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120611190606/http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf |date=2012-06-11 }}. Draft for a publication in ''Global Catastrophic Risk'' from August 31, 2006, retrieved July 18, 2011 (PDF file)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst9&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/06/11/the-stamp-collecting-device/ The Stamp Collecting Device, Nick Hay]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 安德斯·桑德伯格 Anders Sandberg 也也对这一情景进行了详细阐述，讨论了各种常见的反驳意见&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;aleph&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2011/02/why_we_should_fear_the_paperclipper.html 'Why we should fear the Paperclipper'], 2011-02-14 entry of Sandberg's blog 'Andart'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。人工智能研究员 Hugo de Garis&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems10&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  认为，人工智能可能会为了获取稀缺资源而直接消灭人类，并且人类将无力阻止它们。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;forbes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;de Garis, Hugo. [https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/cosmist-terran-cyborgist-opinions-contributors-artificial-intelligence-09-hugo-de-garis.html &amp;quot;The Coming Artilect War&amp;quot;], Forbes.com, 22 June 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 或者，在进化压力下为了促进自身生存而发展起来的人工智能可能会胜过人类。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bostrom (2002) discusses human extinction scenarios, and lists superintelligence as a possible cause:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bostrom(2002)讨论了人类灭绝的场景，并列举超级智能作为一个可能的原因:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person who asked the question.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the  matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person  who asked the question.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
当我们创造出第一个超级智能实体时，我们可能会犯错并给它一个导致人类毁灭的目标（假设它巨大的智力优势赋予它这样做的力量）。例如，我们可能会错误地将子目标提升为超级目标。我们告诉它去解决一个数学问题，然后它将太阳系中的所有物质变成一个巨大的计算装置，在这个过程中杀死了提出这个问题的人。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]], a significant problem in AI safety is that unfriendly artificial intelligence is likely to be much easier to create than friendly AI. While both require large advances in recursive optimisation process design, friendly AI also requires the ability to make goal structures invariant under self-improvement (or the AI could transform itself into something unfriendly) and a goal structure that aligns with human values and does not automatically destroy the human race. An unfriendly AI, on the other hand, can optimize for an arbitrary goal structure, which does not need to be invariant under self-modification.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst12&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html Coherent Extrapolated Volition, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, May 2004 ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100815055725/http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html |date=2010-08-15 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{harvtxt|Bill Hibbard|2014}} proposes an AI design that avoids several dangers including self-delusion,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JAGI2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| journal=Journal of Artificial General Intelligence| year=2012| volume=3| issue=1| title=Model-Based Utility Functions| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.| doi=10.2478/v10229-011-0013-5| page=1|arxiv = 1111.3934 |bibcode = 2012JAGI....3....1H | s2cid=8434596}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; unintended instrumental actions,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_56.pdf  Avoiding Unintended AI Behaviors.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle. [http://intelligence.org/2012/12/19/december-2012-newsletter/ This paper won the Machine Intelligence Research Institute's 2012 Turing Prize for the Best AGI Safety Paper].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and corruption of the reward generator.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; He also discusses social impacts of AI&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JET2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| url=http://jetpress.org/v17/hibbard.htm| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology| year=2008| volume=17| title=The Technology of Mind and a New Social Contract| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and testing AI.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12b&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_57.pdf  Decision Support for Safe AI Design|.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His 2001 book ''[[Super-Intelligent Machines]]'' advocates the need for public education about AI and public control over AI. It also proposed a simple design that was vulnerable to corruption of the reward generator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
按照[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]的观点，人工智能安全的一个重要问题是，不友好的人工智能可能比友好的人工智能更容易创建。虽然两者都需要递归优化过程的进步，但友好的人工智能还需要目标结构在自我改进过程中保持不变（否则人工智能可以将自己转变成不友好的东西），以及一个与人类价值观相一致且不会自动毁灭人类的目标结构。另一方面，一个不友好的人工智能可以针对任意的目标结构进行优化，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst12&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html Coherent Extrapolated Volition, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, May 2004 ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100815055725/http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html |date=2010-08-15 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 而目标结构不需要在自我改进过程中保持不变。Bill Hibbard (2014)提出了一种人工智能设计&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JAGI2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| journal=Journal of Artificial General Intelligence| year=2012| volume=3| issue=1| title=Model-Based Utility Functions| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.| doi=10.2478/v10229-011-0013-5| page=1|arxiv = 1111.3934 |bibcode = 2012JAGI....3....1H | s2cid=8434596}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ，可以避免包括自欺欺人&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_56.pdf  Avoiding Unintended AI Behaviors.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle. [http://intelligence.org/2012/12/19/december-2012-newsletter/ This paper won the Machine Intelligence Research Institute's 2012 Turing Prize for the Best AGI Safety Paper].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 、无意的工具性行为和奖励机制&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;的腐败等一些危险。他还讨论了人工智能&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JET2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| url=http://jetpress.org/v17/hibbard.htm| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology| year=2008| volume=17| title=The Technology of Mind and a New Social Contract| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;和人工智能测试的社会影响&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12b&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_57.pdf  Decision Support for Safe AI Design|.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。他在2001年出版的“超级智能机器Super-Intelligent Machines”一书中提倡对人工智能的公共教育和公众控制。该书还提出了一个简单的易受奖励机制的腐败影响的设计。It also proposed a simple design that was vulnerable to corruption of the reward generator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===社会生物进化的下一步===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Sociocultural evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{社会文化进化}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Major Evolutionary Transitions digital.jpg|thumb|upright=1.6|Schematic Timeline of Information and Replicators in the Biosphere: Gillings et al.'s &amp;quot;[[The Major Transitions in Evolution|major evolutionary transitions]]&amp;quot; in information processing.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Major_Evolutionary_Transitions_digital.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[档案：主要进化过渡数字.jpg|thumb |直立=1.6 |生物圈中信息和复制因子的示意时间线：Gillings等人在信息处理中的“[[进化中的主要转变|主要进化转变]]”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-99|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[99]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Biological vs. digital information.jpg|thumb|Amount of digital information worldwide (5{{e|21}} bytes) versus human genome information worldwide (10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;19&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; bytes) in 2014.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Biological_vs._digital_information.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[档案：生物vs。数字信息.jpg|2014年，全球数字信息总量（5{e | 21}字节）与全球人类基因组信息（10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;19&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;字节）的对比。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-99|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[99]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the technological singularity is usually seen as a sudden event, some scholars argue the current speed of change already fits this description.{{citation needed|date=April 2018}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然技术奇点通常被视为一个突发事件，但一些学者认为目前的变化速度已经符合这种描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, some argue that we are already in the midst of a [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|major evolutionary transition]] that merges technology, biology, and society. Digital technology has infiltrated the fabric of human society to a degree of indisputable and often life-sustaining dependence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
此外，有人认为，我们已经处在一个融合了技术、生物学和社会学的进化巨变major evolutionary transition之中。数字技术已经无可争辩地渗透到人类社会的结构中，而且生命的维持常常依赖数字技术。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2016 article in ''[[Trends in Ecology &amp;amp; Evolution]]'' argues that &amp;quot;humans already embrace fusions of biology and technology. We spend most of our waking time communicating through digitally mediated channels... we trust [[artificial intelligence]] with our lives through [[Anti-lock braking system|antilock braking in cars]] and [[autopilot]]s in planes... With one in three marriages in America beginning online, digital algorithms are also taking a role in human pair bonding and reproduction&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2016年发表在 生态学和进化进展 Trends in Ecology and Evolution 的一篇文章认为，“人类已经接受了生物和技术的融合。我们清醒时大部分时间都是通过数字媒介进行交流的……我们拿性命做担保信任汽车上的防抱死制动系统 Anti-lock braking system 和飞机上的自动巡航模式 autopilot……在美国，三分之一的婚姻都是在网络上开始的，数字算法也在人类配对和繁殖中也发挥了作用”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article further argues that from the perspective of the [[evolution]], several previous [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|Major Transitions in Evolution]] have transformed life through innovations in information storage and replication ([[RNA]], [[DNA]], [[multicellularity]], and [[culture]] and [[language]]). In the current stage of life's evolution, the carbon-based biosphere has generated a [[cognitive system]] (humans) capable of creating technology that will result in a comparable [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|evolutionary transition]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
文章进一步指出，从进化的角度来看，以前的几次[[进化]]巨变通过信息存储和复制方式（如RNA、DNA、多细胞性、文化和语言的出现）的创新来改变生命。在生命进化的当前阶段，以碳为基础的生物圈产生了一个认知系统（人类），能够创造技术，从而导致一个类似的进化变迁。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The digital information created by humans has reached a similar magnitude to biological information in the biosphere. Since the 1980s, the quantity of digital information stored has doubled about every 2.5 years, reaching about 5 [[zettabyte]]s in 2014 (5{{e|21}} bytes).{{Citation needed|date=April 2019}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
人类创造的数字信息已经达到了与生物圈中生物信息相似的规模。自20世纪80年代以来，存储的数字信息量大约每2.5年翻一番，2014年达到约5泽字节（5e21字节）。{{Citation needed|date=April 2019}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In biological terms, there are 7.2&amp;amp;nbsp;billion humans on the planet, each having a genome of 6.2&amp;amp;nbsp;billion nucleotides. Since one byte can encode four nucleotide pairs, the individual genomes of every human on the planet could be encoded by approximately 1{{e|19}} bytes. The digital realm stored 500 times more information than this in 2014 (see figure). The total amount of DNA contained in all of the cells on Earth is estimated to be about 5.3{{e|37}} base pairs, equivalent to 1.325{{e|37}} bytes of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在生物学方面，地球上有72亿人，每个人的基因组有62亿个核苷酸。由于一个字节可以编码四个核苷酸对，地球上每个人类的个体基因组可以编码大约1{e | 19}字节。2014年，数字领域存储的信息是这个数字的500倍（见图）。据估计，地球上所有细胞所含的DNA总量约为5.3{e | 37}碱基对，相当于1.325{e | 37}字节的信息。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If growth in digital storage continues at its current rate of 30–38% compound annual growth per year,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; it will rival the total information content contained in all of the DNA in all of the cells on Earth in about 110 years. This would represent a doubling of the amount of information stored in the biosphere across a total time period of just 150 years&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal |url=http://escholarship.org/uc/item/38f4b791 |doi=10.1016/j.tree.2015.12.013|pmid=26777788|title=Information in the Biosphere: Biological and Digital Worlds|journal=Trends in Ecology &amp;amp; Evolution|volume=31|issue=3|pages=180–189|year=2016|last1=Kemp|first1=D. J.|last2=Hilbert|first2=M.|last3=Gillings|first3=M. R.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如果数字存储以目前每年30-38%的复合年增长率继续增长，它将在大约110年内与地球上所有细胞中的所有DNA所包含的信息总量相抗衡。这将意味着在仅仅150年的时间里，生物圈中储存的信息量翻了一番”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===对人类社会的影响===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{further|Artificial intelligence in fiction}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{小说中的人工智能}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In February 2009, under the auspices of the [[Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence]] (AAAI), [[Eric Horvitz]] chaired a meeting of leading computer scientists, artificial intelligence researchers and roboticists at Asilomar in Pacific Grove, California. The goal was to discuss the potential impact of the hypothetical possibility that robots could become self-sufficient and able to make their own decisions. They discussed the extent to which computers and robots might be able to acquire [[autonomy]], and to what degree they could use such abilities to pose threats or hazards.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009年2月，在人工智能促进协会Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence(AAAI) 的主持下，Eric Horvitz在加利福尼亚州Pacific Grove 的 Asilomar 主持了一次由主要计算机科学家、人工智能研究人员和机器人学家参加的会议。其目的是讨论机器人能够自给自足并能够自己做决定的假设可能性的潜在影响。他们讨论了计算机和机器人能够在多大程度上获得自主性 autonomy，以及在多大程度上可以利用这些能力对人类构成威胁或危险。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some machines are programmed with various forms of semi-autonomy, including the ability to locate their own power sources and choose targets to attack with weapons. Also, some [[computer viruses]] can evade elimination and, according to scientists in attendance, could therefore be said to have reached a &amp;quot;cockroach&amp;quot; stage of machine intelligence. The conference attendees noted that self-awareness as depicted in science-fiction is probably unlikely, but that other potential hazards and pitfalls exist.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?_r=1&amp;amp;ref=todayspaper Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man] By JOHN MARKOFF, NY Times, July 26, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有些机器被编程成各种形式的半自主 semi-autonomy，包括定位自己的电源和选择武器攻击的目标等。此外，有些计算机病毒可以避免被消除，根据与会科学家的说法，可以说已经达到了机器智能的“蟑螂”阶段。与会者指出，科幻小说中描述的自我意识可能不太可能，但也存在其他潜在的危险和陷阱。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?_r=1&amp;amp;ref=todayspaper Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man] By JOHN MARKOFF, NY Times, July 26, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank S. Robinson predicts that once humans achieve a machine with the intelligence of a human, scientific and technological problems will be tackled and solved with brainpower far superior to that of humans. He notes that artificial systems are able to share data more directly than humans, and predicts that this would result in a global network of super-intelligence that would dwarf human capability.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |last=Robinson |first=Frank S. |title=The Human Future: Upgrade or Replacement? |magazine=[[The Humanist]] |date=27 June 2013 |url=https://thehumanist.com/magazine/july-august-2013/features/the-human-future-upgrade-or-replacement}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Robinson also discusses how vastly different the future would potentially look after such an intelligence explosion. One example of this is solar energy, where the Earth receives vastly more solar energy than humanity captures, so capturing more of that solar energy would hold vast promise for civilizational growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank S. Robinson 预言，一旦人类实现了具有人类智能的机器，科学技术问题将被远远优于人类的智力来解决。他指出，人工系统能够比人类更直接地共享数据，并预测这将导致一个全球的超级智能网络，使人类的能力相形见绌。Robinson还讨论了在这样一次智能爆炸之后，未来可能会有多大的不同。其中一个例子就是太阳能，地球接收到的太阳能远远多于人类捕获的太阳能，因此捕捉更多的太阳能将为文明发展带来巨大的希望。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==硬起飞与软起飞==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Recursive self-improvement.svg|thumb|upright=1.6|In this sample recursive self-improvement scenario, humans modifying an AI's architecture would be able to double its performance every three years through, for example, 30 generations before exhausting all feasible improvements (left). If instead the AI is smart enough to modify its own architecture as well as human researchers can, its time required to complete a redesign halves with each generation, and it progresses all 30 feasible generations in six years (right).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky-global-risk&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]. &amp;quot;Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk.&amp;quot; Global catastrophic risks (2008).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Recursive_self-improvement.svg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[文件：在这个示例递归自我改进场景中，修改人工智能体系结构的人可以每三年将其性能提高一倍，例如，30代人，然后用尽所有可行的改进（左）。相反，如果人工智能足够聪明，能够像人类研究人员那样修改自己的架构，那么每一代人完成一次重新设计所需的时间将减半，并且它在6年内将所有30代可行的代都推进（右图）。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky-global-risk&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]. &amp;quot;Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk.&amp;quot; Global catastrophic risks (2008).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a hard takeoff scenario, an AGI rapidly self-improves, &amp;quot;taking control&amp;quot; of the world (perhaps in a matter of hours), too quickly for significant human-initiated error correction or for a gradual tuning of the AGI's goals. In a soft takeoff scenario, AGI still becomes far more powerful than humanity, but at a human-like pace (perhaps on the order of decades), on a timescale where ongoing human interaction and correction can effectively steer the AGI's development.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bugaj, Stephan Vladimir, and Ben Goertzel. &amp;quot;Five ethical imperatives and their implications for human-AGI interaction.&amp;quot; Dynamical Psychology (2007).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sotala, Kaj, and Roman V. Yampolskiy. &amp;quot;Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a survey.&amp;quot; Physica Scripta 90.1 (2014): 018001.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在硬起飞的情况下，通用人工智能 AGI 迅速自我完善并“掌控”世界（也许在几个小时内）。速度太快，以致于无法进行重大的人为纠错或对 AGI 的目标进行逐步调整。在软起飞的情况下，虽然 AGI 仍然比人类强大得多，但却以一种类似人类的速度进步（也许是几十年的数量级），持续的人类互动和修正可以有效地引导AGI 的发展。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bugaj, Stephan Vladimir, and Ben Goertzel. &amp;quot;Five ethical imperatives and their implications for human-AGI interaction.&amp;quot; Dynamical Psychology (2007).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sotala, Kaj, and Roman V. Yampolskiy. &amp;quot;Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a survey.&amp;quot; Physica Scripta 90.1 (2014): 018001.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ramez Naam]] argues against a hard takeoff. He has pointed that we already see recursive self-improvement by superintelligences, such as corporations. [[Intel]], for example, has &amp;quot;the collective brainpower of tens of thousands of humans and probably millions of CPU cores to... design better CPUs!&amp;quot; However, this has not led to a hard takeoff; rather, it has led to a soft takeoff in the form of [[Moore's law]].&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Further&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=The Singularity Is Further Than It Appears|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/the-singularity-is-further-tha.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Naam further points out that the computational complexity of higher intelligence may be much greater than linear, such that &amp;quot;creating a mind of intelligence 2 is probably ''more'' than twice as hard as creating a mind of intelligence 1.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Ascend&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=Why AIs Won't Ascend in the Blink of an Eye - Some Math|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/why-ais-wont-ascend-in-blink-of-an-eye.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ramez Naam反对硬起飞。他指出，我们已经看到企业等超级智能体的递归式地自我完善。例如，Intel拥有“数万人的集体脑力，可能还有数百万个CPU核心……来设计更好的CPU！”然而，这并没有导致硬起飞；相反，它以摩尔定律的形式实现了软起飞&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Further&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=The Singularity Is Further Than It Appears|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/the-singularity-is-further-tha.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 。Naam进一步指出，高等智能的计算复杂度可能比线性大得多，因此，“创建智能系统2的难度可能两倍于是创建智能系统1的两倍多。”&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Ascend&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=Why AIs Won't Ascend in the Blink of an Eye - Some Math|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/why-ais-wont-ascend-in-blink-of-an-eye.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[J. Storrs Hall]] believes that &amp;quot;many of the more commonly seen scenarios for overnight hard takeoff are circular – they seem to assume hyperhuman capabilities at the ''starting point'' of the self-improvement process&amp;quot; in order for an AI to be able to make the dramatic, domain-general improvements required for takeoff. Hall suggests that rather than recursively self-improving its hardware, software, and infrastructure all on its own, a fledgling AI would be better off specializing in one area where it was most effective and then buying the remaining components on the marketplace, because the quality of products on the marketplace continually improves, and the AI would have a hard time keeping up with the cutting-edge technology used by the rest of the world.&amp;lt;ref name=Hall2008&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Hall|first=J. Storrs|title=Engineering Utopia|journal=Artificial General Intelligence, 2008: Proceedings of the First AGI Conference|date=2008|pages=460–467|url=http://www.agiri.org/takeoff_hall.pdf|accessdate=16 May 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J.Storrs Hall认为，“许多常见的一夜之间出现的硬起飞场景都是循环论证——它们似乎在自我提升过程的起点上假设了超人类的能力”，以便人工智能能够实现起飞所需的戏剧性的、领域通用的改进。Hall认为，一个初出茅庐的人工智能与其靠自己不断地自我改进硬件、软件和基础设施，不如专注于一个它最有效的领域，然后在市场上购买剩余的组件，因为市场上产品的质量不断提高，人工智能将很难跟上世界其他地方使用的尖端技术。&amp;lt;ref name=Hall2008&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Hall|first=J. Storrs|title=Engineering Utopia|journal=Artificial General Intelligence, 2008: Proceedings of the First AGI Conference|date=2008|pages=460–467|url=http://www.agiri.org/takeoff_hall.pdf|accessdate=16 May 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ben Goertzel]] agrees with Hall's suggestion that a new human-level AI would do well to use its intelligence to accumulate wealth. The AI's talents might inspire companies and governments to disperse its software throughout society. Goertzel is skeptical of a hard five minute takeoff but speculates that a takeoff from human to superhuman level on the order of five years is reasonable. Goerzel refers to this scenario as a &amp;quot;semihard takeoff&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Goertzel2014&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Goertzel|first1=Ben|title=Superintelligence — Semi-hard Takeoff Scenarios|url=http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/09/26/superintelligence-semi-hard-takeoff-scenarios/|accessdate=25 October 2014|agency=h+ Magazine|date=26 Sep 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ben Goertzel 同意 Hall 的意见，即一种新的人类级别的人工智能将很好地利用其智能来积累财富。人工智能的天赋可能会激励公司和政府将其软件分散到整个社会。Goertzel 对5分钟的硬起飞持怀疑态度，但他推测从人类到超人的水平，以5年的速度起飞是合理的。Goerzel将这种情况称为“半硬起飞semihard takeoff”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Goertzel2014&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Goertzel|first1=Ben|title=Superintelligence — Semi-hard Takeoff Scenarios|url=http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/09/26/superintelligence-semi-hard-takeoff-scenarios/|accessdate=25 October 2014|agency=h+ Magazine|date=26 Sep 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Max More]] disagrees, arguing that if there were only a few superfast human-level AIs, that they would not radically change the world, as they would still depend on other people to get things done and would still have human cognitive constraints. Even if all superfast AIs worked on intelligence augmentation, it is unclear why they would do better in a discontinuous way than existing human cognitive scientists at producing super-human intelligence, although the rate of progress would increase. More further argues that a superintelligence would not transform the world overnight: a superintelligence would need to engage with existing, slow human systems to accomplish physical impacts on the world. &amp;quot;The need for collaboration, for organization, and for putting ideas into physical changes will ensure that all the old rules are not thrown out overnight or even within years.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=More&amp;gt;{{cite web|last1=More|first1=Max|title=Singularity Meets Economy|url=http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#more|accessdate=10 November 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Max More不同意这一观点，他认为，如果只有少数超高速的人类水平的人工智能，它们不会从根本上改变世界，因为它们仍将依赖人来完成任务，并且仍然会受到人类认知的限制。即使所有的超高速人工智能都致力于智能增强，但目前还不清楚为什么它们在产生超人类智能方面比现有的人类认知科学家做得更好，尽管进展速度会加快。更进一步指出，超级智能不会在一夜之间改变世界：超级智能需要与现有的、缓慢的人类系统进行接触，以完成对世界的物理影响。”合作、组织和将想法付诸实际变革的需要将确保所有旧规则不会在一夜之间甚至几年内被抛弃。”&amp;lt;ref name=More&amp;gt;{{cite web|last1=More|first1=Max|title=Singularity Meets Economy|url=http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#more|accessdate=10 November 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==永生==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his 2005 book, ''[[The Singularity is Near]]'', [[Ray Kurzweil|Kurzweil]] suggests that medical advances would allow people to protect their bodies from the effects of aging, making the [[Life extension|life expectancy limitless]]. Kurzweil argues that the technological advances in medicine would allow us to continuously repair and replace defective components in our bodies, prolonging life to an undetermined age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Singularity Is Near'', p.&amp;amp;nbsp;215.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Kurzweil further buttresses his argument by discussing current bio-engineering advances. Kurzweil suggests [[somatic gene therapy]]; after synthetic viruses with specific genetic information, the next step would be to apply this technology to gene therapy, replacing human DNA with synthesized genes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Singularity is Near'', p.&amp;amp;nbsp;216.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在Kurzweil 2005年出版的《奇点近了The Singularity is Near》一书中，他指出，医学的进步将使人们能够保护自己的身体免受衰老的影响，从而延长寿命。Kurzweil认为，医学的技术进步将使我们能够不断地修复和更换我们身体中有缺陷的部件，从而将寿命延长到某个他无法确定的年龄。Kurzweil通过讨论当前的生物工程进展进一步支持了他的论点。Kurzweil建议了体细胞基因疗法somatic gene therapy；在合成具有特定遗传信息的病毒之后，下一步则是把这项技术应用到基因治疗中，用合成的基因取代人类的DNA。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[K. Eric Drexler]], one of the founders of [[nanotechnology]], postulated cell repair devices, including ones operating within cells and utilizing as yet hypothetical [[biological machine]]s, in his 1986 book ''[[Engines of Creation]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[K.Eric Drexler]]，纳米技术nanotechnology的创始人之一，在他1986年的著作“创造的引擎Engines of Creation”中，假设了细胞修复设备，包括在细胞内运行并利用目前假设的[[生物机器]]的设备。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Richard Feynman]], it was his former graduate student and collaborator [[Albert Hibbs]] who originally suggested to him (circa 1959) the idea of a ''medical'' use for Feynman's theoretical micromachines. Hibbs suggested that certain repair machines might one day be reduced in size to the point that it would, in theory, be possible to (as Feynman put it) &amp;quot;[[Molecular machine#Biological|swallow the doctor]]&amp;quot;. The idea was incorporated into Feynman's 1959 essay ''[[There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom]].''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url = http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html|title = There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom|first = Richard P.|last = Feynman |author-link = Richard Feynman|date = December 1959|url-status = dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100211190050/http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html|archive-date = 2010-02-11}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
根据[[Richard Feynman]]，他过去的研究生和合作者[[Albert Hibbs]]最初向他建议（大约在1959年）费曼理论微型机械Feynman's theoretical micromachines的“医学”用途。Hibbs认为，有一天，理论上某些修理机器的尺寸可能会被尽可能地缩小（正如费曼所说的那样）“[[Molecular machine#Biological|swallow the doctor]]”。这个想法被收入了费曼1959年的文章“在底部有很多空间[There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beyond merely extending the operational life of the physical body, [[Jaron Lanier]] argues for a form of immortality called &amp;quot;Digital Ascension&amp;quot; that involves &amp;quot;people dying in the flesh and being uploaded into a computer and remaining conscious&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |title = You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto |last = Lanier |first = Jaron |author-link = Jaron Lanier |publisher = [[Alfred A. Knopf]] |year = 2010 |isbn = 978-0307269645 |location = New York, NY |page = [https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780307269645/page/26 26] |url-access = registration |url = https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780307269645 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
除了仅仅延长物质身体的运行寿命之外，[[Jaron Lanier]]还主张一种称为“数字提升Digital Ascension”的不朽形式，即“人在肉体层面死亡，意识被上传到电脑里并保持清醒”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==概念史==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A paper by Mahendra Prasad, published in ''[[AI Magazine]]'', asserts that the 18th-century mathematician [[Marquis de Condorcet]] was the first person to hypothesize and mathematically model an intelligence explosion and its effects on humanity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Prasad|first=Mahendra|year=2019|title=Nicolas de Condorcet and the First Intelligence Explosion Hypothesis|journal=AI Magazine|volume=40|issue=1|pages=29–33|doi=10.1609/aimag.v40i1.2855}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahendra Prasad在“[[人工智能杂志]]”上发表的一篇论文断言，18世纪的数学家[[Marquis de Condorcet]]是第一个对智能爆炸及其对人类影响进行假设和数学建模的人。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An early description of the idea was made in [[John Wood Campbell Jr.]]'s 1932 short story &amp;quot;The last evolution&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1932年[[约翰.伍德.坎贝尔]的短篇小说《最后的进化》（the last evolution）对这一想法作了早期的描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his 1958 obituary for [[John von Neumann]], Ulam recalled a conversation with von Neumann about the &amp;quot;ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=mathematical/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ulam在1958年为约翰·冯·诺依曼写的讣告中，回忆了与冯·诺依曼的一次对话：“技术的不断进步和人类生活方式的变化，这使我们似乎接近了种族历史上某些基本的奇点，超出了这些奇点，人类的事务就不能继续下去了。”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1965, Good wrote his essay postulating an &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; of recursive self-improvement of a machine intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1965年，古德写了一篇文章，假设机器智能的自我改进迭代是“智能爆炸”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981, [[Stanisław Lem]] published his [[science fiction]] novel ''[[Golem XIV]]''. It describes a military AI computer (Golem XIV) who obtains consciousness and starts to increase his own intelligence, moving towards personal technological singularity. Golem XIV was originally created to aid its builders in fighting wars, but as its intelligence advances to a much higher level than that of humans, it stops being interested in the military requirement because it finds them lacking internal logical consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1981年，[[Stanisław Lem]]出版了他的[[科幻小说]]小说“[[Golem XIV]]”。它描述了一台军用人工智能计算机（Golem XIV）获得了意识并开始增加自己的智能，朝着个体的技术奇点迈进。Golem XIV最初是为了帮助它的建造者打仗，但随着它的智力发展到比人类更高的水平，它不再对军事感兴趣，因为它发现它们缺乏内在的逻辑一致性。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1983, [[Vernor Vinge]] greatly popularized Good's intelligence explosion in a number of writings, first addressing the topic in print in the January 1983 issue of ''[[Omni (magazine)|Omni]]'' magazine. In this op-ed piece, Vinge seems to have been the first to use the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in a way that was specifically tied to the creation of intelligent machines:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google4&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1983年，[[Vernor Vinge]]在许多著作中极大地普及了Good的智能爆炸，他第一次在1983年1月出版的“[[Omni”杂志上提到了这一主题。在这篇评论文章中，Vinge似乎是第一个使用“奇点”一词的人，并将“奇点”的概念特别地与智能机器的创造进行联系：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|We will soon create intelligences greater than our own. When this happens, human history will have reached a kind of singularity, an intellectual transition as impenetrable as the knotted space-time at the center of a black hole, and the world will pass far beyond our understanding. This singularity, I believe, already haunts a number of science-fiction writers. It makes realistic extrapolation to an interstellar future impossible. To write a story set more than a century hence, one needs a nuclear war in between ... so that the world remains intelligible.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{我们很快就会创造出比我们自己更强大的智能。当这种情况发生时，人类历史将达到一种奇点，一种如同黑洞中心打结的时空一样难以逾越的知识转变，世界将远远超出我们的理解。我相信，这种奇点已经困扰了许多科幻作家。这使得对星际未来的现实推断变得不可能。要写一个多世纪以后的故事，科幻小说家需要一场核战争……这样世界就可以理解了。}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1985, in &amp;quot;The Time Scale of Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;, artificial intelligence researcher [[Ray Solomonoff]] articulated mathematically the related notion of what he called an &amp;quot;infinity point&amp;quot;: if a research community of human-level self-improving AIs take four years to double their own speed, then two years, then one year and so on, their capabilities increase infinitely in finite time.&amp;lt;ref name=chalmers /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;std&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1985年，在《人工智能的时间尺度The Time Scale of Artificial Intelligence》一书中，人工智能研究人员[[Ray Solomonoff]]以数学的方式阐述了他所说的“无限点”的相关概念：如果一个人类水平的能自我改进人工智能的研究社区需要四年时间使其速度加倍，那么两年，然后一年，依此类推，它们的能力在有限的时间内无限增长。&amp;lt;ref name=chalmers/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=“std”/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vinge's 1993 article &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; spread widely on the internet and helped to popularize the idea.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google5&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; This article contains the statement, &amp;quot;Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.&amp;quot; Vinge argues that science-fiction authors cannot write realistic post-singularity characters who surpass the human intellect, as the thoughts of such an intellect would be beyond the ability of humans to express.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vinge 1993年的文章《未来的技术奇点：如何在后人类时代生存The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era》在互联网上广为传播，普及了这一理念。“在三十年内，我们将拥有创造超人智慧的技术手段。不久之后，人类时代将结束。”Vinge认为，科幻小说作者无法写出超越人类智力的现实主义后奇点人物，因为这种智力的思想将超出人类的表达能力。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2000, [[Bill Joy]], a prominent technologist and a co-founder of [[Sun Microsystems]], voiced concern over the potential dangers of the singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2000年，著名的技术专家和 Sun Microsystems 的联合创始人 Bill Joy，表达了对奇点潜在危险的担忧。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2005, Kurzweil published ''[[The Singularity is Near]]''. Kurzweil's publicity campaign included an appearance on ''[[The Daily Show with Jon Stewart]]''.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2005年，库兹韦尔发表了《奇点临近 The Singularity is Near》。库兹韦尔的宣传活动包括参加“ Jon Stewart 的每日秀 The Daily Show with Jon Stewart”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2007, [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]] suggested that many of the varied definitions that have been assigned to &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; are mutually incompatible rather than mutually supporting.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sandberg, Anders. &amp;quot;An overview of models of technological singularity.&amp;quot; Roadmaps to AGI and the Future of AGI Workshop, Lugano, Switzerland, March. Vol. 8. 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, Kurzweil extrapolates current technological trajectories past the arrival of self-improving AI or superhuman intelligence, which Yudkowsky argues represents a tension with both I. J. Good's proposed discontinuous upswing in intelligence and Vinge's thesis on unpredictability.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2007年，Eliezer Yudkowsky指出，“奇点”被赋予的许多不同的定义是互不兼容而不是相互支持的&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sandberg, Anders. &amp;quot;An overview of models of technological singularity.&amp;quot; Roadmaps to AGI and the Future of AGI Workshop, Lugano, Switzerland, March. Vol. 8. 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;。例如，库兹韦尔推断了在自我提升的人工智能或超人智能到来之前的当前技术轨迹。Yudkowsky 认为，这与I.J.Good 提出的智能的不连续上升和 Vinge 关于不可预测性的论点存在矛盾。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2009, Kurzweil and [[X-Prize]] founder [[Peter Diamandis]] announced the establishment of [[Singularity University]], a nonaccredited private institute whose stated mission is &amp;quot;to educate, inspire and empower leaders to apply exponential technologies to address humanity's grand challenges.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Funded by [[Google]], [[Autodesk]], [[ePlanet Ventures]], and a group of [[High tech|technology industry]] leaders, Singularity University is based at [[NASA]]'s [[Ames Research Center]] in [[Mountain View, California|Mountain View]], [[California]]. The not-for-profit organization runs an annual ten-week graduate program during summer that covers ten different technology and allied tracks, and a series of executive programs throughout the year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009年，Kurzweil和X-Prize的创始人Peter Diamandis宣布成立奇点大学，这是一所未经认证的私立学院，其宣称的使命是“教育、激励和赋能领导者来使用指数技术应对人类的重大挑战&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; 。”奇点大学由Google、Autodesk、ePlanet Ventures和一群高科技产业的领导团队资助，总部设在位于加州山景城的美国宇航局 NASA 的 艾姆斯研究中心 Ames Research Center。这家非营利组织在每年夏季举办为期十周的研究生课程，涵盖十种不同的技术和相关领域，并全年举办一系列高管课程。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==在政治中==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2007, the Joint Economic Committee of the [[United States Congress]] released a report about the future of nanotechnology. It predicts significant technological and political changes in the mid-term future, including possible technological singularity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vyp1AwAAQBAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA375|title=Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society|first=David H.|last=Guston|date=14 July 2010|publisher=SAGE Publications|isbn=978-1-4522-6617-6}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web | url=http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20120213_TheFutureisComingSoonerThanYouThink.pdf | title=Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think | publisher=Joint Economic Committee | date=March 2007}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2007/03/congress_and_th.html|title=Congress and the Singularity}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2007年，美国国会联合经济委员会 the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress 发布了一份关于纳米技术的未来的报告。它预测在中期的未来会发生诸多重大的技术和政治变化，包括可能的技术奇点。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vyp1AwAAQBAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA375|title=Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society|first=David H.|last=Guston|date=14 July 2010|publisher=SAGE Publications|isbn=978-1-4522-6617-6}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web | url=http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20120213_TheFutureisComingSoonerThanYouThink.pdf | title=Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think | publisher=Joint Economic Committee | date=March 2007}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2007/03/congress_and_th.html|title=Congress and the Singularity}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former President of the United States [[Barack Obama]] spoke about singularity in his interview to ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' in 2016:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.wired.com/2016/10/president-obama-mit-joi-ito-interview/|title=Barack Obama Talks AI, Robo Cars, and the Future of the World|first=Scott|last=Dadich|journal=Wired|date=12 October 2016}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2016年，美国前总统巴拉克·奥巴马 Barack Obama 在接受《连线》杂志采访时谈到了奇点:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.wired.com/2016/10/president-obama-mit-joi-ito-interview/|title=Barack Obama Talks AI, Robo Cars, and the Future of the World|first=Scott|last=Dadich|journal=Wired|date=12 October 2016}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|text=One thing that we haven't talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren't spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about &amp;quot;Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?&amp;quot;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that we haven't talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren't spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about &amp;quot;Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有一件事我们没有谈得太多，我还想回过去谈谈，那就是我们真的必须考虑对经济的影响。因为大多数人现在并没有花太多时间去担心奇点，而是在担心“好吧，我的工作会被机器取代吗？”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==参考文献==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20010527181244/http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Authors/Computing/Good-IJ/SCtFUM.html |archive-date = 2001-05-27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archive-url =  https://web.archive.org/web/20010527181244/http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/authors/computing/good-ij/sctfum.html  | archive-date = 2001-05-27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Portal| Technology}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Accelerating change}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| series = Advances in Computers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
系列 = 计算机的进步&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial consciousness}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| isbn = 9780120121069| title = Advances in Computers Volume 6&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9780120121069&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial intelligence arms race}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl = 10919/89424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl = 10919/89424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial intelligence in fiction}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Brain simulation}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Brain–computer interface}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Emerging technologies}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Fermi paradox}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Some Skepticism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些怀疑论者&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Flynn effect}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Robin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一名: 罗宾&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Futures studies}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Global brain}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{sectionlink|Human intelligence|Improving intelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year = 1998&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1998年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Mind uploading}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Neuroenhancement}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| accessdate = 2009-06-19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009-06-19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Outline of transhumanism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20090828023928/http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年3月24日 | archiveurl =  https://web.archive.org/web/20090828023928/http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Robot learning}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archivedate = 2009-08-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archivedate = 2009-08-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Singularitarianism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological determinism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological revolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first=Anthony&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一名: 安东尼&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological unemployment}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last=Berglas&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Berglas&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title=Artificial Intelligence will Kill our Grandchildren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
人工智能会杀死我们的孙子&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year=2008&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2008年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TODO: end here&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Citations引用 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://berglas.org/Articles/AIKillGrandchildren/AIKillGrandchildren.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://berglas.org/articles/aikillgrandchildren/aikillgrandchildren.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Reflist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2008-06-13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2008-06-13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|refs =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url = http://www.technologyreview.com/view/425733/paul-allen-the-singularity-isnt-near |title= Paul Allen: The Singularity Isn't Near |access-date=2015-04-12 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Nick&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一 = 尼克&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation | first=Bill | last=Joy | author-link=Bill Joy | title=Why the future doesn't need us | journal=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired Magazine]] | volume=8 | date= April 2000 | issue=4 |url = https://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html | access-date=2007-08-07 | isbn=978-0-670-03249-5 | publisher=Viking Adult }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Bostrom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
博斯特罗姆&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Nick Bostrom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
作者: 尼克 · 博斯特罗姆&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php |title=Singularly Silly Singularity |access-date=2009-04-13 |first1=PZ |last1=Myers |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090228161422/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php |archive-date=2009-02-28 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title=Existential Risks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
存在风险&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
进化与技术杂志&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil.htm Modis, Theodore. ''The Singularity Myth''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121030072409/http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil.htm |date=2012-10-30 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year=2002&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2002年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| volume=9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| volume = 9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Anders Sandberg|Sandberg, Anders]]. [http://agi-conf.org/2010/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/agi10singmodels2.pdf An overview of models of technological singularity]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date=2007-08-07&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2007-08-07&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3854/global-catastrophic-risks-report.pdf|title=GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS SURVEY (2008) Technical Report 2008/1 Published by Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University. Anders Sandberg and Nick Bostrom|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110516021945/http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3854/global-catastrophic-risks-report.pdf|archivedate=2011-05-16}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Krazit, Tom. [http://news.cnet.com/2100-1006_3-6119618.html Intel pledges 80 cores in five years], ''CNET News'', 26 September 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Bill&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 第一 = 比尔&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;dreyfus&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Harvnb|Dreyfus|Dreyfus|2000|p=xiv}}: 'The truth is that human intelligence can never be replaced with machine intelligence simply because we are not ourselves &amp;quot;thinking machines&amp;quot; in the sense in which that term is commonly understood.' {{Harvtxt|Hawking|1998}}: 'Some people say that computers can never show true intelligence whatever that may be. But it seems to me that if very complicated chemical molecules can operate in humans to make them intelligent then equally complicated electronic circuits can also make computers act in an intelligent way. And if they are intelligent they can presumably design computers that have even greater complexity and intelligence.'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Bill Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 作者链接 = Bill Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Ethical Artificial Intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Ethical Artificial Intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{IMDb title|847969|Episode dated 23 August 2006}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| date = 5 November 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 日期 = 2014年11月5日&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| eprint=1411.1373&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1411.1373&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, ''[[The Age of Spiritual Machines]]'', Viking; 1999,  {{ISBN|978-0-14-028202-3}}. pp. [https://books.google.com/books?id=ldAGcyh0bkUC&amp;amp;pg=PA630 30, 32]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| class = cs.AI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年10月12日 | class = cs.AI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| ref=harv&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= harv&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Theodore Modis, [http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/TedWEB.htm Forecasting the Growth of Complexity and Change], ''Technological Forecasting &amp;amp; Social Change'', 69, No 4, 2002 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120615054939/http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/TedWEB.htm |date=June 15, 2012 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dooling, Richard. ''[[Rapture for the Geeks|Rapture for the Geeks: When AI Outsmarts IQ]]'' (2008), [https://books.google.com/books?id=VbBRsv1lxsUC&amp;amp;lpg=PP1&amp;amp;pg=PA88 p. 88]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dooling, Richard. ''[[Rapture for the Geeks|Rapture for the Geeks: When AI Outsmarts IQ]]'' (2008), [https://books.google.com/books?id=VbBRsv1lxsUC&amp;amp;lpg=PP1&amp;amp;pg=PA89 p. 89]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/nano/singularity-nanotech-or-ai |title=h+ Magazine &amp;amp;#124; Covering technological, scientific, and cultural trends that are changing human beings in fundamental ways |publisher=Hplusmagazine.com |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/whos-who-in-the-singularity |title=Who's Who In The Singularity – IEEE Spectrum |publisher=Spectrum.ieee.org |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1958-64-03/S0002-9904-1958-10189-5/S0002-9904-1958-10189-5.pdf | last=Ulam|first=Stanislaw |title=Tribute to John von Neumann|publisher=Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society|volume=64, #3, part 2|date=May 1958|page=5}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |title=More blades good |author=Anonymous |newspaper=The Economist |date=18 March 2006 |url=http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5624861 |location=London |page=85 |volume=378  |issue=8469 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html |title=Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards |website=nickbostrom.com }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news |url = https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html |newspaper = The New York Times | first=John | last=Markoff | title=Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced by Cheaper Software | date=2011-03-04}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near, pp. 135–136. Penguin Group, 2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, ''The Singularity is Near'', Penguin Group, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near, p. 9. Penguin Group, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Eschatology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 末世论&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Futures studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 未来研究&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singularityu.org/ Singularity University] at its official website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Philosophy of artificial intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
范畴: 人工智能哲学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Existential risk from artificial general intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 来自人工一般智能的世界末日&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;This page was moved from [[wikipedia:en:Technological singularity]]. Its edit history can be viewed at [[技术奇点/edithistory]]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:待整理页面]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Alchemist</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E5%A5%87%E7%82%B9&amp;diff=24639</id>
		<title>技术奇点</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E5%A5%87%E7%82%B9&amp;diff=24639"/>
		<updated>2021-07-24T03:52:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Alchemist：&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;此词条暂由水流心不竞、嘉树初译，翻译字数共，未经审校，带来阅读不便，请见谅。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Redirect|The Singularity||Singularity (disambiguation)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Redirect |奇点| |奇点（释疑)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{short description|Hypothetical point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{简介}技术增长变得不可控制和不可逆转的假设时间点}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The '''technological singularity'''—also, simply, '''the singularity'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cadwalladr, Carole (2014). &amp;quot;[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/22/robots-google-ray-kurzweil-terminator-singularity-artificial-intelligence Are the robots about to rise? Google's new director of engineering thinks so…]&amp;quot; ''The Guardian''. Guardian News and Media Limited.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;—is a [[hypothetical]] point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web |title=Collection of sources defining &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; |url=http://www.singularitysymposium.com/definition-of-singularity.html |website=singularitysymposium.com |accessdate=17 April 2019}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book |author1=Eden, Amnon H. |author2=Moor, James H. |title=Singularity hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment |date=2012 |publisher=Springer |location=Dordrecht |isbn=9783642325601 |pages=1–2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to the most popular version of the singularity hypothesis, called [[Technological singularity#Intelligence explosion|intelligence explosion]], an upgradable [[intelligent agent]] will eventually enter a &amp;quot;runaway reaction&amp;quot; of self-improvement cycles, each new and more intelligent generation appearing more and more rapidly, causing an &amp;quot;explosion&amp;quot; in intelligence and resulting in a powerful [[superintelligence]] that qualitatively far surpasses all [[human intelligence]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt; 技术奇点Technological singularity&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;——简称&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt; 奇点 Singularity&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 是一个假设的时间点。在该时间点上，技术增长变得不可控制和不可逆转，从而导致人类文明发生无法预见的变化。根据奇点假说（也被称为&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;智能爆炸 intelligence explosion&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;）最流行的版本：一个可升级的智能体终将进入一种自我完善循环的“&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;失控反应 runaway reaction&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”。每个新的、更智能的世代将出现得越来越快，导致智能的“爆炸”，并产生一种在实质上远超所有人类智能的超级智能。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first use of the concept of a &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in the technological context was [[John von Neumann]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Technological Singularity'' by Murray Shanahan, (MIT Press, 2015), page 233&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Stanislaw Ulam]] reports a discussion with von Neumann &amp;quot;centered on the [[Accelerating change|accelerating progress]] of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential [[Wiktionary:singularity|singularity]] in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Subsequent authors have echoed this viewpoint.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;chalmers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Chalmers|first=David|date=2010|title=The singularity: a philosophical analysis|url=|journal=Journal of Consciousness Studies|volume=17|issue=9–10|pages=7–65|via=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一次在科技领域使用“奇点”这一概念的是&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;冯·诺依曼 John von Neumann&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;。Stanislaw Ulam 报告了一次与冯·诺依曼的讨论。“围绕技术的加速进步和人类生活模式的改变，这让我们看到了人类历史上一些本质上的奇点。一旦超越了这些奇点，我们所熟知的人类事务就无法继续下去了”。后来作者也赞同这一观点。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. J. Good]]'s &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; model predicts that a future superintelligence will trigger a singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Vinge, Vernor. [http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;], in ''Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace'', G. A. Landis, ed., NASA Publication CP-10129, pp. 11–22, 1993.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I. J.古德的“智能爆炸”模型预测，未来的超级智能将触发一个奇点。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The concept and the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; were popularized by [[Vernor Vinge]] in his 1993 essay ''The Coming Technological Singularity'', in which he wrote that it would signal the end of the human era, as the new superintelligence would continue to upgrade itself and would advance technologically at an incomprehensible rate. He wrote that he would be surprised if it occurred before 2005 or after 2030.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
奇点的概念和术语“奇点”是由 Vernor Vinge 在他1993年的文章《&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;即将到来的技术奇点The Coming Technological Singularity&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;》中推广的，他在文中写道，这将标志着人类时代的终结，因为新的超级智能将持续自我升级，技术将以一种不可思议的速度进步。他写道，他会感到惊讶，如果奇点发生在2005年之前或2030年之后，。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Public figures such as [[Stephen Hawking]] and [[Elon Musk]] have expressed concern that full [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) could result in human extinction.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Sparkes|first1=Matthew|title=Top scientists call for caution over artificial intelligence|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11342200/Top-scientists-call-for-caution-over-artificial-intelligence.html|accessdate=24 April 2015|work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph (UK)]]|date=13 January 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540|title=Hawking: AI could end human race|date=2 December 2014|publisher=BBC|accessdate=11 November 2017}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The consequences of the singularity and its potential benefit or harm to the human race have been intensely debated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
斯蒂芬·霍金和埃隆·马斯克等公众人物对完全人工智能（AI）可能导致人类灭绝表示担忧。奇点的结果及其对人类的潜在利益伤害已经引起了激烈的争论。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Four polls of AI researchers, conducted in 2012 and 2013 by [[Nick Bostrom]] and [[Vincent C. Müller]], suggested a median probability estimate of 50% that [[artificial general intelligence]] (AGI) would be developed by 2040–2050.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;newyorker&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Khatchadourian|first1=Raffi|title=The Doomsday Invention|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=The New Yorker|date=16 November 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Müller, V. C., &amp;amp; Bostrom, N. (2016). &amp;quot;Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion&amp;quot;. In V. C. Müller (ed): ''Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence'' (pp. 555–572). Springer, Berlin. http://philpapers.org/rec/MLLFPI&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年到2013年，Nick Bostrom和Vincent c.  Müller 对人工智能研究人员进行了四次调查。结果显示，2040年至2050年人工通用智能(artificial general intelligence, AGI)被成功开发的概率的估计中值为50% 。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Background 背景==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although technological progress has been accelerating, it has been limited by the basic intelligence of the human brain, which has not, according to [[Paul R. Ehrlich]], changed significantly for millennia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Paul Ehrlich June 2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ehrlich, Paul. [http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/ The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, with the increasing power of computers and other technologies, it might eventually be possible to build a machine that is significantly more intelligent than humans.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;businessweek&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm Superbrains born of silicon will change everything.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801074729/http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm |date=August 1, 2010 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然技术进步一直在加速，但它受到人脑基本智力的限制，而根据[[Paul R.Ehrlich]]的说法，人类大脑的基本智力在几千年来没有发生显著变化。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Paul Ehrlich June 2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ehrlich, Paul. [http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/ The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;然而，随着计算机和其他技术的日益强大，最终有可能制造出一台比人类更智能得多的机器。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;businessweek&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm Superbrains born of silicon will change everything.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801074729/http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm |date=August 1, 2010 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a superhuman intelligence were to be invented—either through the amplification of human intelligence or through artificial intelligence—it would bring to bear greater problem-solving and inventive skills than current humans are capable of. Such an AI is referred to as Seed AI because if an AI were created with engineering capabilities that matched or surpassed those of its human creators, it would have the potential to autonomously improve its own software and hardware or design an even more capable machine. This more capable machine could then go on to design a machine of yet greater capability. These iterations of recursive self-improvement could accelerate, potentially allowing enormous qualitative change before any upper limits imposed by the laws of physics or theoretical computation set in. It is speculated that over many iterations, such an AI would far surpass human cognitive abilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如果通过扩大人类智能或人工智能来发明一种超人类智能，那么它将比现在的人类拥有更强的解决问题能力和创造能力。这种人工智能被称为&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;种子人工智能Seed AI&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;，因为如果人工智能的工程能力与人类创造者的能力相匹配或超越人类，那么它就有潜力自主改进自己的软件和硬件，或者设计出更强大的机器。这台能力更强的机器可以继续设计一台能力更强的机器。这种自我递归改进的迭代可以加速，在物理定律或理论计算的任何限制之内可能出现巨大的定性的变化。据推测，经过多次迭代，这样的人工智能将远远超过人类的认知能力。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Intelligence explosion智能爆炸==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligence explosion is a possible outcome of humanity building [[artificial general intelligence]] (AGI). AGI would be capable of recursive self-improvement, leading to the rapid emergence of [[Superintelligence|artificial superintelligence]] (ASI), the limits of which are unknown, shortly after technological singularity is achieved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能爆炸是构建&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;人工通用智能artificial general intelligence&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;的可能结果。在技术奇点实现后不久，AGI 将能够进行自我迭代，导致&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;人工超级智能artificial superintelligence, ASI&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;的迅速出现，但其局限性尚不清楚。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. J. Good]] speculated in 1965 that artificial general intelligence might bring about an intelligence explosion. He speculated on the effects of superhuman machines, should they ever be invented:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1965年，[[I.J.Good]]曾推测人工通用智能可能会带来智能爆炸。他推测了超人机器的作用，如果他们真的被发明了：&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an ‘intelligence explosion,’ and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{让我们把超智能机器定义为一种机器，它可以进行远超无论多么聪明的一个人的所有智力活动。由于机器的设计是一种智力活动，那么一台超智能机器可以设计出更好的机器；那么毫无疑问会出现“智能爆炸”，人类的智能将远远落后。因此，第一台超智能机器是人类所需要的最后一项发明，当然，假设机器足够温顺并能够告诉我们如何控制它们的话。}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good's scenario runs as follows: as computers increase in power, it becomes possible for people to build a machine that is more intelligent than humanity; this superhuman intelligence possesses greater problem-solving and inventive skills than current humans are capable of. This superintelligent machine then designs an even more capable machine, or re-writes its own software to become even more intelligent; this (even more capable) machine then goes on to design a machine of yet greater capability, and so on. These iterations of recursive self-improvement accelerate, allowing enormous qualitative change before any upper limits imposed by the laws of physics or theoretical computation set in.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
古德的设想是这样的：随着计算机功率的增加，人们有可能制造出一台比人类更智慧的机器；这种超人的智能拥有比现在人类更强大的问题解决和发明创造的能力。这台超级智能机器随后设计一台功能更强大的机器，或者重新编写自己的软件来变得更加智能；这台（甚至更强大的）机器接着继续设计功能更强大的机器，以此类推。这些自我迭代加速允许在物理定律或理论计算设定的任何上限之内发生巨大的定性的变化。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other manifestations其他表现形式==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Emergence of superintelligence超级智能的出现===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Superintelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{超级智能}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A superintelligence, hyperintelligence, or superhuman intelligence is a hypothetical [[intelligent agent|agent]] that possesses intelligence far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human minds. &amp;quot;Superintelligence&amp;quot; may also refer to the form or degree of intelligence possessed by such an agent. [[John von Neumann]], [[Vernor Vinge]] and [[Ray Kurzweil]] define the concept in terms of the technological creation of super intelligence. They argue that it is difficult or impossible for present-day humans to predict what human beings' lives would be like in a post-singularity world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
超级智能、超智能或超人智能是一种假设的[[智能体|智能体]]，其拥有的智能远远超过最聪明和最有天赋的人类头脑。“超级智能”也可以指这种主体所拥有的智能的形式或程度。[[John von Neumann]]，[[Vernor Vinge]]和[[Ray Kurzweil]]定义了超级智能的技术创造这一概念。他们认为，现在的人类很难或不可能预测人类在后奇点世界的生活会是什么样子。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Technology forecasters and researchers disagree about if or when human intelligence is likely to be surpassed. Some argue that advances in [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) will probably result in general reasoning systems that lack human cognitive limitations. Others believe that humans will evolve or directly modify their biology so as to achieve radically greater intelligence. A number of [[futures studies]] scenarios combine elements from both of these possibilities, suggesting that humans are likely to [[brain–computer interface|interface with computers]], or [[mind uploading|upload their minds to computers]], in a way that enables substantial intelligence amplification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
技术预测者和研究人员对人类智力是否或何时可能被超越存在分歧。一些人认为，[[人工智能]]（AI）的进步可能会产生没有人类认知局限的一般推理系统。另一些人则认为，人类将进化或直接改变自己的生物性，从而获得更大的智力。许多[[未来研究]]的场景结合了这两种可能的元素，认为人类很可能会具有[[脑-机接口|与计算机的接口]]，或以[[思维上传|将他们的思想上传到计算机]]的方式提高智力。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Non-AI singularity非人工智能奇点===&lt;br /&gt;
Some writers use &amp;quot;the singularity&amp;quot; in a broader way to refer to any radical changes in our society brought about by new technologies such as [[molecular nanotechnology]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; although Vinge and other writers specifically state that without superintelligence, such changes would not qualify as a true singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#32cd32&amp;quot;&amp;gt;作家writers&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;更宽泛地使用“奇点”的概念，用来指代任何我们社会中由新技术带来的剧烈变化，如[[分子纳米技术]]，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;尽管Vinge和其他&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#32cd32&amp;quot;&amp;gt;作家&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;明确指出，如果没有超级智能，这些改变将不是真正的奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Speed superintelligence速度超智能===&lt;br /&gt;
A speed superintelligence describes an AI that can do everything that a human can do, where the only difference is that the machine runs faster.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1007/978-3-662-54033-6_2 |year=2017 |publisher=Springer Berlin Heidelberg |pages=11–23 |author=Kaj Sotala and Roman Yampolskiy |title=The Technological Singularity |chapter=Risks of the Journey to the Singularity |series=The Frontiers Collection |isbn=978-3-662-54031-2 |conference=The Frontiers Collection }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, with a million-fold increase in the speed of information processing relative to that of humans, a subjective year would pass in 30 physical seconds.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Such a difference in information processing speed could drive the singularity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1002/9781118922590.ch16 |year=2016 |publisher=John Wiley \&amp;amp; Sons, Inc |pages=171–224 |author=David J. Chalmers |title=Science Fiction and Philosophy |chapter=The Singularity |isbn=9781118922590 |conference=Science Fiction and Philosophy }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
速度超级智能描述了一个人工智能，它可以做任何人类能做的事情，唯一的区别是这个机器运行得更快。例如，与人类相比，它信息处理的速度提高了一百万倍，一个主观年将在30个物理秒内过去。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Plausibility合理性==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many prominent technologists and academics dispute the plausibility of a technological singularity, including [[Paul Allen]], [[Jeff Hawkins]], [[John Henry Holland|John Holland]], [[Jaron Lanier]], and [[Gordon Moore]], whose [[Moore's law|law]] is often cited in support of the concept.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
许多著名的技术专家和学者都对技术奇点的合理性提出质疑，包括[[Paul Allen]]、[[Jeff Hawkins]]、[[John Henry Holland | John Holland]]、[[Jaron Lanier]]和[[Gordon Moore]]，他的[[摩尔定律]]经常被引用来支持这一概念。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most proposed methods for creating superhuman or [[transhuman]] minds fall into one of two categories: intelligence amplification of human brains and artificial intelligence. The speculated ways to produce intelligence augmentation are many, and include [[bioengineering]], [[genetic engineering]], [[nootropic]] drugs, AI assistants, direct [[brain–computer interface]]s and [[mind uploading]]. Because multiple paths to an intelligence explosion are being explored, it makes a singularity more likely; for a singularity to not occur they would all have to fail.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity |title=What is the Singularity? &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
大多数创造超人或[[跨人类]]头脑的方法分为两类：人脑的智能增强和人工智能。据推测，智能增强的方法很多，包括[[生物工程]]、[[基因工程]]、[[nootropic]]药物、AI助手、直接[[脑-机接口]]和[[思维上传]]。因为人们正在探索通向智能爆炸的多种途径，这使得奇点更有可能；对于一个不会出现的奇点，所有这些都必将失败。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity |title=What is the Singularity? &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robin Hanson]] expressed skepticism of human intelligence augmentation, writing that once the &amp;quot;low-hanging fruit&amp;quot; of easy methods for increasing human intelligence have been exhausted, further improvements will become increasingly difficult to find.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/vc.html#hanson |title=Some Skepticism |date=1998 |first=Robin |last=Hanson |author-link=Robin Hanson |accessdate=April 8, 2020}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Despite all of the speculated ways for amplifying human intelligence, non-human artificial intelligence (specifically seed AI) is the most popular option among the hypotheses that would advance the singularity.{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robin Hanson]]对人类智能增强表示怀疑，他写道，一旦提高人类智力的“唾手可得的”简单方法用尽，进一步的改进将变得越来越难。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/vc.html#hanson |title=Some Skepticism |date=1998 |first=Robin |last=Hanson |author-link=Robin Hanson |accessdate=April 8, 2020}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;即使有各种提高人类智能的方法的推测，但对非人类人工智能(特别是种子人工智能)的推测仍是所有能推进奇点的假说中最受欢迎的一个。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether or not an intelligence explosion occurs depends on three factors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Chalmers John Locke Lecture, 10 May, Exam Schools, Oxford, [http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/news/2010/david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available Presenting a philosophical analysis of the possibility of a technological singularity or &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; resulting from recursively self-improving AI] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115205558/http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/news/2010/david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available |date=2013-01-15 }}.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The first accelerating factor is the new intelligence enhancements made possible by each previous improvement. Contrariwise, as the intelligences become more advanced, further advances will become more and more complicated, possibly overcoming the advantage of increased intelligence. Each improvement should beget at least one more improvement, on average, for movement towards singularity to continue. Finally, the laws of physics will eventually prevent any further improvements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能爆炸是否发生取决于三个因素。第一个加速因素是以前的每一次改进都使新的智能增强成为可能。相反，随着智力的进步，进一步的发展将变得越来越复杂，可能会抵消智力增长的优势。平均来说，每一次改进都应该至少再带来一次改进，以便继续朝着奇点的方向发展。最后，物理定律最终会阻止任何进一步的改进。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are two logically independent, but mutually reinforcing, causes of intelligence improvements: increases in the speed of computation, and improvements to the [[algorithm]]s used.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;consc.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, David J. Chalmers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The former is predicted by [[Moore's law|Moore's Law]] and the forecasted improvements in hardware,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;itrs&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |title=ITRS |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929173755/http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |archivedate=2011-09-29 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and is comparatively similar to previous technological advances. But there are some AI researchers{{who|date=March 2017}} who believe software is more important than hardware.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|url=https://blog.chronicled.com/why-software-is-more-important-than-hardware-right-now-6a4b58feaa7c|title=Why Software Is More Important Than Hardware Right Now|last=Kulkarni|first=Ajit|date=2017-12-12|website=Chronicled|access-date=2019-02-23}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能改进有两个逻辑上独立但又相互加强的原因：计算速度的提高和使用的[[算法]]的改进。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;consc.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, David J. Chalmers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 前者由[[摩尔定律|摩尔定律]]和硬件方面的预测改进进行预测，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;itrs&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |title=ITRS |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929173755/http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |archivedate=2011-09-29 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 与以前的技术进步比较相似。但也有一些人工智能研究人员认为软件比硬件更重要。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|url=https://blog.chronicled.com/why-software-is-more-important-than-hardware-right-now-6a4b58feaa7c|title=Why Software Is More Important Than Hardware Right Now|last=Kulkarni|first=Ajit|date=2017-12-12|website=Chronicled|access-date=2019-02-23}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2017 email survey of authors with publications at the 2015 [[Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems|NeurIPS]] and [[International Conference on Machine Learning|ICML]] machine learning conferences asked  about the chance of an intelligence explosion. Of the respondents, 12% said it was &amp;quot;quite likely&amp;quot;, 17% said it was &amp;quot;likely&amp;quot;, 21% said it was &amp;quot;about even&amp;quot;, 24% said it was &amp;quot;unlikely&amp;quot; and 26% said it was &amp;quot;quite unlikely&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2017年对2015年[[神经信息处理系统会议| NeurIPS]]和[[International Conference on Machine Learning | ICML]]机器学习会议上发表文章的作者的电子邮件调查询问了智能爆炸的可能性。在受访者中，12% 的人认为“很有可能” ，17% 的人认为“有可能” ，21% 的人认为“可能性中等” ，24% 的人认为“不太可能” ，26% 的人认为“很不可能”。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Speed improvements速度改进 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both for human and artificial intelligence, hardware improvements increase the rate of future hardware improvements. Simply put,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arstechnica&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Moore's Law]] suggests that if the first doubling of speed took 18 months, the second would take 18 subjective months; or 9 external months, whereafter, four months, two months, and so on towards a speed singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html &amp;quot;Staring into the Singularity&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An upper limit on speed may eventually be reached, although it is unclear how high this would be.  Jeff Hawkins has stated that a self-improving computer system would inevitably run into upper limits on computing power: &amp;quot;in the end there are limits to how big and fast computers can run. We would end up in the same place; we'd just get there a bit faster. There would be no singularity.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hawkins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
无论对于人类智能还是人工智能，硬件改进都会提高未来硬件改进的速度。简单地说，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arstechnica&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;[[Moore's Law]]认为，如果第一次速度翻倍需要18个月，第二次则需要18个主观月；或者9个外部月，之后，4个月、2个月，以此类推，走向速度奇点&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html &amp;quot;Staring into the Singularity&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 速度的上限最终可能会达到，尽管还不清楚这会有多高。杰夫·霍金斯（Jeff Hawkins）曾表示，一个自我完善的计算机系统不可避免地会遇到计算能力的上限：“最终，计算机的运行速度和速度都是有限的。我们最终会在同一个地方；我们只会更快到达那里。不会有奇点。”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hawkins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is difficult to directly compare [[silicon]]-based hardware with [[neuron]]s. But {{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}} notes that computer [[speech recognition]] is approaching human capabilities, and that this capability seems to require 0.01% of the volume of the brain. This analogy suggests that modern computer hardware is within a few orders of magnitude of being as powerful as the human brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
很难直接将基于[[硅]]的硬件与[[神经元]]相比较。但是{Harvtxt| Berglas|2008}指出计算机[[语音识别]]正在接近人类的能力，而且这种能力似乎需要0.01%的脑容量。这个类比表明，现代计算机硬件与人脑一样强大，只差几个数量级。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Exponential growth指数增长====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Martin Ford in The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
马丁 · 福特Martin Ford的《隧道中的灯光: 自动化，加速技术和未来经济The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future》&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:PPTMooresLawai.jpg|thumb|Ray Kurzweil writes that, due to [[paradigm shift]]s, a trend of exponential growth extends [[Moore's law]] from [[integrated circuits]] to earlier [[transistor]]s, [[vacuum tube]]s, [[relay]]s, and [[electromechanics|electromechanical]] computers. He predicts that the exponential growth will continue, and that in a few decades the computing power of all computers will exceed that of (&amp;quot;unenhanced&amp;quot;) human brains, with superhuman [[artificial intelligence]] appearing around the same time.|链接=Special:FilePath/PPTMooresLawai.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[图片：PPTMooresLawai.jpg|thumb | Ray Kurzweil写道，由于[[范式转换]]s，指数增长的趋势将[[摩尔定律]]从[[集成电路]]扩展到早期的[[晶体管]]、[[真空管]]、[[继电器]]和[[机电机械]]计算机。他预测，这种指数增长将继续下去，在几十年内，所有计算机的计算能力将超过（“未增强的”）人脑，同时出现超人[[人工智能]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Moore's Law over 120 Years.png|thumb|left|An updated version of Moore's law over 120 Years (based on [[Ray Kurzweil|Kurzweil's]] [[c:File:PPTMooresLawai.jpg|graph]]). The 7 most recent data points are all [[Nvidia GPUs|NVIDIA GPUs]].|链接=Special:FilePath/Moore's_Law_over_120_Years.png]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[资料图：摩尔超过120的定律年.png|拇指|左|摩尔定律120年的更新版本（基于[[Ray Kurzweil | Kurzweil's]][[c:文件：PPTMooresLawai.jpg|图形]]）。最近的7个数据点都是[[Nvidia GPU | Nvidia GPU]].]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exponential growth in computing technology suggested by Moore's law is commonly cited as a reason to expect a singularity in the relatively near future, and a number of authors have proposed generalizations of Moore's law. Computer scientist and futurist [[Hans Moravec]] proposed in a 1998 book&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&amp;amp;pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that the exponential growth curve could be extended back through earlier computing technologies prior to the [[integrated circuit]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
摩尔定律所建议的计算技术的指数增长通常被认为是在相对不远的将来出现奇点的一个理由，许多作者已经提出了摩尔定律的推广。计算机科学家和未来主义者[[Hans Moravec]]在1998年的一本书中提到&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&amp;amp;pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;指数型增长可以通过[[集成电路]]之前的早期计算技术进行延伸。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ray Kurzweil]] postulates a [[law of accelerating returns]] in which the speed of technological change (and more generally, all evolutionary processes&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;) increases exponentially, generalizing Moore's law in the same manner as Moravec's proposal, and also including material technology (especially as applied to [[nanotechnology]]), [[Medical Technology|medical technology]] and others.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity2&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Between 1986 and 2007, machines' application-specific capacity to compute information per capita roughly doubled every 14 months; the per capita capacity of the world's general-purpose computers has doubled every 18 months; the global telecommunication capacity per capita doubled every 34 months; and the world's storage capacity per capita doubled every 40 months.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 &amp;quot;The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information&amp;quot;], Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), [[Science (journal)|Science]], 332(6025), 60–65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; On the other hand, it has been argued that the global acceleration pattern having the 21st century singularity as its parameter should be characterized as [[Hyperbolic growth|hyperbolic]] rather than exponential.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8 ''The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures. A Big History Perspective''] (Springer, 2020)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ray Kurzweil]]假设了一个[[加速回报定律]]，其中技术变革的速度（更广泛地说，所有进化过程&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;）急剧增长。从1986年到2007年，摩尔定律以与莫拉维克提案相同的方式呈指数增长，并包括材料技术（尤其是应用于[[纳米技术]]）、[[医疗技术|医疗技术]]和其他技术，计算机计算人均信息的特定应用能力大约每14个月翻一番；世界通用计算机的人均容量每18个月翻一番；全球人均电信容量每34个月翻一番；世界人均存储容量每40个月翻一番。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 &amp;quot;The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information&amp;quot;], Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), [[Science (journal)|Science]], 332(6025), 60–65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 另一方面，有人认为，以21世纪奇点为参数的全球加速度模式应该被描述为[[双曲线增长|双曲]]而不是指数型&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8 ''The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures. A Big History Perspective''] (Springer, 2020)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil reserves the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; for a rapid increase in artificial intelligence (as opposed to other technologies), writing for example that &amp;quot;The Singularity will allow us to transcend these limitations of our biological bodies and brains ... There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity3&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; He also defines his predicted date of the singularity (2045) in terms of when he expects computer-based intelligences to significantly exceed the sum total of human brainpower, writing that advances in computing before that date &amp;quot;will not represent the Singularity&amp;quot; because they do &amp;quot;not yet correspond to a profound expansion of our intelligence.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;transformation&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
库兹韦尔将“奇点”一词用于描述人工智能(相对于其他技术)的快速增长，例如他写道: “奇点将允许我们超越生物体和大脑的局限……后奇点时代，人类与机器之间将不再有区别”。库兹韦尔相信奇点将在大约2045年之前出现，那时基于计算机的智能将明显超越人类脑力的总和，在这个日期之前计算机技术的进步“并不代表奇点”，因为它们“还不符合智慧的深刻扩展”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Accelerating change加速变革====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Main|Accelerating change}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Main |加速变革}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|thumb|According to Kurzweil, his [[logarithmic scale|logarithmic graph]] of 15 lists of [[paradigm shift]]s for key [[human history|historic]] events shows an [[exponential growth|exponential]] trend|链接=Special:FilePath/ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[图片：ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|thumb |根据Kurzweil的说法，他对关键的[[人类历史|历史]]事件的15个[[范式转移]]列表的[[对数标度|对数图]]显示了[[指数增长|指数]]趋势]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some singularity proponents argue its inevitability through extrapolation of past trends, especially those pertaining to shortening gaps between improvements to technology. In one of the first uses of the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in the context of technological progress, [[Stanislaw Ulam]] tells of a conversation with [[John von Neumann]] about accelerating change: &lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.&amp;lt;ref name=mathematical/&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些奇点论的支持者认为，通过对过去趋势的推断，特别是那些缩减技术进步的差距有关的趋势，奇点是不可避免的。技术进步的背景下，较早使用“奇点”一词时，Stanislaw Ulam讲述了与冯·诺伊曼关于加速变革的一次谈话：&lt;br /&gt;
一次围绕不断加速的技术进步和生活方式变化的对话，它使得人类历史上出现了一些基本的奇点，超过了这些奇点，人类的事务，如我们所知，将无法继续下去。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil claims that technological progress follows a pattern of&lt;br /&gt;
exponential growth, following what he calls the &amp;quot;law of&lt;br /&gt;
accelerating returns&amp;quot;. Whenever technology approaches a barrier,&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil writes, new technologies will surmount it. He predicts&lt;br /&gt;
paradigm shifts will become increasingly common, leading to&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;technological change so rapid and profound it represents a&lt;br /&gt;
rupture in the fabric of human history&amp;quot;.[43] Kurzweil believes that&lt;br /&gt;
the singularity will occur by approximately 2045.[38] His&lt;br /&gt;
predictions differ from Vinge's in that he predicts a gradual&lt;br /&gt;
ascent to the singularity, rather than Vinge's rapidly self�improving superhuman intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil claims that technological progress follows a pattern of&lt;br /&gt;
exponential growth, following what he calls the &amp;quot;law of&lt;br /&gt;
accelerating returns&amp;quot;. Whenever technology approaches a barrier,&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil writes, new technologies will surmount it. He predicts&lt;br /&gt;
paradigm shifts will become increasingly common, leading to&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;technological change so rapid and profound it represents a&lt;br /&gt;
rupture in the fabric of human history&amp;quot;.[43] Kurzweil believes that&lt;br /&gt;
the singularity will occur by approximately 2045.[38] His&lt;br /&gt;
predictions differ from Vinge's in that he predicts a gradual&lt;br /&gt;
ascent to the singularity, rather than Vinge's rapidly self-improving superhuman intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
库兹韦尔声称，技术进步遵循[[指数增长]的模式，遵循他所称的“&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;加速返回定律law of accelerating returns&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”。库兹韦尔写道，每当一项技术遇到障碍时，新技术就会出来克服这个障碍。他预测范式转变将变得越来越普遍，导致“技术变革非常迅速和深刻，以至于它代表着人类历史结构的一个断裂”。库兹韦尔相信奇点将在2045年之前出现。他和Vinge预测的不同点在于他预测了技术渐变的上升，而Vinge预测了一个快速自我更新的超人类智能。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oft-cited dangers include those commonly associated with molecular nanotechnology and genetic engineering. These threats are major issues for both singularity advocates and critics, and were the subject of Bill Joy's Wired magazine article &amp;quot;Why the future doesn't need us&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
经常被引用的危险包括那些与分子纳米技术和基因工程有关的技术。这些威胁是奇点论的倡导者和批评者面临的主要议题，也是比尔 · 乔伊《连线 Wired》杂志上所发表文章《为什么未来不需要我们Why the future doesn't need us》的主题。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Algorithm improvements算法改进 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some intelligence technologies, like &amp;quot;seed AI&amp;quot;,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Yampolskiy, Roman V 2015&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceA&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; may also have the potential to not just make themselves faster, but also more efficient, by modifying their [[source code]]. These improvements would make further improvements possible, which would make further improvements possible, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
一些智能技术，比如“种子人工智能”，通过修改自己的源代码，可能使自己不仅更快，而且更高效。这些改进将使进一步的改进成为可能，以此类推。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mechanism for a recursively self-improving set of algorithms differs from an increase in raw computation speed in two ways. First, it does not require external influence: machines designing faster hardware would still require humans to create the improved hardware, or to program factories appropriately.{{citation needed|date=July 2017}} An AI rewriting its own source code could do so while contained in an [[AI box]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
递归自我改进算法集的机制在两个方面不同于原始计算速度的提高。首先，它不需要外部影响：设计更快的硬件的机器仍然需要人类来创造改进的硬件，或者对工厂进行适当的编程。AI可以既身处一个&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;AI盒 AI box&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;里面，又同时改进自己的 源代码。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second, as with [[Vernor Vinge]]’s conception of the singularity, it is much harder to predict the outcome. While speed increases seem to be only a quantitative difference from human intelligence, actual algorithm improvements would be qualitatively different. [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]] compares it to the changes that human intelligence brought: humans changed the world thousands of times more rapidly than evolution had done, and in totally different ways. Similarly, the evolution of life was a massive departure and acceleration from the previous geological rates of change, and improved intelligence could cause change to be as different again.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|author=Eliezer S. Yudkowsky |url=http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/power |title=Power of Intelligence |publisher=Yudkowsky |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第二，和Vernor Vinge关于奇点的概念一样，对结果的预测要困难得多。虽然速度的提高似乎与人类的智能只是数量上的区别，但实际的算法改进在质量上是不同的。Eliezer Yudkowsky将其与人类智能带来的变化相比较：人类改变世界的速度比进化速度快数千倍，而且方式完全不同。同样地，生命的进化与以前的地质变化又有着巨大的不同和加速，而智能的提高可能会使变化再次变得不同。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|author=Eliezer S. Yudkowsky |url=http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/power |title=Power of Intelligence |publisher=Yudkowsky |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are substantial dangers associated with an intelligence explosion singularity originating from a recursively self-improving set of algorithms. First, the goal structure of the AI might not be invariant under self-improvement, potentially causing the AI to optimise for something other than what was originally intended.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008 ]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;kurzweilai&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.kurzweilai.net/artificial-general-intelligence-now-is-the-time |title=Artificial General Intelligence: Now Is the Time |publisher=KurzweilAI |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Secondly, AIs could compete for the same scarce resources mankind uses to survive.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/10/05/paper-on-the-nature-of-self-improving-artificial-intelligence/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence.&amp;quot; Self-Aware Systems. 21 Jan. 2008. Web. 07 Jan. 2010.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|last1=Barrat|first1=James|title=Our Final Invention|year=2013|publisher=St. Martin's Press|location=New York|isbn=978-0312622374|pages=78–98|edition=First|chapter=6, &amp;quot;Four Basic Drives&amp;quot;|title-link=Our Final Invention}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are substantial dangers associated with an intelligence explosion singularity originating from a recursively self-improving set of algorithms. First, the goal structure of the AI might not be invariant under self-improvement, potentially causing the AI to optimise for something other than what was originally intended. Secondly, AIs could compete for the same scarce resources humankind uses to survive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
由递归自我改进的算法集合引起的智能爆炸存在着巨大的危险。首先，人工智能的目标结构在自我完善的情况下可能不是一成不变的，这可能会导致人工智能对原本计划之外的东西进行优化。第二，人工智能可以与人类竞争赖以生存的稀缺资源。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While not actively malicious, there is no reason to think that AIs would actively promote human goals unless they could be programmed as such, and if not, might use the resources currently used to support mankind to promote its own goals, causing human extinction.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;kurzweilai.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.kurzweilai.net/max-more-and-ray-kurzweil-on-the-singularity-2 |title=Max More and Ray Kurzweil on the Singularity |publisher=KurzweilAI |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceB&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/riskintro/index.html |title=Concise Summary &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.nickbostrom.com/fut/evolution.html Bostrom, Nick, The Future of Human Evolution, Death and Anti-Death: Two Hundred Years After Kant, Fifty Years After Turing, ed. Charles Tandy, pp. 339–371, 2004, Ria University Press.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While not actively malicious, there is no reason to think that AIs would actively promote human goals unless they could be programmed as such, and if not, might use the resources currently used to support humankind to promote its own goals, causing human extinction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然不是恶意的，但没有理由认为人工智能会积极促进人类目标的实现，除非这些目标可以被编程，否则，它们就可能利用目前用于支持人类的资源来促进自己的目标，从而导致人类灭绝。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Carl Shulman]] and [[Anders Sandberg]] suggest that algorithm improvements may be the limiting factor for a singularity; while hardware efficiency tends to improve at a steady pace, software innovations are more unpredictable and may be bottlenecked by serial, cumulative research. They suggest that in the case of a software-limited singularity, intelligence explosion would actually become more likely than with a hardware-limited singularity, because in the software-limited case, once human-level AI is developed, it could run serially on very fast hardware, and the abundance of cheap hardware would make AI research less constrained.&amp;lt;ref name=ShulmanSandberg2010&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Shulman|first=Carl|author2=Anders Sandberg |title=Implications of a Software-Limited Singularity|journal=ECAP10: VIII European Conference on Computing and Philosophy|year=2010|url=http://intelligence.org/files/SoftwareLimited.pdf|accessdate=17 May 2014|editor1-first=Klaus|editor1-last=Mainzer}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An abundance of accumulated hardware that can be unleashed once the software figures out how to use it has been called &amp;quot;computing overhang.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;MuehlhauserSalamon2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book|last=Muehlhauser|first=Luke|title=Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment|year=2012|publisher=Springer|chapter-url=http://intelligence.org/files/IE-EI.pdf|author2=Anna Salamon |editor=Amnon Eden |editor2=Johnny Søraker |editor3=James H. Moor |editor4=Eric Steinhart|chapter=Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carl Shulman and Anders Sandberg suggest that algorithm improvements may be the limiting factor for a singularity; while hardware efficiency tends to improve at a steady pace, software innovations are more unpredictable and may be bottlenecked by serial, cumulative research. They suggest that in the case of a software-limited singularity, intelligence explosion would actually become more likely than with a hardware-limited singularity, because in the software-limited case, once human-level AI is developed, it could run serially on very fast hardware, and the abundance of cheap hardware would make AI research less constrained. An abundance of accumulated hardware that can be unleashed once the software figures out how to use it has been called &amp;quot;computing overhang.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carl Shulman和Anders Sandberg认为，算法改进可能是奇点的限制因素；虽然硬件效率趋于稳步提高，但软件创新更不具可预测性，可能会受到连续、累积的研究的限制。他们认为，智能爆炸在受软件限制的奇点情况中发生的可能性实际上比在受硬件限制的奇点更可能发生，因为在软件受限的情况下，一旦开发出人类水平的人工智能，它可以在非常快的硬件上连续运行，廉价硬件的丰富将使人工智能研究不那么受限制。一旦软件知道如何使用硬件，大量的硬件就可以被释放出来，这被称为“计算过剩”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Criticisms危机===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some critics, like philosopher [[Hubert Dreyfus]], assert that computers or machines cannot achieve [[human intelligence]], while others, like physicist [[Stephen Hawking]], hold that the definition of intelligence is irrelevant if the net result is the same.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;dreyfus&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些批评者，如哲学家Hubert Dreyfus断言计算机或机器无法实现人类智能，而其他人，如物理学家史蒂芬·霍金，则认为如果最终结果是相同的，那么智力的定义其实无关紧要。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An early description of the idea was made in John Wood Campbell Jr.'s 1932 short story &amp;quot;The last evolution&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
早在1932年，约翰·W·坎贝尔的短篇小说《最后的进化》中就对这个想法进行了描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psychologist [[Steven Pinker]] stated in 2008:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
心理学家史蒂芬·平克在2008年指出：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|... There is not the slightest reason to believe in a coming singularity. The fact that you can visualize a future in your imagination is not evidence that it is likely or even possible. Look at domed cities, jet-pack commuting, underwater cities, mile-high buildings, and nuclear-powered automobiles—all staples of futuristic fantasies when I was a child that have never arrived. Sheer processing power is not a pixie dust that magically solves all your problems. ...&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
没有一点理由相信奇点即将到来。你可以想象一个未来并不能证明它是可能出现的。看看穹顶城市、喷气式飞行器通勤、水下城市、一英里高的建筑和核动力汽车：这些都是我小时候未来主义幻想的主要内容，然而它们都没有成真。纯粹的计算能力不是能神奇地解决所有问题的仙尘。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[University of California, Berkeley]], [[philosophy]] professor [[John Searle]] writes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[加州大学伯克利分校]，哲学教授约翰·塞尔写道：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{blockquote|[Computers] have, literally ..., no [[intelligence]], no [[motivation]], no [[autonomy]], and no agency.  We design them to behave as if they had certain sorts of [[psychology]], but there is no psychological reality to the corresponding processes or behavior. ...  [T]he machinery has no beliefs, desires, [or] motivations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[John R. Searle]], “What Your Computer Can’t Know”, ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', 9 October 2014, p. 54.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
毫不夸张地说，计算机没有智能，没有动机，没有自主，也没有主体。我们设计他们，使他们的行为好像表示他们有某种心理，但其实没有对应这些过程或行为的心理现实……机器没有信仰、愿望或动机。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Martin Ford (author)|Martin Ford]] in ''The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thelightsinthetunnel&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; postulates a &amp;quot;technology paradox&amp;quot; in that before the singularity could occur most routine jobs in the economy would be automated, since this would require a level of technology inferior to that of the singularity. This would cause massive unemployment and plummeting consumer demand, which in turn would destroy the incentive to invest in the technologies that would be required to bring about the Singularity. Job displacement is increasingly no longer limited to work traditionally considered to be &amp;quot;routine.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Martin Ford在“&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;隧道中的灯光：自动化、加速技术和未来经济The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”中提出了一个“技术悖论”：在奇点出现之前，经济体中的大多数日常工作都将自动化，因为这所需的技术水平低于奇点。这将导致大规模的失业和消费者需求的骤降，这反过来又会破坏投资于实现奇点所需技术的动机。取代工作将不再局限于传统上被认为是“例行公事”的工作。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Theodore Modis]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; and [[Jonathan Huebner]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological14&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; argue that the rate of technological innovation has not only ceased to rise, but is actually now declining. Evidence for this decline is that the rise in computer [[clock rate]]s is slowing, even while Moore's prediction of exponentially increasing circuit density continues to hold. This is due to excessive heat build-up from the chip, which cannot be dissipated quickly enough to prevent the chip from melting when operating at higher speeds. Advances in speed may be possible in the future by virtue of more power-efficient CPU designs and multi-cell processors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; While Kurzweil used Modis' resources, and Modis' work was around accelerating change, Modis distanced himself from Kurzweil's thesis of a &amp;quot;technological singularity&amp;quot;, claiming that it lacks scientific rigor.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Theodore Modis]]和[[Jonathan Huebner]]认为技术创新的速度不仅停止上升，而且现在实际上正在下降。这种下降的证据是计算机时钟速率的增长正在放缓，尽管摩尔关于电路密度指数增长的预测仍然成立。这是由于芯片产生过多的热量，当它们以较高的速度运行时，这些热量不能足够快地散去，可能导致芯片熔化。在未来，随着更节能的CPU设计和多单元处理器的发明，速度的提高可能实现。虽然库兹韦尔利用了莫迪斯的资源，而莫迪斯的工作是围绕加速变革展开的，但莫迪斯却与库兹韦尔的“技术奇点”理论保持距离，声称该理论缺乏科学严谨性。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a detailed empirical accounting, ''The Progress of Computing'', [[William Nordhaus]] argued that, prior to 1940, computers followed the much slower growth of a traditional industrial economy, thus rejecting extrapolations of Moore's law to 19th-century computers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal | doi=10.1017/S0022050707000058|title = Two Centuries of Productivity Growth in Computing| journal=The Journal of Economic History| volume=67|pages = 128–159|year = 2007|last1 = Nordhaus|first1 = William D.| citeseerx=10.1.1.330.1871}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在一份详细的实证记录“&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;计算的进步The Progress of Computing&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”中，[[William Nordhaus]]认为，在1940年以前，计算机遵循传统工业经济增长缓慢的趋势，因此拒绝了摩尔定律对19世纪计算机的推断。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a 2007 paper, Schmidhuber stated that the frequency of subjectively &amp;quot;notable events&amp;quot; appears to be approaching a 21st-century singularity, but cautioned readers to take such plots of subjective events with a grain of salt: perhaps differences in memory of recent and distant events could create an illusion of accelerating change where none exists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schmidhuber, Jürgen. &amp;quot;New millennium AI and the convergence of history.&amp;quot; Challenges for computational intelligence. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. 15–35.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在2007年的一篇论文中，Schmidhuber指出主观上“明显事件”的频率似乎正在接近21世纪的奇点，但他提醒读者，对这些主观事件的情节要持保留态度：也许对最近和遥远的事件记忆上的差异，可能会造成一种在根本不存在的情况下加速变化的错觉。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paul Allen argued the opposite of accelerating returns, the complexity brake; the more progress science makes towards understanding intelligence, the more difficult it becomes to make additional progress. A study of the number of patents shows that human creativity does not show accelerating returns, but in fact, as suggested by Joseph Tainter in his The Collapse of Complex Societies, a law of diminishing returns. The number of patents per thousand peaked in the period from 1850 to 1900, and has been declining since.[60] The growth of complexity eventually becomes self-limiting, and leads to a widespread &amp;quot;general systems collapse&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Paul Allen]] argued the opposite of accelerating returns, the complexity brake;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; the more progress science makes towards understanding intelligence, the more difficult it becomes to make additional progress.  A study of the number of patents shows that human creativity does not show accelerating returns, but in fact, as suggested by [[Joseph Tainter]] in his ''The Collapse of Complex Societies'',&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;university&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; a law of [[diminishing returns]]. The number of patents per thousand peaked in the period from 1850 to 1900, and has been declining since.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological14&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;!--[Previous comment: is this from 'Collapse of Complex Societies' or some other source? Perhaps this refers to Jonathan Huebner's patent analysis mentioned in the earlier paragraph? If so, would be better to integrate this part with that paragraph, since the earlier paragraph mentions that Huebner's analysis has been criticized whereas this paragraph just seems to present it as fact --&amp;gt; The growth of complexity eventually becomes self-limiting, and leads to a widespread &amp;quot;general systems collapse&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paul Allen认为，与加速回报相反的是复杂性制动器；科学在理解智力方面取得的进展越多，就越难取得更多的进展。一项对专利数量的研究表明，人类的创造力并没有表现出加速的回报，但事实上，正如Joseph Tainter 在他的《复杂社会的崩溃》中所指出的，有一个&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;收益递减定律a law of diminishing returns&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;的限制。每千件专利的数量在1850年至1900年期间达到顶峰，此后一直在下降。复杂性的增长最终会自我限制，并导致广泛的“一般系统崩溃”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jaron Lanier]] refutes the idea that the Singularity is inevitable. He states: &amp;quot;I do not think the technology is creating itself. It's not an autonomous process.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |author=Jaron Lanier |title=Who Owns the Future? |work=New York: Simon &amp;amp; Schuster |date=2013 |url=http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=JCB8D9LA&amp;amp;tocp=59}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He goes on to assert: &amp;quot;The reason to believe in human agency over technological determinism is that you can then have an economy where people earn their own way and invent their own lives. If you structure a society on ''not'' emphasizing individual human agency, it's the same thing operationally as denying people clout, dignity, and self-determination ... to embrace [the idea of the Singularity] would be a celebration of bad data and bad politics.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jaron Lanier refutes the idea that the Singularity is inevitable. He states: &amp;quot;I do not think the technology is creating itself. It's not an autonomous process.&amp;quot; He goes on to assert: &amp;quot;The reason to believe in human agency over technological determinism is that you can then have an economy where people earn their own way and invent their own lives. If you structure a society on not emphasizing individual human agency, it's the same thing operationally as denying people clout, dignity, and self-determination ... to embrace [the idea of the Singularity] would be a celebration of bad data and bad&lt;br /&gt;
politics.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jaron Lanier]]驳斥了奇点不可避免的观点。他说：“我不认为这项技术是在创造自我。这不是一个自主的过程。”他接着断言：“相信人的能动性而不是技术决定论的原因是，这样你就可以有一个经济体，人们可以自己挣钱，创造自己的生活。如果你构建一个不强调个体能动性的社会，在操作上这个社会同样会否认人们的影响力、尊严和自决权……接受奇点的想法将是对糟糕的数据和糟糕的政治的庆祝。”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Economics|Economist]] [[Robert J. Gordon]], in ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'' (2016), points out that measured economic growth has slowed around 1970 and slowed even further since the [[financial crisis of 2007–2008]], and argues that the economic data show no trace of a coming Singularity as imagined by mathematician [[I.J. Good]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[William D. Nordhaus]], &amp;quot;Why Growth Will Fall&amp;quot; (a review of [[Robert J. Gordon]], ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'', Princeton University Press, 2016, {{ISBN|978-0691147727}}, 762 pp., $39.95), ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', vol. LXIII, no. 13 (August 18, 2016), p. 68.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
经济学家Robert J.Gordon在&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;《美国经济增长的兴衰：内战以来的美国生活水平The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;》（2016）中指出，据测量，经济增长在1970年左右放缓，自2007-2008年金融危机以来甚至进一步放缓，并认为，经济数据没有显示出数学家I.J.Good所想象的未来奇点的踪迹。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to general criticisms of the singularity concept, several critics have raised issues with Kurzweil's iconic chart. One line of criticism is that a [[Log-log plot|log-log]] chart of this nature is inherently biased toward a straight-line result. Others identify selection bias in the points that Kurzweil chooses to use. For example, biologist [[PZ Myers]] points out that many of the early evolutionary &amp;quot;events&amp;quot; were picked arbitrarily.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Kurzweil has rebutted this by charting evolutionary events from 15 neutral sources, and showing that they fit a straight line on [[:File:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|a log-log chart]]. ''[[The Economist]]'' mocked the concept with a graph extrapolating that the number of blades on a razor, which has increased over the years from one to as many as five, will increase ever-faster to infinity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
除了对奇点概念的一般性批评外，一些批评者还对库兹韦尔的标志性图表提出了质疑。一种批评是，一个对数的图表天然地偏向于直线的结果。其他人批评库兹韦尔在数据点的使用上的选择偏差。例如，生物学家P. Z. Myers指出，许多早期的进化事件都是随意挑选的。库兹韦尔反驳了这一点，他绘制了15个中立来源的进化事件图，并表明它们都符合一条直线.《经济学人》用一张图表来嘲讽这个概念：一把剃须刀上的刀片数在过去几年里从一个增加到多达五个，并且它将以更快的速度增长到无穷大。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Potential impacts潜在影响==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dramatic changes in the rate of economic growth have occurred in the past because of some technological advancement. Based on population growth, the economy doubled every 250,000 years from the [[Paleolithic]] era until the [[Neolithic Revolution]]. The new agricultural economy doubled every 900 years, a remarkable increase. In the current era, beginning with the Industrial Revolution, the world's economic output doubles every fifteen years, sixty times faster than during the agricultural era. If the rise of superhuman intelligence causes a similar revolution, argues Robin Hanson, one would expect the economy to double at least quarterly and possibly on a weekly basis.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url=http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/robotics-software/economics-of-the-singularity |title=Economics Of The Singularity |author=Robin Hanson |work=IEEE Spectrum Special Report: The Singularity }} &amp;amp; [http://hanson.gmu.edu/longgrow.pdf Long-Term Growth As A Sequence of Exponential Modes]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
过去由于一些技术进步，经济增长率发生了巨大变化。以人口增长为基础，从[[旧石器时代]]到[[新石器时代]]，经济每25万年翻一番。新农业经济每900年翻一番，增长显著。在当今时代，从工业革命开始，世界经济产出每15年翻一番，比农业时代快60倍。罗宾·汉森Robin Hanson认为，如果超人智能的兴起引发了类似的革命，人们会预期经济至少每季度翻一番，甚至可能每周翻一番。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Uncertainty and risk不确定性和风险===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Existential risk from artificial general intelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步|来自人工通用智能的存在风险}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;technological singularity&amp;quot; reflects the idea that such change may happen suddenly, and that it is difficult to predict how the resulting new world would operate.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|last=Yudkowsky |first=Eliezer |title=Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk |journal=Global Catastrophic Risks |editor-last=Bostrom |editor-first=Nick |editor2-last=Cirkovic |editor2-first=Milan |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |url=http://singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |bibcode=2008gcr..book..303Y |isbn=978-0-19-857050-9 |page=303 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080807132337/http://www.singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |archivedate=2008-08-07 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;theuncertainfuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; It is unclear whether an intelligence explosion resulting in a singularity would be beneficial or harmful, or even an [[Existential risk|existential threat]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Because AI is a major factor in singularity risk, a number of organizations pursue a technical theory of aligning AI goal-systems with human values, including the [[Future of Humanity Institute]], the [[Machine Intelligence Research Institute]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; the [[Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence]], and the [[Future of Life Institute]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;technological singularity&amp;quot; reflects the idea that such change may happen suddenly, and that it is difficult to predict how the resulting new world would operate. It is unclear whether an intelligence explosion resulting in a singularity would be beneficial or harmful, or even an existential threat. Because AI is a major factor in singularity risk, a number of organizations pursue a technical theory of aligning AI goal-systems with human values, including the Future of Humanity Institute, the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, the Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of Life Institute&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“技术奇点”一词反映出这样的变化可能突然发生，而且很难预测由此产生的新世界将如何运作。目前尚不清楚导致奇点的智能爆炸是有益还是有害，甚至是否具有存在威胁。由于人工智能是奇点风险的一个主要因素，许多组织追求一种将人工智能的目标系统与人类价值观相协调的技术理论，这些组织包括&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;人类未来研究所Future of Humanity Institute&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;，&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;机器智能研究所the Machine Intelligence Research Institute&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;， &amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;人类兼容人工智能中心the Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;和&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;未来生命研究所the Future of Life Institute&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Physicist [[Stephen Hawking]] said in 2014 that &amp;quot;Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; Hawking believed that in the coming decades, AI could offer &amp;quot;incalculable benefits and risks&amp;quot; such as &amp;quot;technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; Hawking suggested that artificial intelligence should be taken more seriously and that more should be done to prepare for the singularity:&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-transcendence-looks-at-the-implications-of-artificial-intelligence--but-are-we-taking-ai-seriously-enough-9313474.html |title=Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of artificial intelligence - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'  |work=[[The Independent]] |author=Stephen Hawking |date=1 May 2014 |accessdate=May 5, 2014|author-link=Stephen Hawking }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Physicist Stephen Hawking said in 2014 that &amp;quot;Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks.&amp;quot; Hawking believed that in the coming decades, AI could offer &amp;quot;incalculable benefits and risks&amp;quot; such as &amp;quot;technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand.&amp;quot; Hawking suggested that artificial intelligence should be taken more seriously and that more should be done to prepare for the singularity:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
物理学家史蒂芬·霍金在2014年表示，“成功创造人工智能将是人类历史上最大的事件。不幸的是，这也可能是最后一次，除非我们学会如何规避风险。” 霍金认为，在未来几十年里，人工智能可能会带来“无法估量的利益和风险”，例如“技术超越金融市场，超越人类研究人员，超越人类领袖，开发我们甚至无法理解的武器”。&lt;br /&gt;
霍金建议，人们应该更认真地对待人工智能，并应该做更多的工作来为奇点做准备：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|So, facing possible futures of incalculable benefits and risks, the experts are surely doing everything possible to ensure the best outcome, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message saying, &amp;quot;We'll arrive in a few decades,&amp;quot; would we just reply, &amp;quot;OK, call us when you get here – we'll leave the lights on&amp;quot;? Probably not – but this is more or less what is happening with AI.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, facing possible futures of incalculable benefits and risks, the experts are surely doing everything possible to ensure the best outcome, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message saying, &amp;quot;We'll arrive in a few decades,&amp;quot; would we just reply, &amp;quot;OK, call us when you get here – we'll leave the lights on&amp;quot;? Probably not – but this is more or less what is happening with AI.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
所以，面对未来可能出现的无法估量的利益和风险，专家们肯定会尽一切可能确保最好的结果，对吗？错了。如果一个优越的外星文明给我们发了一条信息说，“我们几十年后就会到达”，我们会不会只回答，“好吧，你到了这里就打电话给我们——我们会关灯的”？可能不是——但这或多或少就是人工智能所发生的事情。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}} claims that there is no direct evolutionary motivation for an AI to be friendly to humans. Evolution has no inherent tendency to produce outcomes valued by humans, and there is little reason to expect an arbitrary optimisation process to promote an outcome desired by mankind, rather than inadvertently leading to an AI behaving in a way not intended by its creators.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom8&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nick Bostrom, [http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html &amp;quot;Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;], in ''Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making in Humans and in Artificial Intelligence'', Vol. 2, ed. I. Smit et al., Int. Institute of Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics, 2003, pp. 12–17&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]: [http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120611190606/http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf |date=2012-06-11 }}. Draft for a publication in ''Global Catastrophic Risk'' from August 31, 2006, retrieved July 18, 2011 (PDF file)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst9&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/06/11/the-stamp-collecting-device/ The Stamp Collecting Device, Nick Hay]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Anders Sandberg]] has also elaborated on this scenario, addressing various common counter-arguments.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;aleph&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2011/02/why_we_should_fear_the_paperclipper.html 'Why we should fear the Paperclipper'], 2011-02-14 entry of Sandberg's blog 'Andart'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; AI researcher [[Hugo de Garis]] suggests that artificial intelligences may simply eliminate the human race [[instrumental convergence|for access to scarce resources]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems10&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and humans would be powerless to stop them.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;forbes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;de Garis, Hugo. [https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/cosmist-terran-cyborgist-opinions-contributors-artificial-intelligence-09-hugo-de-garis.html &amp;quot;The Coming Artilect War&amp;quot;], Forbes.com, 22 June 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Alternatively, AIs developed under evolutionary pressure to promote their own survival could outcompete humanity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Berglas (2008) claims that there is no direct evolutionary motivation for an AI to be friendly to  humans. Evolution has no inherent tendency to produce outcomes valued by humans, and there is little reason to expect an arbitrary optimisation process to promote an outcome desired by  humankind, rather than inadvertently leading to an AI behaving in a way not intended by its  creators.[76][77][78] Anders Sandberg has also elaborated on this scenario, addressing various  common counter-arguments.[79] AI researcher Hugo de Garis suggests that artificial intelligences  may simply eliminate the human race for access to scarce resources,[48][80] and humans would be  powerless to stop them.[81] Alternatively, AIs developed under evolutionary pressure to promote their  own survival could outcompete humanity.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}}声称没有直接的进化动机促使人工智能对人类友好。进化并不倾向于产生人类所重视的结果，也没有理由期望一个任意的优化过程会促进人类所期望的结果，或者期望人工智能不经意地以一种不是其创造者意图的方式行动。Anders Sandberg也详细阐述了这种情况，讨论了各种常见的反驳意见。人工智能研究员Hugo de Garis认为，人工智能可能会直接消灭人类以获取稀缺资源，并且人类将无力阻止它们。或者，在进化压力下发展起来的人工智能，为了促进自身的生存可能打败人类。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bostrom (2002) discusses human extinction scenarios, and lists superintelligence as a possible cause:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bostrom(2002)讨论了人类灭绝的场景，并列举超级智能作为一个可能的原因:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person who asked the question.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the  matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person  who asked the question.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
当我们创造出第一个超级智能实体时，我们可能会犯错并给它一个导致人类毁灭的目标（假设它巨大的智力优势赋予它这样做的力量）。例如，我们可能会错误地将子目标提升为超级目标。我们告诉它去解决一个数学问题，然后它将太阳系中的所有物质变成一个巨大的计算装置，在这个过程中杀死了提出这个问题的人。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]], a significant problem in AI safety is that unfriendly artificial intelligence is likely to be much easier to create than friendly AI. While both require large advances in recursive optimisation process design, friendly AI also requires the ability to make goal structures invariant under self-improvement (or the AI could transform itself into something unfriendly) and a goal structure that aligns with human values and does not automatically destroy the human race. An unfriendly AI, on the other hand, can optimize for an arbitrary goal structure, which does not need to be invariant under self-modification.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst12&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html Coherent Extrapolated Volition, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, May 2004 ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100815055725/http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html |date=2010-08-15 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{harvtxt|Bill Hibbard|2014}} proposes an AI design that avoids several dangers including self-delusion,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JAGI2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| journal=Journal of Artificial General Intelligence| year=2012| volume=3| issue=1| title=Model-Based Utility Functions| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.| doi=10.2478/v10229-011-0013-5| page=1|arxiv = 1111.3934 |bibcode = 2012JAGI....3....1H | s2cid=8434596}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; unintended instrumental actions,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_56.pdf  Avoiding Unintended AI Behaviors.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle. [http://intelligence.org/2012/12/19/december-2012-newsletter/ This paper won the Machine Intelligence Research Institute's 2012 Turing Prize for the Best AGI Safety Paper].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and corruption of the reward generator.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; He also discusses social impacts of AI&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JET2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| url=http://jetpress.org/v17/hibbard.htm| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology| year=2008| volume=17| title=The Technology of Mind and a New Social Contract| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and testing AI.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12b&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_57.pdf  Decision Support for Safe AI Design|.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His 2001 book ''[[Super-Intelligent Machines]]'' advocates the need for public education about AI and public control over AI. It also proposed a simple design that was vulnerable to corruption of the reward generator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Eliezer Yudkowsky, a significant problem in AI safety is that unfriendly artificial  intelligence is likely to be much easier to create than friendly AI. While both require large advances in recursive optimisation process design, friendly AI also requires the ability to make goal structures  invariant under self-improvement (or the AI could transform itself into something unfriendly) and a goal structure that aligns with human values and does not automatically destroy the human race. An unfriendly AI, on the other hand, can optimize for an arbitrary goal structure, which does not need to  be invariant under self-modification. Bill Hibbard (2014) proposes an AI design that avoids  several dangers including self-delusion, unintended instrumental actions, and corruption  of the reward generator.[84] He also discusses social impacts of AI and testing AI. His 2001  book Super-Intelligent Machines advocates the need for public education about AI and public control over AI. It also proposed a simple design that was vulnerable to corruption of the reward generator.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
按照[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]的观点，人工智能安全的一个重要问题是，不友好的人工智能可能比友好的人工智能更容易创建。虽然两者都需要递归优化过程的进步，但友好的人工智能还需要目标结构在自我改进过程中保持不变（否则人工智能可以将自己转变成不友好的东西），以及一个与人类价值观相一致且不会自动毁灭人类的目标结构。另一方面，一个不友好的人工智能可以针对任意的目标结构进行优化，而目标结构不需要在自我改进过程中保持不变。Bill Hibbard (2014)提出了一种人工智能设计，可以避免包括自欺欺人、无意的工具性行为和奖励机制的腐败等一些危险。他还讨论了人工智能和人工智能测试的社会影响。他在2001年出版的“&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;超级智能机器Super-Intelligent Machines&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”一书中提倡对人工智能的公共教育和公众控制。&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#cd32cd&amp;quot;&amp;gt;该书还提出了一个简单的易受奖励机制的腐败影响的设计。It also proposed a simple design that was vulnerable to corruption of the reward generator.&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Next step of sociobiological evolution社会生物进化的下一步===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Sociocultural evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{社会文化进化}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Major Evolutionary Transitions digital.jpg|thumb|upright=1.6|Schematic Timeline of Information and Replicators in the Biosphere: Gillings et al.'s &amp;quot;[[The Major Transitions in Evolution|major evolutionary transitions]]&amp;quot; in information processing.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Major_Evolutionary_Transitions_digital.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[档案：主要进化过渡数字.jpg|thumb |直立=1.6 |生物圈中信息和复制因子的示意时间线：Gillings等人在信息处理中的“[[进化中的主要转变|主要进化转变]]”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Biological vs. digital information.jpg|thumb|Amount of digital information worldwide (5{{e|21}} bytes) versus human genome information worldwide (10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;19&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; bytes) in 2014.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Biological_vs._digital_information.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[档案：生物vs。数字信息.jpg|2014年，全球数字信息总量（5{e | 21}字节）与全球人类基因组信息（10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;19&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;字节）的对比。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the technological singularity is usually seen as a sudden event, some scholars argue the current speed of change already fits this description.{{citation needed|date=April 2018}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然技术奇点通常被视为一个突发事件，但一些学者认为目前的变化速度已经符合这种描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, some argue that we are already in the midst of a [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|major evolutionary transition]] that merges technology, biology, and society. Digital technology has infiltrated the fabric of human society to a degree of indisputable and often life-sustaining dependence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
此外，有人认为，我们已经处在一个融合了技术、生物学和社会学的&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;进化巨变major evolutionary transition&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;之中。数字技术已经无可争辩地渗透到人类社会的结构中，而且生命的维持常常依赖数字技术。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2016 article in ''[[Trends in Ecology &amp;amp; Evolution]]'' argues that &amp;quot;humans already embrace fusions of biology and technology. We spend most of our waking time communicating through digitally mediated channels... we trust [[artificial intelligence]] with our lives through [[Anti-lock braking system|antilock braking in cars]] and [[autopilot]]s in planes... With one in three marriages in America beginning online, digital algorithms are also taking a role in human pair bonding and reproduction&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2016年发表在&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;生态学和进化进展Trends in Ecology and Evolution&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”的一篇文章认为，“人类已经接受了生物和技术的融合。我们清醒时大部分时间都是通过数字媒介进行交流的……我们拿性命相信汽车上的&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;防抱死制动系统Anti-lock braking system&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;和飞机上的&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;自动巡航模式autopilot&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;……在美国，三分之一的婚姻都是在网络上开始的，数字算法也在人类配对和繁殖中也发挥了作用”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article further argues that from the perspective of the [[evolution]], several previous [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|Major Transitions in Evolution]] have transformed life through innovations in information storage and replication ([[RNA]], [[DNA]], [[multicellularity]], and [[culture]] and [[language]]). In the current stage of life's evolution, the carbon-based biosphere has generated a [[cognitive system]] (humans) capable of creating technology that will result in a comparable [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|evolutionary transition]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
文章进一步指出，从[[进化]]的角度来看，以前的几次进化巨变通过创新信息存储和复制的方式（如RNA、DNA、多细胞性、文化和语言的出现）来改变生命。在生命进化的当前阶段，以碳为基础的生物圈已经产生了一个能够创造出可以与前几次巨变相媲美的技术的认知系统（人类）。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The digital information created by humans has reached a similar magnitude to biological information in the biosphere. Since the 1980s, the quantity of digital information stored has doubled about every 2.5 years, reaching about 5 [[zettabyte]]s in 2014 (5{{e|21}} bytes).{{Citation needed|date=April 2019}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
人类创造的数字信息已经达到了与生物圈中生物信息相似的程度。自20世纪80年代以来，存储的数字信息量大约每2.5年翻一番，2014年达到约5泽字节（5e21字节）。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In biological terms, there are 7.2&amp;amp;nbsp;billion humans on the planet, each having a genome of 6.2&amp;amp;nbsp;billion nucleotides. Since one byte can encode four nucleotide pairs, the individual genomes of every human on the planet could be encoded by approximately 1{{e|19}} bytes. The digital realm stored 500 times more information than this in 2014 (see figure). The total amount of DNA contained in all of the cells on Earth is estimated to be about 5.3{{e|37}} base pairs, equivalent to 1.325{{e|37}} bytes of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在生物学方面，地球上有72亿人，每个人的基因组有62亿个核苷酸。由于一个字节可以编码四个核苷酸对，地球上每个人类的个体基因组可以编码大约1{e | 19}字节。2014年，数字领域存储的信息是这个数字的500倍（见图）。据估计，地球上所有细胞所含的DNA总量约为5.3{e | 37}碱基对，相当于1.325{e | 37}字节的信息。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If growth in digital storage continues at its current rate of 30–38% compound annual growth per year,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; it will rival the total information content contained in all of the DNA in all of the cells on Earth in about 110 years. This would represent a doubling of the amount of information stored in the biosphere across a total time period of just 150 years&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal |url=http://escholarship.org/uc/item/38f4b791 |doi=10.1016/j.tree.2015.12.013|pmid=26777788|title=Information in the Biosphere: Biological and Digital Worlds|journal=Trends in Ecology &amp;amp; Evolution|volume=31|issue=3|pages=180–189|year=2016|last1=Kemp|first1=D. J.|last2=Hilbert|first2=M.|last3=Gillings|first3=M. R.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如果数字存储以目前每年30-38%的复合年增长率继续增长，它将在大约110年内与地球上所有细胞中的所有DNA所包含的信息总量相抗衡。这将意味着在仅仅150年的时间里，生物圈中储存的信息量翻了一番”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Implications for human society对人类社会的影响===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{further|Artificial intelligence in fiction}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{小说中的人工智能}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In February 2009, under the auspices of the [[Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence]] (AAAI), [[Eric Horvitz]] chaired a meeting of leading computer scientists, artificial intelligence researchers and roboticists at Asilomar in Pacific Grove, California. The goal was to discuss the potential impact of the hypothetical possibility that robots could become self-sufficient and able to make their own decisions. They discussed the extent to which computers and robots might be able to acquire [[autonomy]], and to what degree they could use such abilities to pose threats or hazards.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009年2月，在&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;人工智能促进协会Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, AAAI&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;的主持下，[[Eric Horvitz]]在加利福尼亚州Pacific Grove的Asilomar主持了一次由主要计算机科学家、人工智能研究人员和机器人学家组成的会议。其目的是讨论，机器人如果能够自给自足并能够做出自己决定，则其潜在影响是什么。他们讨论了计算机和机器人能够在多大程度上获得&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;自主性autonomy&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;，以及在多大程度上可以利用这些能力对人类构成威胁或危险。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some machines are programmed with various forms of semi-autonomy, including the ability to locate their own power sources and choose targets to attack with weapons. Also, some [[computer viruses]] can evade elimination and, according to scientists in attendance, could therefore be said to have reached a &amp;quot;cockroach&amp;quot; stage of machine intelligence. The conference attendees noted that self-awareness as depicted in science-fiction is probably unlikely, but that other potential hazards and pitfalls exist.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?_r=1&amp;amp;ref=todayspaper Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man] By JOHN MARKOFF, NY Times, July 26, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有些机器被编程成各种形式的&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;半自主semi-autonomy&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;，包括定位自己的电源和选择武器攻击的目标等。此外，有些计算机病毒可以避免被消除，根据与会科学家的说法，可以说已经达到了机器智能的“蟑螂”阶段。与会者指出，科幻小说中描述的自我意识可能不太可能，但也存在其他潜在的危险和陷阱。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank S. Robinson predicts that once humans achieve a machine with the intelligence of a human, scientific and technological problems will be tackled and solved with brainpower far superior to that of humans. He notes that artificial systems are able to share data more directly than humans, and predicts that this would result in a global network of super-intelligence that would dwarf human capability.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |last=Robinson |first=Frank S. |title=The Human Future: Upgrade or Replacement? |magazine=[[The Humanist]] |date=27 June 2013 |url=https://thehumanist.com/magazine/july-august-2013/features/the-human-future-upgrade-or-replacement}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Robinson also discusses how vastly different the future would potentially look after such an intelligence explosion. One example of this is solar energy, where the Earth receives vastly more solar energy than humanity captures, so capturing more of that solar energy would hold vast promise for civilizational growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank S. Robinson 预言，一旦人类实现了具有人类智能的机器，科学技术问题将被远远优于人类的智力来解决。他指出，人工系统能够比人类更直接地共享数据，并预测这将导致一个全球的超级智能网络，使人类的能力相形见绌。Robinson还讨论了在这样一次智能爆炸之后，未来可能会有多大的不同。其中一个例子就是太阳能，地球接收到的太阳能远远多于人类捕获的太阳能，因此捕捉更多的太阳能将为文明发展带来巨大的希望。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hard vs. soft takeoff硬起飞与软起飞==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Recursive self-improvement.svg|thumb|upright=1.6|In this sample recursive self-improvement scenario, humans modifying an AI's architecture would be able to double its performance every three years through, for example, 30 generations before exhausting all feasible improvements (left). If instead the AI is smart enough to modify its own architecture as well as human researchers can, its time required to complete a redesign halves with each generation, and it progresses all 30 feasible generations in six years (right).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky-global-risk&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]. &amp;quot;Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk.&amp;quot; Global catastrophic risks (2008).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Recursive_self-improvement.svg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[文件：在这个示例递归自我改进场景中，修改人工智能体系结构的人可以每三年将其性能提高一倍，例如，30代人，然后用尽所有可行的改进（左）。相反，如果人工智能足够聪明，能够像人类研究人员那样修改自己的架构，那么每一代人完成一次重新设计所需的时间将减半，并且它在6年内将所有30代可行的代都推进（右图）。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky-global-risk&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]. &amp;quot;Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk.&amp;quot; Global catastrophic risks (2008).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a hard takeoff scenario, an AGI rapidly self-improves, &amp;quot;taking control&amp;quot; of the world (perhaps in a matter of hours), too quickly for significant human-initiated error correction or for a gradual tuning of the AGI's goals. In a soft takeoff scenario, AGI still becomes far more powerful than humanity, but at a human-like pace (perhaps on the order of decades), on a timescale where ongoing human interaction and correction can effectively steer the AGI's development.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bugaj, Stephan Vladimir, and Ben Goertzel. &amp;quot;Five ethical imperatives and their implications for human-AGI interaction.&amp;quot; Dynamical Psychology (2007).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sotala, Kaj, and Roman V. Yampolskiy. &amp;quot;Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a survey.&amp;quot; Physica Scripta 90.1 (2014): 018001.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在硬起飞的情况下，一个&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;人工通用智能AGI&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;迅速自我完善，“掌控”了世界（也许在几个小时内），这对于纠正人为引起的重大错误或逐步调整的AGI目标来说太快了。在软起飞的情况下，AGI仍然比人类强大得多，但以一种类似人类的速度进步（也许是几十年的数量级），在一个持续的人类互动和指导可以有效纠正AGI的时间尺度上发展。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ramez Naam]] argues against a hard takeoff. He has pointed that we already see recursive self-improvement by superintelligences, such as corporations. [[Intel]], for example, has &amp;quot;the collective brainpower of tens of thousands of humans and probably millions of CPU cores to... design better CPUs!&amp;quot; However, this has not led to a hard takeoff; rather, it has led to a soft takeoff in the form of [[Moore's law]].&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Further&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=The Singularity Is Further Than It Appears|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/the-singularity-is-further-tha.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Naam further points out that the computational complexity of higher intelligence may be much greater than linear, such that &amp;quot;creating a mind of intelligence 2 is probably ''more'' than twice as hard as creating a mind of intelligence 1.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Ascend&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=Why AIs Won't Ascend in the Blink of an Eye - Some Math|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/why-ais-wont-ascend-in-blink-of-an-eye.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ramez Naam argues against a hard takeoff. He has pointed that we already see recursive self-improvement by superintelligences, such as corporations. Intel, for example, has &amp;quot;the collective brainpower of tens of thousands of humans and probably millions of CPU cores  to... design better CPUs!&amp;quot; However, this has  not led to a hard takeoff; rather, it has led to a soft takeoff in the form of Moore's law. Naam further points out that the computational complexity of higher intelligence may be much  greater than linear, such that &amp;quot;creating a mind of intelligence 2 is probably more than twice as hard as creating a mind of intelligence 1.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ramez Naam]]反对硬起飞。他指出，我们已经看到企业等超级智能体的递归自我改进。例如，[[Intel]]拥有“数万人的集体脑力，可能还有数百万个CPU核心……来设计更好的CPU！”然而，这并没有导致一个硬起飞；相反，它以[[摩尔定律]]的形式实现了软起飞。Naam进一步指出更高智能的复杂性可能比线性复杂得多，因此，“创造一个智慧的头脑2可能比创造一个智慧的头脑1”的难度要多一倍多。”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[J. Storrs Hall]] believes that &amp;quot;many of the more commonly seen scenarios for overnight hard takeoff are circular – they seem to assume hyperhuman capabilities at the ''starting point'' of the self-improvement process&amp;quot; in order for an AI to be able to make the dramatic, domain-general improvements required for takeoff. Hall suggests that rather than recursively self-improving its hardware, software, and infrastructure all on its own, a fledgling AI would be better off specializing in one area where it was most effective and then buying the remaining components on the marketplace, because the quality of products on the marketplace continually improves, and the AI would have a hard time keeping up with the cutting-edge technology used by the rest of the world.&amp;lt;ref name=Hall2008&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Hall|first=J. Storrs|title=Engineering Utopia|journal=Artificial General Intelligence, 2008: Proceedings of the First AGI Conference|date=2008|pages=460–467|url=http://www.agiri.org/takeoff_hall.pdf|accessdate=16 May 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J. Storrs Hall believes that &amp;quot;many of the more commonly seen scenarios for overnight hard takeoff are circular – they seem to assume hyperhuman capabilities at the starting point of the self-improvement process&amp;quot; in order for an AI to be able to make the dramatic, domain-general  improvements required for takeoff. Hall suggests that rather than recursively self-improving its hardware, software, and infrastructure all on its own, a fledgling AI would be better off specializing in one area where it was most effective and then buying the remaining components on the marketplace,  because the quality of products on the marketplace continually improves, and the AI would have a  hard time keeping up with the cutting-edge technology used by the rest of the world.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[J.Storrs Hall]]认为，“许多常见的一夜之间出现的硬起飞场景都是循环论证——它们似乎在自我提升过程的起点上假设了超人类的能力”，以便人工智能能够实现起飞所需的戏剧性的、领域一般性的改进。Hall认为，一个初出茅庐的人工智能与其靠自己不断地自我改进硬件、软件和基础设施，不如专注于一个它最有效的领域，然后在市场上购买剩余的组件，因为市场上产品的质量不断提高，而单是人工智能的提高很难跟上世界其他地区所用的尖端技术。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ben Goertzel]] agrees with Hall's suggestion that a new human-level AI would do well to use its intelligence to accumulate wealth. The AI's talents might inspire companies and governments to disperse its software throughout society. Goertzel is skeptical of a hard five minute takeoff but speculates that a takeoff from human to superhuman level on the order of five years is reasonable. Goerzel refers to this scenario as a &amp;quot;semihard takeoff&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Goertzel2014&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Goertzel|first1=Ben|title=Superintelligence — Semi-hard Takeoff Scenarios|url=http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/09/26/superintelligence-semi-hard-takeoff-scenarios/|accessdate=25 October 2014|agency=h+ Magazine|date=26 Sep 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ben Goertzel]]同意Hall的意见，即，一个新的人类级别的人工智能将很好地利用其智能来积累财富。人工智能的天赋可能会激励公司和政府将其软件分散到整个社会。Goertzel怀疑对5分钟的硬起飞，但他推测从人类到超人的水平，以5年的速度起飞是合理的。Goerzel将这种情况称为“&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;半硬起飞semihard takeoff&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Max More]] disagrees, arguing that if there were only a few superfast human-level AIs, that they would not radically change the world, as they would still depend on other people to get things done and would still have human cognitive constraints. Even if all superfast AIs worked on intelligence augmentation, it is unclear why they would do better in a discontinuous way than existing human cognitive scientists at producing super-human intelligence, although the rate of progress would increase. More further argues that a superintelligence would not transform the world overnight: a superintelligence would need to engage with existing, slow human systems to accomplish physical impacts on the world. &amp;quot;The need for collaboration, for organization, and for putting ideas into physical changes will ensure that all the old rules are not thrown out overnight or even within years.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=More&amp;gt;{{cite web|last1=More|first1=Max|title=Singularity Meets Economy|url=http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#more|accessdate=10 November 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Max More]]不同意这一观点，他认为，如果只有少数超高速的人类水平的人工智能，它们不会从根本上改变世界，因为它们仍将依赖人来完成任务，并且仍然会受到人类认知的限制。即使所有的超高速人工智能都致力于智能增强，但目前还不清楚为什么它们在产生超人类智能方面比现有的人类认知科学家做得更好，尽管进展速度会加快。更进一步指出，超级智能不会在一夜之间改变世界：超级智能需要与现有的、缓慢的人类系统进行接触，以完成对世界的物理影响。”合作、组织和将想法付诸实际变革的需要将确保所有旧规则不会在一夜之间甚至几年内被废除。”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Immortality 永生==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his 2005 book, ''[[The Singularity is Near]]'', [[Ray Kurzweil|Kurzweil]] suggests that medical advances would allow people to protect their bodies from the effects of aging, making the [[Life extension|life expectancy limitless]]. Kurzweil argues that the technological advances in medicine would allow us to continuously repair and replace defective components in our bodies, prolonging life to an undetermined age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Singularity Is Near'', p.&amp;amp;nbsp;215.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Kurzweil further buttresses his argument by discussing current bio-engineering advances. Kurzweil suggests [[somatic gene therapy]]; after synthetic viruses with specific genetic information, the next step would be to apply this technology to gene therapy, replacing human DNA with synthesized genes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Singularity is Near'', p.&amp;amp;nbsp;216.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在Kurzweil 2005年出版的《&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;奇点近了The Singularity is Near&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;》一书中，他指出，医学的进步将使人们能够保护自己的身体免受衰老的影响，从而延长寿命。Kurzweil认为，医学的技术进步将使我们能够不断地修复和更换我们身体中有缺陷的部件，从而将寿命延长到某个他无法确定的年龄。Kurzweil通过讨论当前的生物工程进展进一步支持了他的论点。Kurzweil建议了&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;体细胞基因疗法somatic gene therapy&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;；在合成具有特定遗传信息的病毒之后，下一步则是把这项技术应用到基因治疗中，用合成的基因取代人类的DNA。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[K. Eric Drexler]], one of the founders of [[nanotechnology]], postulated cell repair devices, including ones operating within cells and utilizing as yet hypothetical [[biological machine]]s, in his 1986 book ''[[Engines of Creation]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[K.Eric Drexler]]，&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;纳米技术nanotechnology&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;的创始人之一，在他1986年的著作“&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;创造的引擎Engines of Creation&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”中，假设了细胞修复设备，包括在细胞内运行并利用目前假设的[[生物机器]]的设备。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Richard Feynman]], it was his former graduate student and collaborator [[Albert Hibbs]] who originally suggested to him (circa 1959) the idea of a ''medical'' use for Feynman's theoretical micromachines. Hibbs suggested that certain repair machines might one day be reduced in size to the point that it would, in theory, be possible to (as Feynman put it) &amp;quot;[[Molecular machine#Biological|swallow the doctor]]&amp;quot;. The idea was incorporated into Feynman's 1959 essay ''[[There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom]].''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url = http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html|title = There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom|first = Richard P.|last = Feynman |author-link = Richard Feynman|date = December 1959|url-status = dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100211190050/http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html|archive-date = 2010-02-11}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
根据[[Richard Feynman]]，他过去的研究生和合作者[[Albert Hibbs]]最初向他建议（大约在1959年）&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;费曼理论微型机械Feynman's theoretical micromachines&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;的“医学”用途。Hibbs认为，有一天，理论上某些修理机器的尺寸可能会被尽可能地缩小（正如费曼所说的那样）“[[Molecular machine#Biological|swallow the doctor]]”。这个想法被收入了费曼1959年的文章“&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;在底部有很多空间[There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beyond merely extending the operational life of the physical body, [[Jaron Lanier]] argues for a form of immortality called &amp;quot;Digital Ascension&amp;quot; that involves &amp;quot;people dying in the flesh and being uploaded into a computer and remaining conscious&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |title = You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto |last = Lanier |first = Jaron |author-link = Jaron Lanier |publisher = [[Alfred A. Knopf]] |year = 2010 |isbn = 978-0307269645 |location = New York, NY |page = [https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780307269645/page/26 26] |url-access = registration |url = https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780307269645 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
除了仅仅延长物质身体的运行寿命之外，[[Jaron Lanier]]还主张一种称为“&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;数字提升Digital Ascension&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”的不朽形式，即“人在肉体层面死亡，意识被上传到电脑里并保持清醒”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==History of the concept概念史==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A paper by Mahendra Prasad, published in ''[[AI Magazine]]'', asserts that the 18th-century mathematician [[Marquis de Condorcet]] was the first person to hypothesize and mathematically model an intelligence explosion and its effects on humanity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Prasad|first=Mahendra|year=2019|title=Nicolas de Condorcet and the First Intelligence Explosion Hypothesis|journal=AI Magazine|volume=40|issue=1|pages=29–33|doi=10.1609/aimag.v40i1.2855}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahendra Prasad在“[[人工智能杂志]]”上发表的一篇论文断言，18世纪的数学家[[Marquis de Condorcet]]是第一个对智能爆炸及其对人类影响进行假设和数学建模的人。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An early description of the idea was made in [[John Wood Campbell Jr.]]'s 1932 short story &amp;quot;The last evolution&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1932年[[约翰.伍德.坎贝尔]的短篇小说&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;《最后的进化》（the last evolution）&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;对这一想法作了早期的描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his 1958 obituary for [[John von Neumann]], Ulam recalled a conversation with von Neumann about the &amp;quot;ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=mathematical/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ulam在1958年为约翰·冯·诺依曼写的讣告中，回忆了与冯·诺依曼的一次对话：“技术的不断进步和人类生活方式的变化，这使我们似乎接近了种族历史上某些基本的奇点，超出了这些奇点，人类的事务就不能继续下去了。”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1965, Good wrote his essay postulating an &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; of recursive self-improvement of a machine intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1965年，古德写了一篇文章，假设机器智能的自我改进迭代是“智能爆炸”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981, [[Stanisław Lem]] published his [[science fiction]] novel ''[[Golem XIV]]''. It describes a military AI computer (Golem XIV) who obtains consciousness and starts to increase his own intelligence, moving towards personal technological singularity. Golem XIV was originally created to aid its builders in fighting wars, but as its intelligence advances to a much higher level than that of humans, it stops being interested in the military requirement because it finds them lacking internal logical consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1981年，[[Stanisław Lem]]出版了他的[[科幻小说]]小说“[[Golem XIV]]”。它描述了一台军用人工智能计算机（Golem XIV）获得了意识并开始增加自己的智能，朝着个体的技术奇点迈进。Golem XIV最初是为了帮助它的建造者打仗，但随着它的智力发展到比人类更高的水平，它不再对军事感兴趣，因为它发现它们缺乏内在的逻辑一致性。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1983, [[Vernor Vinge]] greatly popularized Good's intelligence explosion in a number of writings, first addressing the topic in print in the January 1983 issue of ''[[Omni (magazine)|Omni]]'' magazine. In this op-ed piece, Vinge seems to have been the first to use the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in a way that was specifically tied to the creation of intelligent machines:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google4&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1983年，[[Vernor Vinge]]在许多著作中极大地普及了Good的智能爆炸，他第一次在1983年1月出版的“[[Omni”杂志上提到了这一主题。在这篇评论文章中，Vinge似乎是第一个使用“奇点”一词的人，并将“奇点”的概念特别地与智能机器的创造进行联系：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|We will soon create intelligences greater than our own. When this happens, human history will have reached a kind of singularity, an intellectual transition as impenetrable as the knotted space-time at the center of a black hole, and the world will pass far beyond our understanding. This singularity, I believe, already haunts a number of science-fiction writers. It makes realistic extrapolation to an interstellar future impossible. To write a story set more than a century hence, one needs a nuclear war in between ... so that the world remains intelligible.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{我们很快就会创造出比我们自己更强大的智能。当这种情况发生时，人类历史将达到一种奇点，一种如同黑洞中心打结的时空一样难以逾越的知识转变，世界将远远超出我们的理解。我相信，这种奇点已经困扰了许多科幻作家。这使得对星际未来的现实推断变得不可能。要写一个多世纪以后的故事，科幻小说家需要一场核战争……这样世界就可以理解了。}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1985, in &amp;quot;The Time Scale of Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;, artificial intelligence researcher [[Ray Solomonoff]] articulated mathematically the related notion of what he called an &amp;quot;infinity point&amp;quot;: if a research community of human-level self-improving AIs take four years to double their own speed, then two years, then one year and so on, their capabilities increase infinitely in finite time.&amp;lt;ref name=chalmers /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;std&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1985年，在《&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;人工智能的时间尺度The Time Scale of Artificial Intelligence&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;》一书中，人工智能研究人员[[Ray Solomonoff]]以数学的方式阐述了他所说的“无限点”的相关概念：如果一个人类水平的能自我改进人工智能的研究社区需要四年时间使其速度加倍，那么两年，然后一年，依此类推，它们的能力在有限的时间内无限增长。&amp;lt;ref name=chalmers/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=“std”/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vinge's 1993 article &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; spread widely on the internet and helped to popularize the idea.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google5&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; This article contains the statement, &amp;quot;Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.&amp;quot; Vinge argues that science-fiction authors cannot write realistic post-singularity characters who surpass the human intellect, as the thoughts of such an intellect would be beyond the ability of humans to express.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vinge 1993年的文章《&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;未来的技术奇点：如何在后人类时代生存The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;》在互联网上广为传播，普及了这一理念。“在三十年内，我们将拥有创造超人智慧的技术手段。不久之后，人类时代将结束。”Vinge认为，科幻小说作者无法写出超越人类智力的现实主义后奇点人物，因为这种智力的思想将超出人类的表达能力。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2000, [[Bill Joy]], a prominent technologist and a co-founder of [[Sun Microsystems]], voiced concern over the potential dangers of the singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在2000年，[[Bill Joy]]，一位著名的技术专家和[[Sun Microsystems]]的联合创始人，表达了对奇点的潜在危险的担忧。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2005, Kurzweil published ''[[The Singularity is Near]]''. Kurzweil's publicity campaign included an appearance on ''[[The Daily Show with Jon Stewart]]''.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2005年，库兹韦尔发表了“&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;奇点近了The Singularity is Near&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”。库兹韦尔的宣传活动包括上“[[乔恩·斯图尔特的每日秀The Daily Show with Jon Stewart]]”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2007, [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]] suggested that many of the varied definitions that have been assigned to &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; are mutually incompatible rather than mutually supporting.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sandberg, Anders. &amp;quot;An overview of models of technological singularity.&amp;quot; Roadmaps to AGI and the Future of AGI Workshop, Lugano, Switzerland, March. Vol. 8. 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, Kurzweil extrapolates current technological trajectories past the arrival of self-improving AI or superhuman intelligence, which Yudkowsky argues represents a tension with both I. J. Good's proposed discontinuous upswing in intelligence and Vinge's thesis on unpredictability.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2007年，[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]指出，许多被赋予“奇点”的不同定义是相互不兼容的，而不是相互支持的。例如，Kurzweil认为的当前的技术发展轨迹，都是在自我完善的人工智能或超人智能的到来之后才会出现的。Yudkowsky认为，这代表着一种既有I.J.Good提出的智力不连续上升，也有Vinge关于不可预测性的紧张关系。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2009, Kurzweil and [[X-Prize]] founder [[Peter Diamandis]] announced the establishment of [[Singularity University]], a nonaccredited private institute whose stated mission is &amp;quot;to educate, inspire and empower leaders to apply exponential technologies to address humanity's grand challenges.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Funded by [[Google]], [[Autodesk]], [[ePlanet Ventures]], and a group of [[High tech|technology industry]] leaders, Singularity University is based at [[NASA]]'s [[Ames Research Center]] in [[Mountain View, California|Mountain View]], [[California]]. The not-for-profit organization runs an annual ten-week graduate program during summer that covers ten different technology and allied tracks, and a series of executive programs throughout the year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009年，Kurzweil和[[X-Prize]]的创始人[[Peter Diamandis]]宣布成立[[奇点大学]]，这是一所未经认可的私立学院，其宣称的使命是“教育、激励和赋能领导者来使用指数技术应对人类的重大挑战。”奇点大学由[[Google]]、[[Autodesk]]、[[ePlanet Ventures]]和一群高科技产业的领导团队资助，总部设在[[NASA]]的[[Ames Research Center]]（加利福尼亚州，Mountain View）。这家非营利组织在每年夏季举办为期十周的研究生课程，涵盖十种不同的技术和相关领域，并全年举办一系列高管课程。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==In politics 在政治中==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2007, the Joint Economic Committee of the [[United States Congress]] released a report about the future of nanotechnology. It predicts significant technological and political changes in the mid-term future, including possible technological singularity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vyp1AwAAQBAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA375|title=Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society|first=David H.|last=Guston|date=14 July 2010|publisher=SAGE Publications|isbn=978-1-4522-6617-6}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web | url=http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20120213_TheFutureisComingSoonerThanYouThink.pdf | title=Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think | publisher=Joint Economic Committee | date=March 2007}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2007/03/congress_and_th.html|title=Congress and the Singularity}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2007年，&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;美国国会联合经济委员会the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;一份关于纳米技术的未来的报告预测，在中期的未来会发生诸多重大的技术和政治变化，包括可能出现的技术奇点。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former President of the United States [[Barack Obama]] spoke about singularity in his interview to ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' in 2016:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.wired.com/2016/10/president-obama-mit-joi-ito-interview/|title=Barack Obama Talks AI, Robo Cars, and the Future of the World|first=Scott|last=Dadich|journal=Wired|date=12 October 2016}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
美国前总统[[Barack Obama]]在2016年接受“Wired”杂志采访时谈到了奇点：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|text=One thing that we haven't talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren't spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about &amp;quot;Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?&amp;quot;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that we haven't talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren't spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about &amp;quot;Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有一件事我们没有谈得太多，我还想回过去谈谈，那就是我们真的必须考虑对经济的影响。因为大多数人现在并没有花太多时间去担心奇点，而是在担心“好吧，我的工作会被机器取代吗？”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also参阅==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20010527181244/http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Authors/Computing/Good-IJ/SCtFUM.html |archive-date = 2001-05-27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archive-url =  https://web.archive.org/web/20010527181244/http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/authors/computing/good-ij/sctfum.html  | archive-date = 2001-05-27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Portal| Technology}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Accelerating change}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| series = Advances in Computers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
系列 = 计算机的进步&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial consciousness}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| isbn = 9780120121069| title = Advances in Computers Volume 6&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9780120121069&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial intelligence arms race}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl = 10919/89424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl = 10919/89424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial intelligence in fiction}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Brain simulation}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Brain–computer interface}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Emerging technologies}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Fermi paradox}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Some Skepticism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些怀疑论者&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Flynn effect}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Robin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一名: 罗宾&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Futures studies}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Global brain}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{sectionlink|Human intelligence|Improving intelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year = 1998&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1998年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Mind uploading}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Neuroenhancement}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| accessdate = 2009-06-19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009-06-19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Outline of transhumanism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20090828023928/http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年3月24日 | archiveurl =  https://web.archive.org/web/20090828023928/http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Robot learning}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archivedate = 2009-08-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archivedate = 2009-08-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Singularitarianism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological determinism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological revolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first=Anthony&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一名: 安东尼&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological unemployment}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last=Berglas&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Berglas&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title=Artificial Intelligence will Kill our Grandchildren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
人工智能会杀死我们的孙子&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year=2008&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2008年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TODO: end here&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Citations引用 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://berglas.org/Articles/AIKillGrandchildren/AIKillGrandchildren.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://berglas.org/articles/aikillgrandchildren/aikillgrandchildren.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Reflist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2008-06-13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2008-06-13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|refs =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url = http://www.technologyreview.com/view/425733/paul-allen-the-singularity-isnt-near |title= Paul Allen: The Singularity Isn't Near |access-date=2015-04-12 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Nick&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一 = 尼克&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation | first=Bill | last=Joy | author-link=Bill Joy | title=Why the future doesn't need us | journal=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired Magazine]] | volume=8 | date= April 2000 | issue=4 |url = https://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html | access-date=2007-08-07 | isbn=978-0-670-03249-5 | publisher=Viking Adult }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Bostrom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
博斯特罗姆&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Nick Bostrom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
作者: 尼克 · 博斯特罗姆&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php |title=Singularly Silly Singularity |access-date=2009-04-13 |first1=PZ |last1=Myers |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090228161422/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php |archive-date=2009-02-28 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title=Existential Risks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
存在风险&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
进化与技术杂志&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil.htm Modis, Theodore. ''The Singularity Myth''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121030072409/http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil.htm |date=2012-10-30 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year=2002&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2002年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| volume=9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| volume = 9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Anders Sandberg|Sandberg, Anders]]. [http://agi-conf.org/2010/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/agi10singmodels2.pdf An overview of models of technological singularity]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date=2007-08-07&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2007-08-07&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3854/global-catastrophic-risks-report.pdf|title=GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS SURVEY (2008) Technical Report 2008/1 Published by Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University. Anders Sandberg and Nick Bostrom|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110516021945/http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3854/global-catastrophic-risks-report.pdf|archivedate=2011-05-16}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Krazit, Tom. [http://news.cnet.com/2100-1006_3-6119618.html Intel pledges 80 cores in five years], ''CNET News'', 26 September 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Bill&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 第一 = 比尔&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;dreyfus&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Harvnb|Dreyfus|Dreyfus|2000|p=xiv}}: 'The truth is that human intelligence can never be replaced with machine intelligence simply because we are not ourselves &amp;quot;thinking machines&amp;quot; in the sense in which that term is commonly understood.' {{Harvtxt|Hawking|1998}}: 'Some people say that computers can never show true intelligence whatever that may be. But it seems to me that if very complicated chemical molecules can operate in humans to make them intelligent then equally complicated electronic circuits can also make computers act in an intelligent way. And if they are intelligent they can presumably design computers that have even greater complexity and intelligence.'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Bill Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 作者链接 = Bill Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Ethical Artificial Intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Ethical Artificial Intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{IMDb title|847969|Episode dated 23 August 2006}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| date = 5 November 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 日期 = 2014年11月5日&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| eprint=1411.1373&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1411.1373&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, ''[[The Age of Spiritual Machines]]'', Viking; 1999,  {{ISBN|978-0-14-028202-3}}. pp. [https://books.google.com/books?id=ldAGcyh0bkUC&amp;amp;pg=PA630 30, 32]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| class = cs.AI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年10月12日 | class = cs.AI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| ref=harv&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= harv&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Theodore Modis, [http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/TedWEB.htm Forecasting the Growth of Complexity and Change], ''Technological Forecasting &amp;amp; Social Change'', 69, No 4, 2002 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120615054939/http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/TedWEB.htm |date=June 15, 2012 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dooling, Richard. ''[[Rapture for the Geeks|Rapture for the Geeks: When AI Outsmarts IQ]]'' (2008), [https://books.google.com/books?id=VbBRsv1lxsUC&amp;amp;lpg=PP1&amp;amp;pg=PA88 p. 88]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dooling, Richard. ''[[Rapture for the Geeks|Rapture for the Geeks: When AI Outsmarts IQ]]'' (2008), [https://books.google.com/books?id=VbBRsv1lxsUC&amp;amp;lpg=PP1&amp;amp;pg=PA89 p. 89]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/nano/singularity-nanotech-or-ai |title=h+ Magazine &amp;amp;#124; Covering technological, scientific, and cultural trends that are changing human beings in fundamental ways |publisher=Hplusmagazine.com |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/whos-who-in-the-singularity |title=Who's Who In The Singularity – IEEE Spectrum |publisher=Spectrum.ieee.org |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1958-64-03/S0002-9904-1958-10189-5/S0002-9904-1958-10189-5.pdf | last=Ulam|first=Stanislaw |title=Tribute to John von Neumann|publisher=Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society|volume=64, #3, part 2|date=May 1958|page=5}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |title=More blades good |author=Anonymous |newspaper=The Economist |date=18 March 2006 |url=http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5624861 |location=London |page=85 |volume=378  |issue=8469 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html |title=Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards |website=nickbostrom.com }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news |url = https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html |newspaper = The New York Times | first=John | last=Markoff | title=Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced by Cheaper Software | date=2011-03-04}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near, pp. 135–136. Penguin Group, 2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, ''The Singularity is Near'', Penguin Group, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near, p. 9. Penguin Group, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Eschatology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 末世论&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Futures studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 未来研究&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singularityu.org/ Singularity University] at its official website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Philosophy of artificial intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
范畴: 人工智能哲学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Existential risk from artificial general intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 来自人工一般智能的世界末日&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;This page was moved from [[wikipedia:en:Technological singularity]]. Its edit history can be viewed at [[技术奇点/edithistory]]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:待整理页面]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Alchemist</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E5%A5%87%E7%82%B9&amp;diff=24637</id>
		<title>技术奇点</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E5%A5%87%E7%82%B9&amp;diff=24637"/>
		<updated>2021-07-24T02:42:44Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Alchemist：&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;此词条暂由水流心不竞、嘉树初译，翻译字数共，未经审校，带来阅读不便，请见谅。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Redirect|The Singularity||Singularity (disambiguation)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Redirect |奇点| |奇点（释疑)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{short description|Hypothetical point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{简介}技术增长变得不可控制和不可逆转的假设时间点}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The '''technological singularity'''—also, simply, '''the singularity'''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Cadwalladr, Carole (2014). &amp;quot;[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/22/robots-google-ray-kurzweil-terminator-singularity-artificial-intelligence Are the robots about to rise? Google's new director of engineering thinks so…]&amp;quot; ''The Guardian''. Guardian News and Media Limited.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;—is a [[hypothetical]] point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web |title=Collection of sources defining &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; |url=http://www.singularitysymposium.com/definition-of-singularity.html |website=singularitysymposium.com |accessdate=17 April 2019}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book |author1=Eden, Amnon H. |author2=Moor, James H. |title=Singularity hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment |date=2012 |publisher=Springer |location=Dordrecht |isbn=9783642325601 |pages=1–2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to the most popular version of the singularity hypothesis, called [[Technological singularity#Intelligence explosion|intelligence explosion]], an upgradable [[intelligent agent]] will eventually enter a &amp;quot;runaway reaction&amp;quot; of self-improvement cycles, each new and more intelligent generation appearing more and more rapidly, causing an &amp;quot;explosion&amp;quot; in intelligence and resulting in a powerful [[superintelligence]] that qualitatively far surpasses all [[human intelligence]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt; 技术奇点Technological singularity&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;——简称&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt; 奇点 Singularity&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt; 是一个假设的时间点。在该时间点上，技术增长变得不可控制和不可逆转，从而导致人类文明发生无法预见的变化。根据奇点假说（也被称为&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;智能爆炸 intelligence explosion&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;）最流行的版本：一个可升级的智能体终将进入一种自我完善循环的“&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#32cd32&amp;quot;&amp;gt;失控反应 runaway reaction&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”。每个新的、更智能的世代将出现得越来越快，导致智能的“爆炸”，并产生一种在实质上远超所有人类智能的超级智能。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first use of the concept of a &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in the technological context was [[John von Neumann]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Technological Singularity'' by Murray Shanahan, (MIT Press, 2015), page 233&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Stanislaw Ulam]] reports a discussion with von Neumann &amp;quot;centered on the [[Accelerating change|accelerating progress]] of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential [[Wiktionary:singularity|singularity]] in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Subsequent authors have echoed this viewpoint.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity hypotheses&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;chalmers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Chalmers|first=David|date=2010|title=The singularity: a philosophical analysis|url=|journal=Journal of Consciousness Studies|volume=17|issue=9–10|pages=7–65|via=}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一次在科技领域使用“奇点”这一概念的是&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;冯·诺依曼John von Neumann&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;。Stanislaw Ulam 报告一次讨论中，冯·诺依曼说“（奇点的概念）集中在技术的加速进步和人类生活方式的变化上。&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#32cd32&amp;quot;&amp;gt;这些变化展示出一种接近种群历史[的边界]的一些重要“奇点”的样貌。 which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;我们所熟知的人类事务在种群历史之外将无法继续下去”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. J. Good]]'s &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; model predicts that a future superintelligence will trigger a singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Vinge, Vernor. [http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;], in ''Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace'', G. A. Landis, ed., NASA Publication CP-10129, pp. 11–22, 1993.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I. J.古德的“智能爆炸”模型预测，未来的超级智能将触发一个奇点。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The concept and the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; were popularized by [[Vernor Vinge]] in his 1993 essay ''The Coming Technological Singularity'', in which he wrote that it would signal the end of the human era, as the new superintelligence would continue to upgrade itself and would advance technologically at an incomprehensible rate. He wrote that he would be surprised if it occurred before 2005 or after 2030.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
奇点的概念和术语“奇点”是由 Vernor Vinge 在他1993年的文章《&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;即将到来的技术奇点The Coming Technological Singularity&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;》中推广的，他在文中写道，这将标志着人类时代的终结，因为新的超级智能将持续自我升级，技术将以一种不可思议的速度进步。他写道，他会感到惊讶，如果奇点发生在2005年之前或2030年之后，。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Public figures such as [[Stephen Hawking]] and [[Elon Musk]] have expressed concern that full [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) could result in human extinction.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Sparkes|first1=Matthew|title=Top scientists call for caution over artificial intelligence|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11342200/Top-scientists-call-for-caution-over-artificial-intelligence.html|accessdate=24 April 2015|work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph (UK)]]|date=13 January 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540|title=Hawking: AI could end human race|date=2 December 2014|publisher=BBC|accessdate=11 November 2017}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The consequences of the singularity and its potential benefit or harm to the human race have been intensely debated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
斯蒂芬·霍金和埃隆·马斯克等公众人物对完全人工智能（AI）可能导致人类灭绝表示担忧。奇点的结果及其对人类的潜在利益伤害已经引起了激烈的争论。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Four polls of AI researchers, conducted in 2012 and 2013 by [[Nick Bostrom]] and [[Vincent C. Müller]], suggested a median probability estimate of 50% that [[artificial general intelligence]] (AGI) would be developed by 2040–2050.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;newyorker&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Khatchadourian|first1=Raffi|title=The Doomsday Invention|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=The New Yorker|date=16 November 2015}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Müller, V. C., &amp;amp; Bostrom, N. (2016). &amp;quot;Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion&amp;quot;. In V. C. Müller (ed): ''Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence'' (pp. 555–572). Springer, Berlin. http://philpapers.org/rec/MLLFPI&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年到2013年，Nick Bostrom和Vincent c.  Müller 对人工智能研究人员进行了四次调查。结果显示，2040年至2050年人工通用智能(artificial general intelligence, AGI)被成功开发的概率的估计中值为50% 。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Background 背景==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although technological progress has been accelerating, it has been limited by the basic intelligence of the human brain, which has not, according to [[Paul R. Ehrlich]], changed significantly for millennia.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Paul Ehrlich June 2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ehrlich, Paul. [http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/ The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, with the increasing power of computers and other technologies, it might eventually be possible to build a machine that is significantly more intelligent than humans.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;businessweek&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm Superbrains born of silicon will change everything.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801074729/http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm |date=August 1, 2010 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然技术进步一直在加速，但它受到人脑基本智力的限制，而根据[[Paul R.Ehrlich]]的说法，人类大脑的基本智力在几千年来没有发生显著变化。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Paul Ehrlich June 2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ehrlich, Paul. [http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/ The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;然而，随着计算机和其他技术的日益强大，最终有可能制造出一台比人类更智能得多的机器。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;businessweek&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm Superbrains born of silicon will change everything.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801074729/http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644021.htm |date=August 1, 2010 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If a superhuman intelligence were to be invented—either through the amplification of human intelligence or through artificial intelligence—it would bring to bear greater problem-solving and inventive skills than current humans are capable of. Such an AI is referred to as Seed AI because if an AI were created with engineering capabilities that matched or surpassed those of its human creators, it would have the potential to autonomously improve its own software and hardware or design an even more capable machine. This more capable machine could then go on to design a machine of yet greater capability. These iterations of recursive self-improvement could accelerate, potentially allowing enormous qualitative change before any upper limits imposed by the laws of physics or theoretical computation set in. It is speculated that over many iterations, such an AI would far surpass human cognitive abilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如果通过扩大人类智能或人工智能来发明一种超人类智能，那么它将比现在的人类拥有更强的解决问题能力和创造能力。这种人工智能被称为&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;种子人工智能Seed AI&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;，因为如果人工智能的工程能力与人类创造者的能力相匹配或超越人类，那么它就有潜力自主改进自己的软件和硬件，或者设计出更强大的机器。这台能力更强的机器可以继续设计一台能力更强的机器。这种自我递归改进的迭代可以加速，在物理定律或理论计算的任何限制之内可能出现巨大的定性的变化。据推测，经过多次迭代，这样的人工智能将远远超过人类的认知能力。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Intelligence explosion智能爆炸==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Intelligence explosion is a possible outcome of humanity building [[artificial general intelligence]] (AGI). AGI would be capable of recursive self-improvement, leading to the rapid emergence of [[Superintelligence|artificial superintelligence]] (ASI), the limits of which are unknown, shortly after technological singularity is achieved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能爆炸是构建&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;人工通用智能artificial general intelligence&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;的可能结果。在技术奇点实现后不久，AGI 将能够进行自我迭代，导致&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;人工超级智能artificial superintelligence, ASI&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;的迅速出现，但其局限性尚不清楚。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[I. J. Good]] speculated in 1965 that artificial general intelligence might bring about an intelligence explosion. He speculated on the effects of superhuman machines, should they ever be invented:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1965年，[[I.J.Good]]曾推测人工通用智能可能会带来智能爆炸。他推测了超人机器的作用，如果他们真的被发明了：&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an ‘intelligence explosion,’ and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{让我们把超智能机器定义为一种机器，它可以进行远超无论多么聪明的一个人的所有智力活动。由于机器的设计是一种智力活动，那么一台超智能机器可以设计出更好的机器；那么毫无疑问会出现“智能爆炸”，人类的智能将远远落后。因此，第一台超智能机器是人类所需要的最后一项发明，当然，假设机器足够温顺并能够告诉我们如何控制它们的话。}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good's scenario runs as follows: as computers increase in power, it becomes possible for people to build a machine that is more intelligent than humanity; this superhuman intelligence possesses greater problem-solving and inventive skills than current humans are capable of. This superintelligent machine then designs an even more capable machine, or re-writes its own software to become even more intelligent; this (even more capable) machine then goes on to design a machine of yet greater capability, and so on. These iterations of recursive self-improvement accelerate, allowing enormous qualitative change before any upper limits imposed by the laws of physics or theoretical computation set in.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
古德的设想是这样的：随着计算机功率的增加，人们有可能制造出一台比人类更智慧的机器；这种超人的智能拥有比现在人类更强大的问题解决和发明创造的能力。这台超级智能机器随后设计一台功能更强大的机器，或者重新编写自己的软件来变得更加智能；这台（甚至更强大的）机器接着继续设计功能更强大的机器，以此类推。这些自我迭代加速允许在物理定律或理论计算设定的任何上限之内发生巨大的定性的变化。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;stat&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other manifestations其他表现形式==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Emergence of superintelligence超级智能的出现===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Superintelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{超级智能}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A superintelligence, hyperintelligence, or superhuman intelligence is a hypothetical [[intelligent agent|agent]] that possesses intelligence far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human minds. &amp;quot;Superintelligence&amp;quot; may also refer to the form or degree of intelligence possessed by such an agent. [[John von Neumann]], [[Vernor Vinge]] and [[Ray Kurzweil]] define the concept in terms of the technological creation of super intelligence. They argue that it is difficult or impossible for present-day humans to predict what human beings' lives would be like in a post-singularity world.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
超级智能、超智能或超人智能是一种假设的[[智能体|智能体]]，其拥有的智能远远超过最聪明和最有天赋的人类头脑。“超级智能”也可以指这种主体所拥有的智能的形式或程度。[[John von Neumann]]，[[Vernor Vinge]]和[[Ray Kurzweil]]定义了超级智能的技术创造这一概念。他们认为，现在的人类很难或不可能预测人类在后奇点世界的生活会是什么样子。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Technology forecasters and researchers disagree about if or when human intelligence is likely to be surpassed. Some argue that advances in [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) will probably result in general reasoning systems that lack human cognitive limitations. Others believe that humans will evolve or directly modify their biology so as to achieve radically greater intelligence. A number of [[futures studies]] scenarios combine elements from both of these possibilities, suggesting that humans are likely to [[brain–computer interface|interface with computers]], or [[mind uploading|upload their minds to computers]], in a way that enables substantial intelligence amplification.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
技术预测者和研究人员对人类智力是否或何时可能被超越存在分歧。一些人认为，[[人工智能]]（AI）的进步可能会产生没有人类认知局限的一般推理系统。另一些人则认为，人类将进化或直接改变自己的生物性，从而获得更大的智力。许多[[未来研究]]的场景结合了这两种可能的元素，认为人类很可能会具有[[脑-机接口|与计算机的接口]]，或以[[思维上传|将他们的思想上传到计算机]]的方式提高智力。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Non-AI singularity非人工智能奇点===&lt;br /&gt;
Some writers use &amp;quot;the singularity&amp;quot; in a broader way to refer to any radical changes in our society brought about by new technologies such as [[molecular nanotechnology]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; although Vinge and other writers specifically state that without superintelligence, such changes would not qualify as a true singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#32cd32&amp;quot;&amp;gt;作家writers&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;更宽泛地使用“奇点”的概念，用来指代任何我们社会中由新技术带来的剧烈变化，如[[分子纳米技术]]，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;尽管Vinge和其他&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#32cd32&amp;quot;&amp;gt;作家&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;明确指出，如果没有超级智能，这些改变将不是真正的奇点。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Speed superintelligence速度超智能===&lt;br /&gt;
A speed superintelligence describes an AI that can do everything that a human can do, where the only difference is that the machine runs faster.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1007/978-3-662-54033-6_2 |year=2017 |publisher=Springer Berlin Heidelberg |pages=11–23 |author=Kaj Sotala and Roman Yampolskiy |title=The Technological Singularity |chapter=Risks of the Journey to the Singularity |series=The Frontiers Collection |isbn=978-3-662-54031-2 |conference=The Frontiers Collection }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, with a million-fold increase in the speed of information processing relative to that of humans, a subjective year would pass in 30 physical seconds.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Such a difference in information processing speed could drive the singularity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |doi=10.1002/9781118922590.ch16 |year=2016 |publisher=John Wiley \&amp;amp; Sons, Inc |pages=171–224 |author=David J. Chalmers |title=Science Fiction and Philosophy |chapter=The Singularity |isbn=9781118922590 |conference=Science Fiction and Philosophy }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
速度超级智能描述了一个人工智能，它可以做任何人类能做的事情，唯一的区别是这个机器运行得更快。例如，与人类相比，它信息处理的速度提高了一百万倍，一个主观年将在30个物理秒内过去。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Plausibility合理性==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many prominent technologists and academics dispute the plausibility of a technological singularity, including [[Paul Allen]], [[Jeff Hawkins]], [[John Henry Holland|John Holland]], [[Jaron Lanier]], and [[Gordon Moore]], whose [[Moore's law|law]] is often cited in support of the concept.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
许多著名的技术专家和学者都对技术奇点的合理性提出质疑，包括[[Paul Allen]]、[[Jeff Hawkins]]、[[John Henry Holland | John Holland]]、[[Jaron Lanier]]和[[Gordon Moore]]，他的[[摩尔定律]]经常被引用来支持这一概念。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most proposed methods for creating superhuman or [[transhuman]] minds fall into one of two categories: intelligence amplification of human brains and artificial intelligence. The speculated ways to produce intelligence augmentation are many, and include [[bioengineering]], [[genetic engineering]], [[nootropic]] drugs, AI assistants, direct [[brain–computer interface]]s and [[mind uploading]]. Because multiple paths to an intelligence explosion are being explored, it makes a singularity more likely; for a singularity to not occur they would all have to fail.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity |title=What is the Singularity? &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
大多数创造超人或[[跨人类]]头脑的方法分为两类：人脑的智能增强和人工智能。据推测，智能增强的方法很多，包括[[生物工程]]、[[基因工程]]、[[nootropic]]药物、AI助手、直接[[脑-机接口]]和[[思维上传]]。因为人们正在探索通向智能爆炸的多种途径，这使得奇点更有可能；对于一个不会出现的奇点，所有这些都必将失败。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst.org&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity |title=What is the Singularity? &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robin Hanson]] expressed skepticism of human intelligence augmentation, writing that once the &amp;quot;low-hanging fruit&amp;quot; of easy methods for increasing human intelligence have been exhausted, further improvements will become increasingly difficult to find.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/vc.html#hanson |title=Some Skepticism |date=1998 |first=Robin |last=Hanson |author-link=Robin Hanson |accessdate=April 8, 2020}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Despite all of the speculated ways for amplifying human intelligence, non-human artificial intelligence (specifically seed AI) is the most popular option among the hypotheses that would advance the singularity.{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Robin Hanson]]对人类智能增强表示怀疑，他写道，一旦提高人类智力的“唾手可得的”简单方法用尽，进一步的改进将变得越来越难。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/vc.html#hanson |title=Some Skepticism |date=1998 |first=Robin |last=Hanson |author-link=Robin Hanson |accessdate=April 8, 2020}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;即使有各种提高人类智能的方法的推测，但对非人类人工智能(特别是种子人工智能)的推测仍是所有能推进奇点的假说中最受欢迎的一个。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether or not an intelligence explosion occurs depends on three factors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available&amp;quot;&amp;gt;David Chalmers John Locke Lecture, 10 May, Exam Schools, Oxford, [http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/news/2010/david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available Presenting a philosophical analysis of the possibility of a technological singularity or &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; resulting from recursively self-improving AI] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115205558/http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/news/2010/david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available |date=2013-01-15 }}.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The first accelerating factor is the new intelligence enhancements made possible by each previous improvement. Contrariwise, as the intelligences become more advanced, further advances will become more and more complicated, possibly overcoming the advantage of increased intelligence. Each improvement should beget at least one more improvement, on average, for movement towards singularity to continue. Finally, the laws of physics will eventually prevent any further improvements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能爆炸是否发生取决于三个因素。第一个加速因素是以前的每一次改进都使新的智能增强成为可能。相反，随着智力的进步，进一步的发展将变得越来越复杂，可能会抵消智力增长的优势。平均来说，每一次改进都应该至少再带来一次改进，以便继续朝着奇点的方向发展。最后，物理定律最终会阻止任何进一步的改进。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are two logically independent, but mutually reinforcing, causes of intelligence improvements: increases in the speed of computation, and improvements to the [[algorithm]]s used.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;consc.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, David J. Chalmers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The former is predicted by [[Moore's law|Moore's Law]] and the forecasted improvements in hardware,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;itrs&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |title=ITRS |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929173755/http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |archivedate=2011-09-29 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and is comparatively similar to previous technological advances. But there are some AI researchers{{who|date=March 2017}} who believe software is more important than hardware.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|url=https://blog.chronicled.com/why-software-is-more-important-than-hardware-right-now-6a4b58feaa7c|title=Why Software Is More Important Than Hardware Right Now|last=Kulkarni|first=Ajit|date=2017-12-12|website=Chronicled|access-date=2019-02-23}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
智能改进有两个逻辑上独立但又相互加强的原因：计算速度的提高和使用的[[算法]]的改进。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;consc.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, David J. Chalmers]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 前者由[[摩尔定律|摩尔定律]]和硬件方面的预测改进进行预测，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;itrs&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |title=ITRS |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929173755/http://www.itrs.net/Links/2007ITRS/ExecSum2007.pdf |archivedate=2011-09-29 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 与以前的技术进步比较相似。但也有一些人工智能研究人员认为软件比硬件更重要。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|url=https://blog.chronicled.com/why-software-is-more-important-than-hardware-right-now-6a4b58feaa7c|title=Why Software Is More Important Than Hardware Right Now|last=Kulkarni|first=Ajit|date=2017-12-12|website=Chronicled|access-date=2019-02-23}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2017 email survey of authors with publications at the 2015 [[Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems|NeurIPS]] and [[International Conference on Machine Learning|ICML]] machine learning conferences asked  about the chance of an intelligence explosion. Of the respondents, 12% said it was &amp;quot;quite likely&amp;quot;, 17% said it was &amp;quot;likely&amp;quot;, 21% said it was &amp;quot;about even&amp;quot;, 24% said it was &amp;quot;unlikely&amp;quot; and 26% said it was &amp;quot;quite unlikely&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2017年对2015年[[神经信息处理系统会议| NeurIPS]]和[[International Conference on Machine Learning | ICML]]机器学习会议上发表文章的作者的电子邮件调查询问了智能爆炸的可能性。在受访者中，12% 的人认为“很有可能” ，17% 的人认为“有可能” ，21% 的人认为“可能性中等” ，24% 的人认为“不太可能” ，26% 的人认为“很不可能”。&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Speed improvements速度改进 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Both for human and artificial intelligence, hardware improvements increase the rate of future hardware improvements. Simply put,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arstechnica&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Moore's Law]] suggests that if the first doubling of speed took 18 months, the second would take 18 subjective months; or 9 external months, whereafter, four months, two months, and so on towards a speed singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html &amp;quot;Staring into the Singularity&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An upper limit on speed may eventually be reached, although it is unclear how high this would be.  Jeff Hawkins has stated that a self-improving computer system would inevitably run into upper limits on computing power: &amp;quot;in the end there are limits to how big and fast computers can run. We would end up in the same place; we'd just get there a bit faster. There would be no singularity.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hawkins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
无论对于人类智能还是人工智能，硬件改进都会提高未来硬件改进的速度。简单地说，&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;arstechnica&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;[[Moore's Law]]认为，如果第一次速度翻倍需要18个月，第二次则需要18个主观月；或者9个外部月，之后，4个月、2个月，以此类推，走向速度奇点&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity6&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html &amp;quot;Staring into the Singularity&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 速度的上限最终可能会达到，尽管还不清楚这会有多高。杰夫·霍金斯（Jeff Hawkins）曾表示，一个自我完善的计算机系统不可避免地会遇到计算能力的上限：“最终，计算机的运行速度和速度都是有限的。我们最终会在同一个地方；我们只会更快到达那里。不会有奇点。”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hawkins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is difficult to directly compare [[silicon]]-based hardware with [[neuron]]s. But {{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}} notes that computer [[speech recognition]] is approaching human capabilities, and that this capability seems to require 0.01% of the volume of the brain. This analogy suggests that modern computer hardware is within a few orders of magnitude of being as powerful as the human brain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
很难直接将基于[[硅]]的硬件与[[神经元]]相比较。但是{Harvtxt| Berglas|2008}指出计算机[[语音识别]]正在接近人类的能力，而且这种能力似乎需要0.01%的脑容量。这个类比表明，现代计算机硬件与人脑一样强大，只差几个数量级。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Exponential growth指数增长====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Martin Ford in The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
马丁 · 福特Martin Ford的《隧道中的灯光: 自动化，加速技术和未来经济The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future》&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:PPTMooresLawai.jpg|thumb|Ray Kurzweil writes that, due to [[paradigm shift]]s, a trend of exponential growth extends [[Moore's law]] from [[integrated circuits]] to earlier [[transistor]]s, [[vacuum tube]]s, [[relay]]s, and [[electromechanics|electromechanical]] computers. He predicts that the exponential growth will continue, and that in a few decades the computing power of all computers will exceed that of (&amp;quot;unenhanced&amp;quot;) human brains, with superhuman [[artificial intelligence]] appearing around the same time.|链接=Special:FilePath/PPTMooresLawai.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[图片：PPTMooresLawai.jpg|thumb | Ray Kurzweil写道，由于[[范式转换]]s，指数增长的趋势将[[摩尔定律]]从[[集成电路]]扩展到早期的[[晶体管]]、[[真空管]]、[[继电器]]和[[机电机械]]计算机。他预测，这种指数增长将继续下去，在几十年内，所有计算机的计算能力将超过（“未增强的”）人脑，同时出现超人[[人工智能]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Moore's Law over 120 Years.png|thumb|left|An updated version of Moore's law over 120 Years (based on [[Ray Kurzweil|Kurzweil's]] [[c:File:PPTMooresLawai.jpg|graph]]). The 7 most recent data points are all [[Nvidia GPUs|NVIDIA GPUs]].|链接=Special:FilePath/Moore's_Law_over_120_Years.png]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[资料图：摩尔超过120的定律年.png|拇指|左|摩尔定律120年的更新版本（基于[[Ray Kurzweil | Kurzweil's]][[c:文件：PPTMooresLawai.jpg|图形]]）。最近的7个数据点都是[[Nvidia GPU | Nvidia GPU]].]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The exponential growth in computing technology suggested by Moore's law is commonly cited as a reason to expect a singularity in the relatively near future, and a number of authors have proposed generalizations of Moore's law. Computer scientist and futurist [[Hans Moravec]] proposed in a 1998 book&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&amp;amp;pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; that the exponential growth curve could be extended back through earlier computing technologies prior to the [[integrated circuit]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
摩尔定律所建议的计算技术的指数增长通常被认为是在相对不远的将来出现奇点的一个理由，许多作者已经提出了摩尔定律的推广。计算机科学家和未来主义者[[Hans Moravec]]在1998年的一本书中提到&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&amp;amp;pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;指数型增长可以通过[[集成电路]]之前的早期计算技术进行延伸。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ray Kurzweil]] postulates a [[law of accelerating returns]] in which the speed of technological change (and more generally, all evolutionary processes&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;) increases exponentially, generalizing Moore's law in the same manner as Moravec's proposal, and also including material technology (especially as applied to [[nanotechnology]]), [[Medical Technology|medical technology]] and others.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity2&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Between 1986 and 2007, machines' application-specific capacity to compute information per capita roughly doubled every 14 months; the per capita capacity of the world's general-purpose computers has doubled every 18 months; the global telecommunication capacity per capita doubled every 34 months; and the world's storage capacity per capita doubled every 40 months.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 &amp;quot;The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information&amp;quot;], Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), [[Science (journal)|Science]], 332(6025), 60–65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; On the other hand, it has been argued that the global acceleration pattern having the 21st century singularity as its parameter should be characterized as [[Hyperbolic growth|hyperbolic]] rather than exponential.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8 ''The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures. A Big History Perspective''] (Springer, 2020)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ray Kurzweil]]假设了一个[[加速回报定律]]，其中技术变革的速度（更广泛地说，所有进化过程&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;）急剧增长。从1986年到2007年，摩尔定律以与莫拉维克提案相同的方式呈指数增长，并包括材料技术（尤其是应用于[[纳米技术]]）、[[医疗技术|医疗技术]]和其他技术，计算机计算人均信息的特定应用能力大约每14个月翻一番；世界通用计算机的人均容量每18个月翻一番；全球人均电信容量每34个月翻一番；世界人均存储容量每40个月翻一番。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 &amp;quot;The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information&amp;quot;], Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), [[Science (journal)|Science]], 332(6025), 60–65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 另一方面，有人认为，以21世纪奇点为参数的全球加速度模式应该被描述为[[双曲线增长|双曲]]而不是指数型&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8 ''The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures. A Big History Perspective''] (Springer, 2020)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil reserves the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; for a rapid increase in artificial intelligence (as opposed to other technologies), writing for example that &amp;quot;The Singularity will allow us to transcend these limitations of our biological bodies and brains ... There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity3&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; He also defines his predicted date of the singularity (2045) in terms of when he expects computer-based intelligences to significantly exceed the sum total of human brainpower, writing that advances in computing before that date &amp;quot;will not represent the Singularity&amp;quot; because they do &amp;quot;not yet correspond to a profound expansion of our intelligence.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;transformation&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
库兹韦尔将“奇点”一词用于描述人工智能(相对于其他技术)的快速增长，例如他写道: “奇点将允许我们超越生物体和大脑的局限……后奇点时代，人类与机器之间将不再有区别”。库兹韦尔相信奇点将在大约2045年之前出现，那时基于计算机的智能将明显超越人类脑力的总和，在这个日期之前计算机技术的进步“并不代表奇点”，因为它们“还不符合智慧的深刻扩展”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Accelerating change加速变革====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Main|Accelerating change}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Main |加速变革}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|thumb|According to Kurzweil, his [[logarithmic scale|logarithmic graph]] of 15 lists of [[paradigm shift]]s for key [[human history|historic]] events shows an [[exponential growth|exponential]] trend|链接=Special:FilePath/ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[图片：ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|thumb |根据Kurzweil的说法，他对关键的[[人类历史|历史]]事件的15个[[范式转移]]列表的[[对数标度|对数图]]显示了[[指数增长|指数]]趋势]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some singularity proponents argue its inevitability through extrapolation of past trends, especially those pertaining to shortening gaps between improvements to technology. In one of the first uses of the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in the context of technological progress, [[Stanislaw Ulam]] tells of a conversation with [[John von Neumann]] about accelerating change: &lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.&amp;lt;ref name=mathematical/&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些奇点论的支持者认为，通过对过去趋势的推断，特别是那些缩减技术进步的差距有关的趋势，奇点是不可避免的。技术进步的背景下，较早使用“奇点”一词时，Stanislaw Ulam讲述了与冯·诺伊曼关于加速变革的一次谈话：&lt;br /&gt;
一次围绕不断加速的技术进步和生活方式变化的对话，它使得人类历史上出现了一些基本的奇点，超过了这些奇点，人类的事务，如我们所知，将无法继续下去。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil claims that technological progress follows a pattern of&lt;br /&gt;
exponential growth, following what he calls the &amp;quot;law of&lt;br /&gt;
accelerating returns&amp;quot;. Whenever technology approaches a barrier,&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil writes, new technologies will surmount it. He predicts&lt;br /&gt;
paradigm shifts will become increasingly common, leading to&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;technological change so rapid and profound it represents a&lt;br /&gt;
rupture in the fabric of human history&amp;quot;.[43] Kurzweil believes that&lt;br /&gt;
the singularity will occur by approximately 2045.[38] His&lt;br /&gt;
predictions differ from Vinge's in that he predicts a gradual&lt;br /&gt;
ascent to the singularity, rather than Vinge's rapidly self�improving superhuman intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil claims that technological progress follows a pattern of&lt;br /&gt;
exponential growth, following what he calls the &amp;quot;law of&lt;br /&gt;
accelerating returns&amp;quot;. Whenever technology approaches a barrier,&lt;br /&gt;
Kurzweil writes, new technologies will surmount it. He predicts&lt;br /&gt;
paradigm shifts will become increasingly common, leading to&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;technological change so rapid and profound it represents a&lt;br /&gt;
rupture in the fabric of human history&amp;quot;.[43] Kurzweil believes that&lt;br /&gt;
the singularity will occur by approximately 2045.[38] His&lt;br /&gt;
predictions differ from Vinge's in that he predicts a gradual&lt;br /&gt;
ascent to the singularity, rather than Vinge's rapidly self-improving superhuman intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
库兹韦尔声称，技术进步遵循[[指数增长]的模式，遵循他所称的“&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;加速返回定律law of accelerating returns&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”。库兹韦尔写道，每当一项技术遇到障碍时，新技术就会出来克服这个障碍。他预测范式转变将变得越来越普遍，导致“技术变革非常迅速和深刻，以至于它代表着人类历史结构的一个断裂”。库兹韦尔相信奇点将在2045年之前出现。他和Vinge预测的不同点在于他预测了技术渐变的上升，而Vinge预测了一个快速自我更新的超人类智能。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oft-cited dangers include those commonly associated with molecular nanotechnology and genetic engineering. These threats are major issues for both singularity advocates and critics, and were the subject of Bill Joy's Wired magazine article &amp;quot;Why the future doesn't need us&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
经常被引用的危险包括那些与分子纳米技术和基因工程有关的技术。这些威胁是奇点论的倡导者和批评者面临的主要议题，也是比尔 · 乔伊《连线 Wired》杂志上所发表文章《为什么未来不需要我们Why the future doesn't need us》的主题。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Algorithm improvements算法改进 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some intelligence technologies, like &amp;quot;seed AI&amp;quot;,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Yampolskiy, Roman V 2015&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceA&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; may also have the potential to not just make themselves faster, but also more efficient, by modifying their [[source code]]. These improvements would make further improvements possible, which would make further improvements possible, and so on.&lt;br /&gt;
一些智能技术，比如“种子人工智能”，通过修改自己的源代码，可能使自己不仅更快，而且更高效。这些改进将使进一步的改进成为可能，以此类推。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mechanism for a recursively self-improving set of algorithms differs from an increase in raw computation speed in two ways. First, it does not require external influence: machines designing faster hardware would still require humans to create the improved hardware, or to program factories appropriately.{{citation needed|date=July 2017}} An AI rewriting its own source code could do so while contained in an [[AI box]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
递归自我改进算法集的机制在两个方面不同于原始计算速度的提高。首先，它不需要外部影响：设计更快的硬件的机器仍然需要人类来创造改进的硬件，或者对工厂进行适当的编程。AI可以既身处一个&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;AI盒 AI box&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;里面，又同时改进自己的 源代码。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second, as with [[Vernor Vinge]]’s conception of the singularity, it is much harder to predict the outcome. While speed increases seem to be only a quantitative difference from human intelligence, actual algorithm improvements would be qualitatively different. [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]] compares it to the changes that human intelligence brought: humans changed the world thousands of times more rapidly than evolution had done, and in totally different ways. Similarly, the evolution of life was a massive departure and acceleration from the previous geological rates of change, and improved intelligence could cause change to be as different again.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|author=Eliezer S. Yudkowsky |url=http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/power |title=Power of Intelligence |publisher=Yudkowsky |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第二，和Vernor Vinge关于奇点的概念一样，对结果的预测要困难得多。虽然速度的提高似乎与人类的智能只是数量上的区别，但实际的算法改进在质量上是不同的。Eliezer Yudkowsky将其与人类智能带来的变化相比较：人类改变世界的速度比进化速度快数千倍，而且方式完全不同。同样地，生命的进化与以前的地质变化又有着巨大的不同和加速，而智能的提高可能会使变化再次变得不同。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|author=Eliezer S. Yudkowsky |url=http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/power |title=Power of Intelligence |publisher=Yudkowsky |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are substantial dangers associated with an intelligence explosion singularity originating from a recursively self-improving set of algorithms. First, the goal structure of the AI might not be invariant under self-improvement, potentially causing the AI to optimise for something other than what was originally intended.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008 ]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;kurzweilai&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.kurzweilai.net/artificial-general-intelligence-now-is-the-time |title=Artificial General Intelligence: Now Is the Time |publisher=KurzweilAI |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Secondly, AIs could compete for the same scarce resources mankind uses to survive.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/10/05/paper-on-the-nature-of-self-improving-artificial-intelligence/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence.&amp;quot; Self-Aware Systems. 21 Jan. 2008. Web. 07 Jan. 2010.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|last1=Barrat|first1=James|title=Our Final Invention|year=2013|publisher=St. Martin's Press|location=New York|isbn=978-0312622374|pages=78–98|edition=First|chapter=6, &amp;quot;Four Basic Drives&amp;quot;|title-link=Our Final Invention}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are substantial dangers associated with an intelligence explosion singularity originating from a recursively self-improving set of algorithms. First, the goal structure of the AI might not be invariant under self-improvement, potentially causing the AI to optimise for something other than what was originally intended. Secondly, AIs could compete for the same scarce resources humankind uses to survive.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
由递归自我改进的算法集合引起的智能爆炸存在着巨大的危险。首先，人工智能的目标结构在自我完善的情况下可能不是一成不变的，这可能会导致人工智能对原本计划之外的东西进行优化。第二，人工智能可以与人类竞争赖以生存的稀缺资源。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While not actively malicious, there is no reason to think that AIs would actively promote human goals unless they could be programmed as such, and if not, might use the resources currently used to support mankind to promote its own goals, causing human extinction.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;kurzweilai.net&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.kurzweilai.net/max-more-and-ray-kurzweil-on-the-singularity-2 |title=Max More and Ray Kurzweil on the Singularity |publisher=KurzweilAI |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ReferenceB&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/riskintro/index.html |title=Concise Summary &amp;amp;#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.nickbostrom.com/fut/evolution.html Bostrom, Nick, The Future of Human Evolution, Death and Anti-Death: Two Hundred Years After Kant, Fifty Years After Turing, ed. Charles Tandy, pp. 339–371, 2004, Ria University Press.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While not actively malicious, there is no reason to think that AIs would actively promote human goals unless they could be programmed as such, and if not, might use the resources currently used to support humankind to promote its own goals, causing human extinction.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然不是恶意的，但没有理由认为人工智能会积极促进人类目标的实现，除非这些目标可以被编程，否则，它们就可能利用目前用于支持人类的资源来促进自己的目标，从而导致人类灭绝。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Carl Shulman]] and [[Anders Sandberg]] suggest that algorithm improvements may be the limiting factor for a singularity; while hardware efficiency tends to improve at a steady pace, software innovations are more unpredictable and may be bottlenecked by serial, cumulative research. They suggest that in the case of a software-limited singularity, intelligence explosion would actually become more likely than with a hardware-limited singularity, because in the software-limited case, once human-level AI is developed, it could run serially on very fast hardware, and the abundance of cheap hardware would make AI research less constrained.&amp;lt;ref name=ShulmanSandberg2010&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Shulman|first=Carl|author2=Anders Sandberg |title=Implications of a Software-Limited Singularity|journal=ECAP10: VIII European Conference on Computing and Philosophy|year=2010|url=http://intelligence.org/files/SoftwareLimited.pdf|accessdate=17 May 2014|editor1-first=Klaus|editor1-last=Mainzer}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An abundance of accumulated hardware that can be unleashed once the software figures out how to use it has been called &amp;quot;computing overhang.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;MuehlhauserSalamon2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book|last=Muehlhauser|first=Luke|title=Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment|year=2012|publisher=Springer|chapter-url=http://intelligence.org/files/IE-EI.pdf|author2=Anna Salamon |editor=Amnon Eden |editor2=Johnny Søraker |editor3=James H. Moor |editor4=Eric Steinhart|chapter=Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carl Shulman and Anders Sandberg suggest that algorithm improvements may be the limiting factor for a singularity; while hardware efficiency tends to improve at a steady pace, software innovations are more unpredictable and may be bottlenecked by serial, cumulative research. They suggest that in the case of a software-limited singularity, intelligence explosion would actually become more likely than with a hardware-limited singularity, because in the software-limited case, once human-level AI is developed, it could run serially on very fast hardware, and the abundance of cheap hardware would make AI research less constrained. An abundance of accumulated hardware that can be unleashed once the software figures out how to use it has been called &amp;quot;computing overhang.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carl Shulman和Anders Sandberg认为，算法改进可能是奇点的限制因素；虽然硬件效率趋于稳步提高，但软件创新更不具可预测性，可能会受到连续、累积的研究的限制。他们认为，智能爆炸在受软件限制的奇点情况中发生的可能性实际上比在受硬件限制的奇点更可能发生，因为在软件受限的情况下，一旦开发出人类水平的人工智能，它可以在非常快的硬件上连续运行，廉价硬件的丰富将使人工智能研究不那么受限制。一旦软件知道如何使用硬件，大量的硬件就可以被释放出来，这被称为“计算过剩”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Criticisms危机===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some critics, like philosopher [[Hubert Dreyfus]], assert that computers or machines cannot achieve [[human intelligence]], while others, like physicist [[Stephen Hawking]], hold that the definition of intelligence is irrelevant if the net result is the same.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;dreyfus&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些批评者，如哲学家Hubert Dreyfus断言计算机或机器无法实现人类智能，而其他人，如物理学家史蒂芬·霍金，则认为如果最终结果是相同的，那么智力的定义其实无关紧要。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An early description of the idea was made in John Wood Campbell Jr.'s 1932 short story &amp;quot;The last evolution&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
早在1932年，约翰·W·坎贝尔的短篇小说《最后的进化》中就对这个想法进行了描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Psychologist [[Steven Pinker]] stated in 2008:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
心理学家史蒂芬·平克在2008年指出：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|... There is not the slightest reason to believe in a coming singularity. The fact that you can visualize a future in your imagination is not evidence that it is likely or even possible. Look at domed cities, jet-pack commuting, underwater cities, mile-high buildings, and nuclear-powered automobiles—all staples of futuristic fantasies when I was a child that have never arrived. Sheer processing power is not a pixie dust that magically solves all your problems. ...&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
没有一点理由相信奇点即将到来。你可以想象一个未来并不能证明它是可能出现的。看看穹顶城市、喷气式飞行器通勤、水下城市、一英里高的建筑和核动力汽车：这些都是我小时候未来主义幻想的主要内容，然而它们都没有成真。纯粹的计算能力不是能神奇地解决所有问题的仙尘。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[University of California, Berkeley]], [[philosophy]] professor [[John Searle]] writes:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[加州大学伯克利分校]，哲学教授约翰·塞尔写道：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{blockquote|[Computers] have, literally ..., no [[intelligence]], no [[motivation]], no [[autonomy]], and no agency.  We design them to behave as if they had certain sorts of [[psychology]], but there is no psychological reality to the corresponding processes or behavior. ...  [T]he machinery has no beliefs, desires, [or] motivations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[John R. Searle]], “What Your Computer Can’t Know”, ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', 9 October 2014, p. 54.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
毫不夸张地说，计算机没有智能，没有动机，没有自主，也没有主体。我们设计他们，使他们的行为好像表示他们有某种心理，但其实没有对应这些过程或行为的心理现实……机器没有信仰、愿望或动机。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Martin Ford (author)|Martin Ford]] in ''The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;thelightsinthetunnel&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; postulates a &amp;quot;technology paradox&amp;quot; in that before the singularity could occur most routine jobs in the economy would be automated, since this would require a level of technology inferior to that of the singularity. This would cause massive unemployment and plummeting consumer demand, which in turn would destroy the incentive to invest in the technologies that would be required to bring about the Singularity. Job displacement is increasingly no longer limited to work traditionally considered to be &amp;quot;routine.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Martin Ford在“&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;隧道中的灯光：自动化、加速技术和未来经济The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”中提出了一个“技术悖论”：在奇点出现之前，经济体中的大多数日常工作都将自动化，因为这所需的技术水平低于奇点。这将导致大规模的失业和消费者需求的骤降，这反过来又会破坏投资于实现奇点所需技术的动机。取代工作将不再局限于传统上被认为是“例行公事”的工作。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Theodore Modis]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; and [[Jonathan Huebner]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological14&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; argue that the rate of technological innovation has not only ceased to rise, but is actually now declining. Evidence for this decline is that the rise in computer [[clock rate]]s is slowing, even while Moore's prediction of exponentially increasing circuit density continues to hold. This is due to excessive heat build-up from the chip, which cannot be dissipated quickly enough to prevent the chip from melting when operating at higher speeds. Advances in speed may be possible in the future by virtue of more power-efficient CPU designs and multi-cell processors.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; While Kurzweil used Modis' resources, and Modis' work was around accelerating change, Modis distanced himself from Kurzweil's thesis of a &amp;quot;technological singularity&amp;quot;, claiming that it lacks scientific rigor.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Theodore Modis]]和[[Jonathan Huebner]]认为技术创新的速度不仅停止上升，而且现在实际上正在下降。这种下降的证据是计算机时钟速率的增长正在放缓，尽管摩尔关于电路密度指数增长的预测仍然成立。这是由于芯片产生过多的热量，当它们以较高的速度运行时，这些热量不能足够快地散去，可能导致芯片熔化。在未来，随着更节能的CPU设计和多单元处理器的发明，速度的提高可能实现。虽然库兹韦尔利用了莫迪斯的资源，而莫迪斯的工作是围绕加速变革展开的，但莫迪斯却与库兹韦尔的“技术奇点”理论保持距离，声称该理论缺乏科学严谨性。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a detailed empirical accounting, ''The Progress of Computing'', [[William Nordhaus]] argued that, prior to 1940, computers followed the much slower growth of a traditional industrial economy, thus rejecting extrapolations of Moore's law to 19th-century computers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal | doi=10.1017/S0022050707000058|title = Two Centuries of Productivity Growth in Computing| journal=The Journal of Economic History| volume=67|pages = 128–159|year = 2007|last1 = Nordhaus|first1 = William D.| citeseerx=10.1.1.330.1871}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在一份详细的实证记录“&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;计算的进步The Progress of Computing&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”中，[[William Nordhaus]]认为，在1940年以前，计算机遵循传统工业经济增长缓慢的趋势，因此拒绝了摩尔定律对19世纪计算机的推断。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a 2007 paper, Schmidhuber stated that the frequency of subjectively &amp;quot;notable events&amp;quot; appears to be approaching a 21st-century singularity, but cautioned readers to take such plots of subjective events with a grain of salt: perhaps differences in memory of recent and distant events could create an illusion of accelerating change where none exists.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Schmidhuber, Jürgen. &amp;quot;New millennium AI and the convergence of history.&amp;quot; Challenges for computational intelligence. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. 15–35.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在2007年的一篇论文中，Schmidhuber指出主观上“明显事件”的频率似乎正在接近21世纪的奇点，但他提醒读者，对这些主观事件的情节要持保留态度：也许对最近和遥远的事件记忆上的差异，可能会造成一种在根本不存在的情况下加速变化的错觉。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paul Allen argued the opposite of accelerating returns, the complexity brake; the more progress science makes towards understanding intelligence, the more difficult it becomes to make additional progress. A study of the number of patents shows that human creativity does not show accelerating returns, but in fact, as suggested by Joseph Tainter in his The Collapse of Complex Societies, a law of diminishing returns. The number of patents per thousand peaked in the period from 1850 to 1900, and has been declining since.[60] The growth of complexity eventually becomes self-limiting, and leads to a widespread &amp;quot;general systems collapse&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Paul Allen]] argued the opposite of accelerating returns, the complexity brake;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; the more progress science makes towards understanding intelligence, the more difficult it becomes to make additional progress.  A study of the number of patents shows that human creativity does not show accelerating returns, but in fact, as suggested by [[Joseph Tainter]] in his ''The Collapse of Complex Societies'',&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;university&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; a law of [[diminishing returns]]. The number of patents per thousand peaked in the period from 1850 to 1900, and has been declining since.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological14&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;!--[Previous comment: is this from 'Collapse of Complex Societies' or some other source? Perhaps this refers to Jonathan Huebner's patent analysis mentioned in the earlier paragraph? If so, would be better to integrate this part with that paragraph, since the earlier paragraph mentions that Huebner's analysis has been criticized whereas this paragraph just seems to present it as fact --&amp;gt; The growth of complexity eventually becomes self-limiting, and leads to a widespread &amp;quot;general systems collapse&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Paul Allen认为，与加速回报相反的是复杂性制动器；科学在理解智力方面取得的进展越多，就越难取得更多的进展。一项对专利数量的研究表明，人类的创造力并没有表现出加速的回报，但事实上，正如Joseph Tainter 在他的《复杂社会的崩溃》中所指出的，有一个&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;收益递减定律a law of diminishing returns&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;的限制。每千件专利的数量在1850年至1900年期间达到顶峰，此后一直在下降。复杂性的增长最终会自我限制，并导致广泛的“一般系统崩溃”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jaron Lanier]] refutes the idea that the Singularity is inevitable. He states: &amp;quot;I do not think the technology is creating itself. It's not an autonomous process.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |author=Jaron Lanier |title=Who Owns the Future? |work=New York: Simon &amp;amp; Schuster |date=2013 |url=http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=JCB8D9LA&amp;amp;tocp=59}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He goes on to assert: &amp;quot;The reason to believe in human agency over technological determinism is that you can then have an economy where people earn their own way and invent their own lives. If you structure a society on ''not'' emphasizing individual human agency, it's the same thing operationally as denying people clout, dignity, and self-determination ... to embrace [the idea of the Singularity] would be a celebration of bad data and bad politics.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;lanier&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jaron Lanier refutes the idea that the Singularity is inevitable. He states: &amp;quot;I do not think the technology is creating itself. It's not an autonomous process.&amp;quot; He goes on to assert: &amp;quot;The reason to believe in human agency over technological determinism is that you can then have an economy where people earn their own way and invent their own lives. If you structure a society on not emphasizing individual human agency, it's the same thing operationally as denying people clout, dignity, and self-determination ... to embrace [the idea of the Singularity] would be a celebration of bad data and bad&lt;br /&gt;
politics.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Jaron Lanier]]驳斥了奇点不可避免的观点。他说：“我不认为这项技术是在创造自我。这不是一个自主的过程。”他接着断言：“相信人的能动性而不是技术决定论的原因是，这样你就可以有一个经济体，人们可以自己挣钱，创造自己的生活。如果你构建一个不强调个体能动性的社会，在操作上这个社会同样会否认人们的影响力、尊严和自决权……接受奇点的想法将是对糟糕的数据和糟糕的政治的庆祝。”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Economics|Economist]] [[Robert J. Gordon]], in ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'' (2016), points out that measured economic growth has slowed around 1970 and slowed even further since the [[financial crisis of 2007–2008]], and argues that the economic data show no trace of a coming Singularity as imagined by mathematician [[I.J. Good]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[William D. Nordhaus]], &amp;quot;Why Growth Will Fall&amp;quot; (a review of [[Robert J. Gordon]], ''The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War'', Princeton University Press, 2016, {{ISBN|978-0691147727}}, 762 pp., $39.95), ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', vol. LXIII, no. 13 (August 18, 2016), p. 68.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
经济学家Robert J.Gordon在&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;《美国经济增长的兴衰：内战以来的美国生活水平The Rise and Fall of American Growth:  The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;》（2016）中指出，据测量，经济增长在1970年左右放缓，自2007-2008年金融危机以来甚至进一步放缓，并认为，经济数据没有显示出数学家I.J.Good所想象的未来奇点的踪迹。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition to general criticisms of the singularity concept, several critics have raised issues with Kurzweil's iconic chart. One line of criticism is that a [[Log-log plot|log-log]] chart of this nature is inherently biased toward a straight-line result. Others identify selection bias in the points that Kurzweil chooses to use. For example, biologist [[PZ Myers]] points out that many of the early evolutionary &amp;quot;events&amp;quot; were picked arbitrarily.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Kurzweil has rebutted this by charting evolutionary events from 15 neutral sources, and showing that they fit a straight line on [[:File:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|a log-log chart]]. ''[[The Economist]]'' mocked the concept with a graph extrapolating that the number of blades on a razor, which has increased over the years from one to as many as five, will increase ever-faster to infinity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
除了对奇点概念的一般性批评外，一些批评者还对库兹韦尔的标志性图表提出了质疑。一种批评是，一个对数的图表天然地偏向于直线的结果。其他人批评库兹韦尔在数据点的使用上的选择偏差。例如，生物学家P. Z. Myers指出，许多早期的进化事件都是随意挑选的。库兹韦尔反驳了这一点，他绘制了15个中立来源的进化事件图，并表明它们都符合一条直线.《经济学人》用一张图表来嘲讽这个概念：一把剃须刀上的刀片数在过去几年里从一个增加到多达五个，并且它将以更快的速度增长到无穷大。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Potential impacts潜在影响==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dramatic changes in the rate of economic growth have occurred in the past because of some technological advancement. Based on population growth, the economy doubled every 250,000 years from the [[Paleolithic]] era until the [[Neolithic Revolution]]. The new agricultural economy doubled every 900 years, a remarkable increase. In the current era, beginning with the Industrial Revolution, the world's economic output doubles every fifteen years, sixty times faster than during the agricultural era. If the rise of superhuman intelligence causes a similar revolution, argues Robin Hanson, one would expect the economy to double at least quarterly and possibly on a weekly basis.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Hanson&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url=http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/robotics-software/economics-of-the-singularity |title=Economics Of The Singularity |author=Robin Hanson |work=IEEE Spectrum Special Report: The Singularity }} &amp;amp; [http://hanson.gmu.edu/longgrow.pdf Long-Term Growth As A Sequence of Exponential Modes]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
过去由于一些技术进步，经济增长率发生了巨大变化。以人口增长为基础，从[[旧石器时代]]到[[新石器时代]]，经济每25万年翻一番。新农业经济每900年翻一番，增长显著。在当今时代，从工业革命开始，世界经济产出每15年翻一番，比农业时代快60倍。罗宾·汉森Robin Hanson认为，如果超人智能的兴起引发了类似的革命，人们会预期经济至少每季度翻一番，甚至可能每周翻一番。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Uncertainty and risk不确定性和风险===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Existential risk from artificial general intelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步|来自人工通用智能的存在风险}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;technological singularity&amp;quot; reflects the idea that such change may happen suddenly, and that it is difficult to predict how the resulting new world would operate.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation|last=Yudkowsky |first=Eliezer |title=Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk |journal=Global Catastrophic Risks |editor-last=Bostrom |editor-first=Nick |editor2-last=Cirkovic |editor2-first=Milan |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |url=http://singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |bibcode=2008gcr..book..303Y |isbn=978-0-19-857050-9 |page=303 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080807132337/http://www.singinst.org/AIRisk.pdf |archivedate=2008-08-07 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;theuncertainfuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; It is unclear whether an intelligence explosion resulting in a singularity would be beneficial or harmful, or even an [[Existential risk|existential threat]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Because AI is a major factor in singularity risk, a number of organizations pursue a technical theory of aligning AI goal-systems with human values, including the [[Future of Humanity Institute]], the [[Machine Intelligence Research Institute]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;positive-and-negative&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; the [[Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence]], and the [[Future of Life Institute]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;technological singularity&amp;quot; reflects the idea that such change may happen suddenly, and that it is difficult to predict how the resulting new world would operate. It is unclear whether an intelligence explosion resulting in a singularity would be beneficial or harmful, or even an existential threat. Because AI is a major factor in singularity risk, a number of organizations pursue a technical theory of aligning AI goal-systems with human values, including the Future of Humanity Institute, the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, the Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of Life Institute&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“技术奇点”一词反映出这样的变化可能突然发生，而且很难预测由此产生的新世界将如何运作。目前尚不清楚导致奇点的智能爆炸是有益还是有害，甚至是否具有存在威胁。由于人工智能是奇点风险的一个主要因素，许多组织追求一种将人工智能的目标系统与人类价值观相协调的技术理论，这些组织包括&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;人类未来研究所Future of Humanity Institute&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;，&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;机器智能研究所the Machine Intelligence Research Institute&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;， &amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;人类兼容人工智能中心the Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;和&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;未来生命研究所the Future of Life Institute&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Physicist [[Stephen Hawking]] said in 2014 that &amp;quot;Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; Hawking believed that in the coming decades, AI could offer &amp;quot;incalculable benefits and risks&amp;quot; such as &amp;quot;technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014/&amp;gt; Hawking suggested that artificial intelligence should be taken more seriously and that more should be done to prepare for the singularity:&amp;lt;ref name=hawking_2014&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-transcendence-looks-at-the-implications-of-artificial-intelligence--but-are-we-taking-ai-seriously-enough-9313474.html |title=Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of artificial intelligence - but are we taking AI seriously enough?'  |work=[[The Independent]] |author=Stephen Hawking |date=1 May 2014 |accessdate=May 5, 2014|author-link=Stephen Hawking }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Physicist Stephen Hawking said in 2014 that &amp;quot;Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks.&amp;quot; Hawking believed that in the coming decades, AI could offer &amp;quot;incalculable benefits and risks&amp;quot; such as &amp;quot;technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand.&amp;quot; Hawking suggested that artificial intelligence should be taken more seriously and that more should be done to prepare for the singularity:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
物理学家史蒂芬·霍金在2014年表示，“成功创造人工智能将是人类历史上最大的事件。不幸的是，这也可能是最后一次，除非我们学会如何规避风险。” 霍金认为，在未来几十年里，人工智能可能会带来“无法估量的利益和风险”，例如“技术超越金融市场，超越人类研究人员，超越人类领袖，开发我们甚至无法理解的武器”。&lt;br /&gt;
霍金建议，人们应该更认真地对待人工智能，并应该做更多的工作来为奇点做准备：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|So, facing possible futures of incalculable benefits and risks, the experts are surely doing everything possible to ensure the best outcome, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message saying, &amp;quot;We'll arrive in a few decades,&amp;quot; would we just reply, &amp;quot;OK, call us when you get here – we'll leave the lights on&amp;quot;? Probably not – but this is more or less what is happening with AI.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, facing possible futures of incalculable benefits and risks, the experts are surely doing everything possible to ensure the best outcome, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message saying, &amp;quot;We'll arrive in a few decades,&amp;quot; would we just reply, &amp;quot;OK, call us when you get here – we'll leave the lights on&amp;quot;? Probably not – but this is more or less what is happening with AI.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
所以，面对未来可能出现的无法估量的利益和风险，专家们肯定会尽一切可能确保最好的结果，对吗？错了。如果一个优越的外星文明给我们发了一条信息说，“我们几十年后就会到达”，我们会不会只回答，“好吧，你到了这里就打电话给我们——我们会关灯的”？可能不是——但这或多或少就是人工智能所发生的事情。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}} claims that there is no direct evolutionary motivation for an AI to be friendly to humans. Evolution has no inherent tendency to produce outcomes valued by humans, and there is little reason to expect an arbitrary optimisation process to promote an outcome desired by mankind, rather than inadvertently leading to an AI behaving in a way not intended by its creators.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom8&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Nick Bostrom, [http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html &amp;quot;Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;], in ''Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making in Humans and in Artificial Intelligence'', Vol. 2, ed. I. Smit et al., Int. Institute of Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics, 2003, pp. 12–17&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]: [http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120611190606/http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf |date=2012-06-11 }}. Draft for a publication in ''Global Catastrophic Risk'' from August 31, 2006, retrieved July 18, 2011 (PDF file)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst9&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/06/11/the-stamp-collecting-device/ The Stamp Collecting Device, Nick Hay]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Anders Sandberg]] has also elaborated on this scenario, addressing various common counter-arguments.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;aleph&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2011/02/why_we_should_fear_the_paperclipper.html 'Why we should fear the Paperclipper'], 2011-02-14 entry of Sandberg's blog 'Andart'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; AI researcher [[Hugo de Garis]] suggests that artificial intelligences may simply eliminate the human race [[instrumental convergence|for access to scarce resources]],&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems.com&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems10&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., &amp;quot;The Basic AI Drives.&amp;quot; Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and humans would be powerless to stop them.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;forbes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;de Garis, Hugo. [https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/cosmist-terran-cyborgist-opinions-contributors-artificial-intelligence-09-hugo-de-garis.html &amp;quot;The Coming Artilect War&amp;quot;], Forbes.com, 22 June 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Alternatively, AIs developed under evolutionary pressure to promote their own survival could outcompete humanity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom7&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Berglas (2008) claims that there is no direct evolutionary motivation for an AI to be friendly to  humans. Evolution has no inherent tendency to produce outcomes valued by humans, and there is little reason to expect an arbitrary optimisation process to promote an outcome desired by  humankind, rather than inadvertently leading to an AI behaving in a way not intended by its  creators.[76][77][78] Anders Sandberg has also elaborated on this scenario, addressing various  common counter-arguments.[79] AI researcher Hugo de Garis suggests that artificial intelligences  may simply eliminate the human race for access to scarce resources,[48][80] and humans would be  powerless to stop them.[81] Alternatively, AIs developed under evolutionary pressure to promote their  own survival could outcompete humanity.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}}声称没有直接的进化动机促使人工智能对人类友好。进化并不倾向于产生人类所重视的结果，也没有理由期望一个任意的优化过程会促进人类所期望的结果，或者期望人工智能不经意地以一种不是其创造者意图的方式行动。Anders Sandberg也详细阐述了这种情况，讨论了各种常见的反驳意见。人工智能研究员Hugo de Garis认为，人工智能可能会直接消灭人类以获取稀缺资源，并且人类将无力阻止它们。或者，在进化压力下发展起来的人工智能，为了促进自身的生存可能打败人类。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bostrom (2002) discusses human extinction scenarios, and lists superintelligence as a possible cause:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bostrom(2002)讨论了人类灭绝的场景，并列举超级智能作为一个可能的原因:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person who asked the question.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the  matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person  who asked the question.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
当我们创造出第一个超级智能实体时，我们可能会犯错并给它一个导致人类毁灭的目标（假设它巨大的智力优势赋予它这样做的力量）。例如，我们可能会错误地将子目标提升为超级目标。我们告诉它去解决一个数学问题，然后它将太阳系中的所有物质变成一个巨大的计算装置，在这个过程中杀死了提出这个问题的人。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]], a significant problem in AI safety is that unfriendly artificial intelligence is likely to be much easier to create than friendly AI. While both require large advances in recursive optimisation process design, friendly AI also requires the ability to make goal structures invariant under self-improvement (or the AI could transform itself into something unfriendly) and a goal structure that aligns with human values and does not automatically destroy the human race. An unfriendly AI, on the other hand, can optimize for an arbitrary goal structure, which does not need to be invariant under self-modification.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singinst12&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html Coherent Extrapolated Volition, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky, May 2004 ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100815055725/http://singinst.org/upload/CEV.html |date=2010-08-15 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; {{harvtxt|Bill Hibbard|2014}} proposes an AI design that avoids several dangers including self-delusion,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JAGI2012&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| journal=Journal of Artificial General Intelligence| year=2012| volume=3| issue=1| title=Model-Based Utility Functions| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.| doi=10.2478/v10229-011-0013-5| page=1|arxiv = 1111.3934 |bibcode = 2012JAGI....3....1H | s2cid=8434596}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; unintended instrumental actions,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;selfawaresystems&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_56.pdf  Avoiding Unintended AI Behaviors.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle. [http://intelligence.org/2012/12/19/december-2012-newsletter/ This paper won the Machine Intelligence Research Institute's 2012 Turing Prize for the Best AGI Safety Paper].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and corruption of the reward generator.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12a&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; He also discusses social impacts of AI&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JET2008&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation| url=http://jetpress.org/v17/hibbard.htm| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology| year=2008| volume=17| title=The Technology of Mind and a New Social Contract| first=Bill| last=Hibbard| postscript=.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and testing AI.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;AGI-12b&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://agi-conference.org/2012/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/paper_57.pdf  Decision Support for Safe AI Design|.] Bill Hibbard. 2012 proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, eds. Joscha Bach, Ben Goertzel and Matthew Ikle.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His 2001 book ''[[Super-Intelligent Machines]]'' advocates the need for public education about AI and public control over AI. It also proposed a simple design that was vulnerable to corruption of the reward generator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Eliezer Yudkowsky, a significant problem in AI safety is that unfriendly artificial  intelligence is likely to be much easier to create than friendly AI. While both require large advances in recursive optimisation process design, friendly AI also requires the ability to make goal structures  invariant under self-improvement (or the AI could transform itself into something unfriendly) and a goal structure that aligns with human values and does not automatically destroy the human race. An unfriendly AI, on the other hand, can optimize for an arbitrary goal structure, which does not need to  be invariant under self-modification. Bill Hibbard (2014) proposes an AI design that avoids  several dangers including self-delusion, unintended instrumental actions, and corruption  of the reward generator.[84] He also discusses social impacts of AI and testing AI. His 2001  book Super-Intelligent Machines advocates the need for public education about AI and public control over AI. It also proposed a simple design that was vulnerable to corruption of the reward generator.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
按照[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]的观点，人工智能安全的一个重要问题是，不友好的人工智能可能比友好的人工智能更容易创建。虽然两者都需要递归优化过程的进步，但友好的人工智能还需要目标结构在自我改进过程中保持不变（否则人工智能可以将自己转变成不友好的东西），以及一个与人类价值观相一致且不会自动毁灭人类的目标结构。另一方面，一个不友好的人工智能可以针对任意的目标结构进行优化，而目标结构不需要在自我改进过程中保持不变。Bill Hibbard (2014)提出了一种人工智能设计，可以避免包括自欺欺人、无意的工具性行为和奖励机制的腐败等一些危险。他还讨论了人工智能和人工智能测试的社会影响。他在2001年出版的“&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;超级智能机器Super-Intelligent Machines&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”一书中提倡对人工智能的公共教育和公众控制。&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#cd32cd&amp;quot;&amp;gt;该书还提出了一个简单的易受奖励机制的腐败影响的设计。It also proposed a simple design that was vulnerable to corruption of the reward generator.&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Next step of sociobiological evolution社会生物进化的下一步===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Further|Sociocultural evolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{社会文化进化}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Major Evolutionary Transitions digital.jpg|thumb|upright=1.6|Schematic Timeline of Information and Replicators in the Biosphere: Gillings et al.'s &amp;quot;[[The Major Transitions in Evolution|major evolutionary transitions]]&amp;quot; in information processing.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Major_Evolutionary_Transitions_digital.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[档案：主要进化过渡数字.jpg|thumb |直立=1.6 |生物圈中信息和复制因子的示意时间线：Gillings等人在信息处理中的“[[进化中的主要转变|主要进化转变]]”。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Biological vs. digital information.jpg|thumb|Amount of digital information worldwide (5{{e|21}} bytes) versus human genome information worldwide (10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;19&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; bytes) in 2014.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Biological_vs._digital_information.jpg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[档案：生物vs。数字信息.jpg|2014年，全球数字信息总量（5{e | 21}字节）与全球人类基因组信息（10&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;19&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;字节）的对比。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]][[Index.php?title=技术奇点#cite%20note-InfoBiosphere2016-89|&amp;lt;span class=&amp;quot;mw-reflink-text&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[89]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the technological singularity is usually seen as a sudden event, some scholars argue the current speed of change already fits this description.{{citation needed|date=April 2018}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
虽然技术奇点通常被视为一个突发事件，但一些学者认为目前的变化速度已经符合这种描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, some argue that we are already in the midst of a [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|major evolutionary transition]] that merges technology, biology, and society. Digital technology has infiltrated the fabric of human society to a degree of indisputable and often life-sustaining dependence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
此外，有人认为，我们已经处在一个融合了技术、生物学和社会学的&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;进化巨变major evolutionary transition&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;之中。数字技术已经无可争辩地渗透到人类社会的结构中，而且生命的维持常常依赖数字技术。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 2016 article in ''[[Trends in Ecology &amp;amp; Evolution]]'' argues that &amp;quot;humans already embrace fusions of biology and technology. We spend most of our waking time communicating through digitally mediated channels... we trust [[artificial intelligence]] with our lives through [[Anti-lock braking system|antilock braking in cars]] and [[autopilot]]s in planes... With one in three marriages in America beginning online, digital algorithms are also taking a role in human pair bonding and reproduction&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2016年发表在&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;生态学和进化进展Trends in Ecology and Evolution&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”的一篇文章认为，“人类已经接受了生物和技术的融合。我们清醒时大部分时间都是通过数字媒介进行交流的……我们拿性命相信汽车上的&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;防抱死制动系统Anti-lock braking system&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;和飞机上的&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;自动巡航模式autopilot&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;……在美国，三分之一的婚姻都是在网络上开始的，数字算法也在人类配对和繁殖中也发挥了作用”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article further argues that from the perspective of the [[evolution]], several previous [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|Major Transitions in Evolution]] have transformed life through innovations in information storage and replication ([[RNA]], [[DNA]], [[multicellularity]], and [[culture]] and [[language]]). In the current stage of life's evolution, the carbon-based biosphere has generated a [[cognitive system]] (humans) capable of creating technology that will result in a comparable [[The Major Transitions in Evolution|evolutionary transition]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
文章进一步指出，从[[进化]]的角度来看，以前的几次进化巨变通过创新信息存储和复制的方式（如RNA、DNA、多细胞性、文化和语言的出现）来改变生命。在生命进化的当前阶段，以碳为基础的生物圈已经产生了一个能够创造出可以与前几次巨变相媲美的技术的认知系统（人类）。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The digital information created by humans has reached a similar magnitude to biological information in the biosphere. Since the 1980s, the quantity of digital information stored has doubled about every 2.5 years, reaching about 5 [[zettabyte]]s in 2014 (5{{e|21}} bytes).{{Citation needed|date=April 2019}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
人类创造的数字信息已经达到了与生物圈中生物信息相似的程度。自20世纪80年代以来，存储的数字信息量大约每2.5年翻一番，2014年达到约5泽字节（5e21字节）。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In biological terms, there are 7.2&amp;amp;nbsp;billion humans on the planet, each having a genome of 6.2&amp;amp;nbsp;billion nucleotides. Since one byte can encode four nucleotide pairs, the individual genomes of every human on the planet could be encoded by approximately 1{{e|19}} bytes. The digital realm stored 500 times more information than this in 2014 (see figure). The total amount of DNA contained in all of the cells on Earth is estimated to be about 5.3{{e|37}} base pairs, equivalent to 1.325{{e|37}} bytes of information.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在生物学方面，地球上有72亿人，每个人的基因组有62亿个核苷酸。由于一个字节可以编码四个核苷酸对，地球上每个人类的个体基因组可以编码大约1{e | 19}字节。2014年，数字领域存储的信息是这个数字的500倍（见图）。据估计，地球上所有细胞所含的DNA总量约为5.3{e | 37}碱基对，相当于1.325{e | 37}字节的信息。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If growth in digital storage continues at its current rate of 30–38% compound annual growth per year,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HilbertLopez2011&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; it will rival the total information content contained in all of the DNA in all of the cells on Earth in about 110 years. This would represent a doubling of the amount of information stored in the biosphere across a total time period of just 150 years&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;InfoBiosphere2016&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite journal |url=http://escholarship.org/uc/item/38f4b791 |doi=10.1016/j.tree.2015.12.013|pmid=26777788|title=Information in the Biosphere: Biological and Digital Worlds|journal=Trends in Ecology &amp;amp; Evolution|volume=31|issue=3|pages=180–189|year=2016|last1=Kemp|first1=D. J.|last2=Hilbert|first2=M.|last3=Gillings|first3=M. R.}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如果数字存储以目前每年30-38%的复合年增长率继续增长，它将在大约110年内与地球上所有细胞中的所有DNA所包含的信息总量相抗衡。这将意味着在仅仅150年的时间里，生物圈中储存的信息量翻了一番”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Implications for human society对人类社会的影响===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{further|Artificial intelligence in fiction}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{进一步{小说中的人工智能}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In February 2009, under the auspices of the [[Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence]] (AAAI), [[Eric Horvitz]] chaired a meeting of leading computer scientists, artificial intelligence researchers and roboticists at Asilomar in Pacific Grove, California. The goal was to discuss the potential impact of the hypothetical possibility that robots could become self-sufficient and able to make their own decisions. They discussed the extent to which computers and robots might be able to acquire [[autonomy]], and to what degree they could use such abilities to pose threats or hazards.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009年2月，在&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;人工智能促进协会Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, AAAI&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;的主持下，[[Eric Horvitz]]在加利福尼亚州Pacific Grove的Asilomar主持了一次由主要计算机科学家、人工智能研究人员和机器人学家组成的会议。其目的是讨论，机器人如果能够自给自足并能够做出自己决定，则其潜在影响是什么。他们讨论了计算机和机器人能够在多大程度上获得&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;自主性autonomy&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;，以及在多大程度上可以利用这些能力对人类构成威胁或危险。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some machines are programmed with various forms of semi-autonomy, including the ability to locate their own power sources and choose targets to attack with weapons. Also, some [[computer viruses]] can evade elimination and, according to scientists in attendance, could therefore be said to have reached a &amp;quot;cockroach&amp;quot; stage of machine intelligence. The conference attendees noted that self-awareness as depicted in science-fiction is probably unlikely, but that other potential hazards and pitfalls exist.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes july09&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?_r=1&amp;amp;ref=todayspaper Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man] By JOHN MARKOFF, NY Times, July 26, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有些机器被编程成各种形式的&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;半自主semi-autonomy&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;，包括定位自己的电源和选择武器攻击的目标等。此外，有些计算机病毒可以避免被消除，根据与会科学家的说法，可以说已经达到了机器智能的“蟑螂”阶段。与会者指出，科幻小说中描述的自我意识可能不太可能，但也存在其他潜在的危险和陷阱。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank S. Robinson predicts that once humans achieve a machine with the intelligence of a human, scientific and technological problems will be tackled and solved with brainpower far superior to that of humans. He notes that artificial systems are able to share data more directly than humans, and predicts that this would result in a global network of super-intelligence that would dwarf human capability.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;:0&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite magazine |last=Robinson |first=Frank S. |title=The Human Future: Upgrade or Replacement? |magazine=[[The Humanist]] |date=27 June 2013 |url=https://thehumanist.com/magazine/july-august-2013/features/the-human-future-upgrade-or-replacement}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Robinson also discusses how vastly different the future would potentially look after such an intelligence explosion. One example of this is solar energy, where the Earth receives vastly more solar energy than humanity captures, so capturing more of that solar energy would hold vast promise for civilizational growth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frank S. Robinson 预言，一旦人类实现了具有人类智能的机器，科学技术问题将被远远优于人类的智力来解决。他指出，人工系统能够比人类更直接地共享数据，并预测这将导致一个全球的超级智能网络，使人类的能力相形见绌。Robinson还讨论了在这样一次智能爆炸之后，未来可能会有多大的不同。其中一个例子就是太阳能，地球接收到的太阳能远远多于人类捕获的太阳能，因此捕捉更多的太阳能将为文明发展带来巨大的希望。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hard vs. soft takeoff硬起飞与软起飞==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Recursive self-improvement.svg|thumb|upright=1.6|In this sample recursive self-improvement scenario, humans modifying an AI's architecture would be able to double its performance every three years through, for example, 30 generations before exhausting all feasible improvements (left). If instead the AI is smart enough to modify its own architecture as well as human researchers can, its time required to complete a redesign halves with each generation, and it progresses all 30 feasible generations in six years (right).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky-global-risk&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]. &amp;quot;Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk.&amp;quot; Global catastrophic risks (2008).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;|链接=Special:FilePath/Recursive_self-improvement.svg]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[文件：在这个示例递归自我改进场景中，修改人工智能体系结构的人可以每三年将其性能提高一倍，例如，30代人，然后用尽所有可行的改进（左）。相反，如果人工智能足够聪明，能够像人类研究人员那样修改自己的架构，那么每一代人完成一次重新设计所需的时间将减半，并且它在6年内将所有30代可行的代都推进（右图）。&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky-global-risk&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]. &amp;quot;Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk.&amp;quot; Global catastrophic risks (2008).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a hard takeoff scenario, an AGI rapidly self-improves, &amp;quot;taking control&amp;quot; of the world (perhaps in a matter of hours), too quickly for significant human-initiated error correction or for a gradual tuning of the AGI's goals. In a soft takeoff scenario, AGI still becomes far more powerful than humanity, but at a human-like pace (perhaps on the order of decades), on a timescale where ongoing human interaction and correction can effectively steer the AGI's development.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bugaj, Stephan Vladimir, and Ben Goertzel. &amp;quot;Five ethical imperatives and their implications for human-AGI interaction.&amp;quot; Dynamical Psychology (2007).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sotala, Kaj, and Roman V. Yampolskiy. &amp;quot;Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a survey.&amp;quot; Physica Scripta 90.1 (2014): 018001.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在硬起飞的情况下，一个&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;人工通用智能AGI&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;迅速自我完善，“掌控”了世界（也许在几个小时内），这对于纠正人为引起的重大错误或逐步调整的AGI目标来说太快了。在软起飞的情况下，AGI仍然比人类强大得多，但以一种类似人类的速度进步（也许是几十年的数量级），在一个持续的人类互动和指导可以有效纠正AGI的时间尺度上发展。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ramez Naam]] argues against a hard takeoff. He has pointed that we already see recursive self-improvement by superintelligences, such as corporations. [[Intel]], for example, has &amp;quot;the collective brainpower of tens of thousands of humans and probably millions of CPU cores to... design better CPUs!&amp;quot; However, this has not led to a hard takeoff; rather, it has led to a soft takeoff in the form of [[Moore's law]].&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Further&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=The Singularity Is Further Than It Appears|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/the-singularity-is-further-tha.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Naam further points out that the computational complexity of higher intelligence may be much greater than linear, such that &amp;quot;creating a mind of intelligence 2 is probably ''more'' than twice as hard as creating a mind of intelligence 1.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=Naam2014Ascend&amp;gt;{{cite web|last=Naam|first=Ramez|title=Why AIs Won't Ascend in the Blink of an Eye - Some Math|url=http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/why-ais-wont-ascend-in-blink-of-an-eye.html|accessdate=16 May 2014|year=2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ramez Naam argues against a hard takeoff. He has pointed that we already see recursive self-improvement by superintelligences, such as corporations. Intel, for example, has &amp;quot;the collective brainpower of tens of thousands of humans and probably millions of CPU cores  to... design better CPUs!&amp;quot; However, this has  not led to a hard takeoff; rather, it has led to a soft takeoff in the form of Moore's law. Naam further points out that the computational complexity of higher intelligence may be much  greater than linear, such that &amp;quot;creating a mind of intelligence 2 is probably more than twice as hard as creating a mind of intelligence 1.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ramez Naam]]反对硬起飞。他指出，我们已经看到企业等超级智能体的递归自我改进。例如，[[Intel]]拥有“数万人的集体脑力，可能还有数百万个CPU核心……来设计更好的CPU！”然而，这并没有导致一个硬起飞；相反，它以[[摩尔定律]]的形式实现了软起飞。Naam进一步指出更高智能的复杂性可能比线性复杂得多，因此，“创造一个智慧的头脑2可能比创造一个智慧的头脑1”的难度要多一倍多。”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[J. Storrs Hall]] believes that &amp;quot;many of the more commonly seen scenarios for overnight hard takeoff are circular – they seem to assume hyperhuman capabilities at the ''starting point'' of the self-improvement process&amp;quot; in order for an AI to be able to make the dramatic, domain-general improvements required for takeoff. Hall suggests that rather than recursively self-improving its hardware, software, and infrastructure all on its own, a fledgling AI would be better off specializing in one area where it was most effective and then buying the remaining components on the marketplace, because the quality of products on the marketplace continually improves, and the AI would have a hard time keeping up with the cutting-edge technology used by the rest of the world.&amp;lt;ref name=Hall2008&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last=Hall|first=J. Storrs|title=Engineering Utopia|journal=Artificial General Intelligence, 2008: Proceedings of the First AGI Conference|date=2008|pages=460–467|url=http://www.agiri.org/takeoff_hall.pdf|accessdate=16 May 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J. Storrs Hall believes that &amp;quot;many of the more commonly seen scenarios for overnight hard takeoff are circular – they seem to assume hyperhuman capabilities at the starting point of the self-improvement process&amp;quot; in order for an AI to be able to make the dramatic, domain-general  improvements required for takeoff. Hall suggests that rather than recursively self-improving its hardware, software, and infrastructure all on its own, a fledgling AI would be better off specializing in one area where it was most effective and then buying the remaining components on the marketplace,  because the quality of products on the marketplace continually improves, and the AI would have a  hard time keeping up with the cutting-edge technology used by the rest of the world.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[J.Storrs Hall]]认为，“许多常见的一夜之间出现的硬起飞场景都是循环论证——它们似乎在自我提升过程的起点上假设了超人类的能力”，以便人工智能能够实现起飞所需的戏剧性的、领域一般性的改进。Hall认为，一个初出茅庐的人工智能与其靠自己不断地自我改进硬件、软件和基础设施，不如专注于一个它最有效的领域，然后在市场上购买剩余的组件，因为市场上产品的质量不断提高，而单是人工智能的提高很难跟上世界其他地区所用的尖端技术。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ben Goertzel]] agrees with Hall's suggestion that a new human-level AI would do well to use its intelligence to accumulate wealth. The AI's talents might inspire companies and governments to disperse its software throughout society. Goertzel is skeptical of a hard five minute takeoff but speculates that a takeoff from human to superhuman level on the order of five years is reasonable. Goerzel refers to this scenario as a &amp;quot;semihard takeoff&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Goertzel2014&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news|last1=Goertzel|first1=Ben|title=Superintelligence — Semi-hard Takeoff Scenarios|url=http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/09/26/superintelligence-semi-hard-takeoff-scenarios/|accessdate=25 October 2014|agency=h+ Magazine|date=26 Sep 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Ben Goertzel]]同意Hall的意见，即，一个新的人类级别的人工智能将很好地利用其智能来积累财富。人工智能的天赋可能会激励公司和政府将其软件分散到整个社会。Goertzel怀疑对5分钟的硬起飞，但他推测从人类到超人的水平，以5年的速度起飞是合理的。Goerzel将这种情况称为“&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;半硬起飞semihard takeoff&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Max More]] disagrees, arguing that if there were only a few superfast human-level AIs, that they would not radically change the world, as they would still depend on other people to get things done and would still have human cognitive constraints. Even if all superfast AIs worked on intelligence augmentation, it is unclear why they would do better in a discontinuous way than existing human cognitive scientists at producing super-human intelligence, although the rate of progress would increase. More further argues that a superintelligence would not transform the world overnight: a superintelligence would need to engage with existing, slow human systems to accomplish physical impacts on the world. &amp;quot;The need for collaboration, for organization, and for putting ideas into physical changes will ensure that all the old rules are not thrown out overnight or even within years.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=More&amp;gt;{{cite web|last1=More|first1=Max|title=Singularity Meets Economy|url=http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#more|accessdate=10 November 2014}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Max More]]不同意这一观点，他认为，如果只有少数超高速的人类水平的人工智能，它们不会从根本上改变世界，因为它们仍将依赖人来完成任务，并且仍然会受到人类认知的限制。即使所有的超高速人工智能都致力于智能增强，但目前还不清楚为什么它们在产生超人类智能方面比现有的人类认知科学家做得更好，尽管进展速度会加快。更进一步指出，超级智能不会在一夜之间改变世界：超级智能需要与现有的、缓慢的人类系统进行接触，以完成对世界的物理影响。”合作、组织和将想法付诸实际变革的需要将确保所有旧规则不会在一夜之间甚至几年内被废除。”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Immortality 永生==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his 2005 book, ''[[The Singularity is Near]]'', [[Ray Kurzweil|Kurzweil]] suggests that medical advances would allow people to protect their bodies from the effects of aging, making the [[Life extension|life expectancy limitless]]. Kurzweil argues that the technological advances in medicine would allow us to continuously repair and replace defective components in our bodies, prolonging life to an undetermined age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Singularity Is Near'', p.&amp;amp;nbsp;215.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Kurzweil further buttresses his argument by discussing current bio-engineering advances. Kurzweil suggests [[somatic gene therapy]]; after synthetic viruses with specific genetic information, the next step would be to apply this technology to gene therapy, replacing human DNA with synthesized genes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The Singularity is Near'', p.&amp;amp;nbsp;216.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在Kurzweil 2005年出版的《&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;奇点近了The Singularity is Near&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;》一书中，他指出，医学的进步将使人们能够保护自己的身体免受衰老的影响，从而延长寿命。Kurzweil认为，医学的技术进步将使我们能够不断地修复和更换我们身体中有缺陷的部件，从而将寿命延长到某个他无法确定的年龄。Kurzweil通过讨论当前的生物工程进展进一步支持了他的论点。Kurzweil建议了&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;体细胞基因疗法somatic gene therapy&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;；在合成具有特定遗传信息的病毒之后，下一步则是把这项技术应用到基因治疗中，用合成的基因取代人类的DNA。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[K. Eric Drexler]], one of the founders of [[nanotechnology]], postulated cell repair devices, including ones operating within cells and utilizing as yet hypothetical [[biological machine]]s, in his 1986 book ''[[Engines of Creation]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[K.Eric Drexler]]，&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;纳米技术nanotechnology&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;的创始人之一，在他1986年的著作“&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;创造的引擎Engines of Creation&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”中，假设了细胞修复设备，包括在细胞内运行并利用目前假设的[[生物机器]]的设备。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Richard Feynman]], it was his former graduate student and collaborator [[Albert Hibbs]] who originally suggested to him (circa 1959) the idea of a ''medical'' use for Feynman's theoretical micromachines. Hibbs suggested that certain repair machines might one day be reduced in size to the point that it would, in theory, be possible to (as Feynman put it) &amp;quot;[[Molecular machine#Biological|swallow the doctor]]&amp;quot;. The idea was incorporated into Feynman's 1959 essay ''[[There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom]].''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url = http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html|title = There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom|first = Richard P.|last = Feynman |author-link = Richard Feynman|date = December 1959|url-status = dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100211190050/http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html|archive-date = 2010-02-11}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
根据[[Richard Feynman]]，他过去的研究生和合作者[[Albert Hibbs]]最初向他建议（大约在1959年）&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;费曼理论微型机械Feynman's theoretical micromachines&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;的“医学”用途。Hibbs认为，有一天，理论上某些修理机器的尺寸可能会被尽可能地缩小（正如费曼所说的那样）“[[Molecular machine#Biological|swallow the doctor]]”。这个想法被收入了费曼1959年的文章“&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;在底部有很多空间[There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beyond merely extending the operational life of the physical body, [[Jaron Lanier]] argues for a form of immortality called &amp;quot;Digital Ascension&amp;quot; that involves &amp;quot;people dying in the flesh and being uploaded into a computer and remaining conscious&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book |title = You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto |last = Lanier |first = Jaron |author-link = Jaron Lanier |publisher = [[Alfred A. Knopf]] |year = 2010 |isbn = 978-0307269645 |location = New York, NY |page = [https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780307269645/page/26 26] |url-access = registration |url = https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780307269645 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
除了仅仅延长物质身体的运行寿命之外，[[Jaron Lanier]]还主张一种称为“&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;数字提升Digital Ascension&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”的不朽形式，即“人在肉体层面死亡，意识被上传到电脑里并保持清醒”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==History of the concept概念史==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A paper by Mahendra Prasad, published in ''[[AI Magazine]]'', asserts that the 18th-century mathematician [[Marquis de Condorcet]] was the first person to hypothesize and mathematically model an intelligence explosion and its effects on humanity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite journal|last=Prasad|first=Mahendra|year=2019|title=Nicolas de Condorcet and the First Intelligence Explosion Hypothesis|journal=AI Magazine|volume=40|issue=1|pages=29–33|doi=10.1609/aimag.v40i1.2855}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahendra Prasad在“[[人工智能杂志]]”上发表的一篇论文断言，18世纪的数学家[[Marquis de Condorcet]]是第一个对智能爆炸及其对人类影响进行假设和数学建模的人。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An early description of the idea was made in [[John Wood Campbell Jr.]]'s 1932 short story &amp;quot;The last evolution&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1932年[[约翰.伍德.坎贝尔]的短篇小说&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;《最后的进化》（the last evolution）&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;对这一想法作了早期的描述。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his 1958 obituary for [[John von Neumann]], Ulam recalled a conversation with von Neumann about the &amp;quot;ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=mathematical/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ulam在1958年为约翰·冯·诺依曼写的讣告中，回忆了与冯·诺依曼的一次对话：“技术的不断进步和人类生活方式的变化，这使我们似乎接近了种族历史上某些基本的奇点，超出了这些奇点，人类的事务就不能继续下去了。”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1965, Good wrote his essay postulating an &amp;quot;intelligence explosion&amp;quot; of recursive self-improvement of a machine intelligence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1965年，古德写了一篇文章，假设机器智能的自我改进迭代是“智能爆炸”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981, [[Stanisław Lem]] published his [[science fiction]] novel ''[[Golem XIV]]''. It describes a military AI computer (Golem XIV) who obtains consciousness and starts to increase his own intelligence, moving towards personal technological singularity. Golem XIV was originally created to aid its builders in fighting wars, but as its intelligence advances to a much higher level than that of humans, it stops being interested in the military requirement because it finds them lacking internal logical consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1981年，[[Stanisław Lem]]出版了他的[[科幻小说]]小说“[[Golem XIV]]”。它描述了一台军用人工智能计算机（Golem XIV）获得了意识并开始增加自己的智能，朝着个体的技术奇点迈进。Golem XIV最初是为了帮助它的建造者打仗，但随着它的智力发展到比人类更高的水平，它不再对军事感兴趣，因为它发现它们缺乏内在的逻辑一致性。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1983, [[Vernor Vinge]] greatly popularized Good's intelligence explosion in a number of writings, first addressing the topic in print in the January 1983 issue of ''[[Omni (magazine)|Omni]]'' magazine. In this op-ed piece, Vinge seems to have been the first to use the term &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; in a way that was specifically tied to the creation of intelligent machines:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google4&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;technological&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
1983年，[[Vernor Vinge]]在许多著作中极大地普及了Good的智能爆炸，他第一次在1983年1月出版的“[[Omni”杂志上提到了这一主题。在这篇评论文章中，Vinge似乎是第一个使用“奇点”一词的人，并将“奇点”的概念特别地与智能机器的创造进行联系：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{quote|We will soon create intelligences greater than our own. When this happens, human history will have reached a kind of singularity, an intellectual transition as impenetrable as the knotted space-time at the center of a black hole, and the world will pass far beyond our understanding. This singularity, I believe, already haunts a number of science-fiction writers. It makes realistic extrapolation to an interstellar future impossible. To write a story set more than a century hence, one needs a nuclear war in between ... so that the world remains intelligible.}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{我们很快就会创造出比我们自己更强大的智能。当这种情况发生时，人类历史将达到一种奇点，一种如同黑洞中心打结的时空一样难以逾越的知识转变，世界将远远超出我们的理解。我相信，这种奇点已经困扰了许多科幻作家。这使得对星际未来的现实推断变得不可能。要写一个多世纪以后的故事，科幻小说家需要一场核战争……这样世界就可以理解了。}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1985, in &amp;quot;The Time Scale of Artificial Intelligence&amp;quot;, artificial intelligence researcher [[Ray Solomonoff]] articulated mathematically the related notion of what he called an &amp;quot;infinity point&amp;quot;: if a research community of human-level self-improving AIs take four years to double their own speed, then two years, then one year and so on, their capabilities increase infinitely in finite time.&amp;lt;ref name=chalmers /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;std&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1985年，在《&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;人工智能的时间尺度The Time Scale of Artificial Intelligence&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;》一书中，人工智能研究人员[[Ray Solomonoff]]以数学的方式阐述了他所说的“无限点”的相关概念：如果一个人类水平的能自我改进人工智能的研究社区需要四年时间使其速度加倍，那么两年，然后一年，依此类推，它们的能力在有限的时间内无限增长。&amp;lt;ref name=chalmers/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=“std”/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vinge's 1993 article &amp;quot;The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;quot;,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; spread widely on the internet and helped to popularize the idea.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google5&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; This article contains the statement, &amp;quot;Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.&amp;quot; Vinge argues that science-fiction authors cannot write realistic post-singularity characters who surpass the human intellect, as the thoughts of such an intellect would be beyond the ability of humans to express.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;vinge1993&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vinge 1993年的文章《&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;未来的技术奇点：如何在后人类时代生存The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;》在互联网上广为传播，普及了这一理念。“在三十年内，我们将拥有创造超人智慧的技术手段。不久之后，人类时代将结束。”Vinge认为，科幻小说作者无法写出超越人类智力的现实主义后奇点人物，因为这种智力的思想将超出人类的表达能力。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2000, [[Bill Joy]], a prominent technologist and a co-founder of [[Sun Microsystems]], voiced concern over the potential dangers of the singularity.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在2000年，[[Bill Joy]]，一位著名的技术专家和[[Sun Microsystems]]的联合创始人，表达了对奇点的潜在危险的担忧。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2005, Kurzweil published ''[[The Singularity is Near]]''. Kurzweil's publicity campaign included an appearance on ''[[The Daily Show with Jon Stewart]]''.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2005年，库兹韦尔发表了“&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;奇点近了The Singularity is Near&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;”。库兹韦尔的宣传活动包括上“[[乔恩·斯图尔特的每日秀The Daily Show with Jon Stewart]]”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2007, [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]] suggested that many of the varied definitions that have been assigned to &amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot; are mutually incompatible rather than mutually supporting.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sandberg, Anders. &amp;quot;An overview of models of technological singularity.&amp;quot; Roadmaps to AGI and the Future of AGI Workshop, Lugano, Switzerland, March. Vol. 8. 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, Kurzweil extrapolates current technological trajectories past the arrival of self-improving AI or superhuman intelligence, which Yudkowsky argues represents a tension with both I. J. Good's proposed discontinuous upswing in intelligence and Vinge's thesis on unpredictability.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;yudkowsky.net&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2007年，[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]指出，许多被赋予“奇点”的不同定义是相互不兼容的，而不是相互支持的。例如，Kurzweil认为的当前的技术发展轨迹，都是在自我完善的人工智能或超人智能的到来之后才会出现的。Yudkowsky认为，这代表着一种既有I.J.Good提出的智力不连续上升，也有Vinge关于不可预测性的紧张关系。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2009, Kurzweil and [[X-Prize]] founder [[Peter Diamandis]] announced the establishment of [[Singularity University]], a nonaccredited private institute whose stated mission is &amp;quot;to educate, inspire and empower leaders to apply exponential technologies to address humanity's grand challenges.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Funded by [[Google]], [[Autodesk]], [[ePlanet Ventures]], and a group of [[High tech|technology industry]] leaders, Singularity University is based at [[NASA]]'s [[Ames Research Center]] in [[Mountain View, California|Mountain View]], [[California]]. The not-for-profit organization runs an annual ten-week graduate program during summer that covers ten different technology and allied tracks, and a series of executive programs throughout the year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009年，Kurzweil和[[X-Prize]]的创始人[[Peter Diamandis]]宣布成立[[奇点大学]]，这是一所未经认可的私立学院，其宣称的使命是“教育、激励和赋能领导者来使用指数技术应对人类的重大挑战。”奇点大学由[[Google]]、[[Autodesk]]、[[ePlanet Ventures]]和一群高科技产业的领导团队资助，总部设在[[NASA]]的[[Ames Research Center]]（加利福尼亚州，Mountain View）。这家非营利组织在每年夏季举办为期十周的研究生课程，涵盖十种不同的技术和相关领域，并全年举办一系列高管课程。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==In politics 在政治中==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2007, the Joint Economic Committee of the [[United States Congress]] released a report about the future of nanotechnology. It predicts significant technological and political changes in the mid-term future, including possible technological singularity.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vyp1AwAAQBAJ&amp;amp;pg=PA375|title=Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society|first=David H.|last=Guston|date=14 July 2010|publisher=SAGE Publications|isbn=978-1-4522-6617-6}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web | url=http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20120213_TheFutureisComingSoonerThanYouThink.pdf | title=Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think | publisher=Joint Economic Committee | date=March 2007}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2007/03/congress_and_th.html|title=Congress and the Singularity}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2007年，&amp;lt;font color = &amp;quot;#ff8000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;美国国会联合经济委员会the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;一份关于纳米技术的未来的报告预测，在中期的未来会发生诸多重大的技术和政治变化，包括可能出现的技术奇点。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former President of the United States [[Barack Obama]] spoke about singularity in his interview to ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' in 2016:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.wired.com/2016/10/president-obama-mit-joi-ito-interview/|title=Barack Obama Talks AI, Robo Cars, and the Future of the World|first=Scott|last=Dadich|journal=Wired|date=12 October 2016}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
美国前总统[[Barack Obama]]在2016年接受“Wired”杂志采访时谈到了奇点：&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Quote|text=One thing that we haven't talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren't spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about &amp;quot;Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?&amp;quot;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that we haven't talked about too much, and I just want to go back to, is we really have to think through the economic implications. Because most people aren't spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity—they are worrying about &amp;quot;Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有一件事我们没有谈得太多，我还想回过去谈谈，那就是我们真的必须考虑对经济的影响。因为大多数人现在并没有花太多时间去担心奇点，而是在担心“好吧，我的工作会被机器取代吗？”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also参阅==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20010527181244/http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Authors/Computing/Good-IJ/SCtFUM.html |archive-date = 2001-05-27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archive-url =  https://web.archive.org/web/20010527181244/http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/authors/computing/good-ij/sctfum.html  | archive-date = 2001-05-27&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Portal| Technology}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Accelerating change}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| series = Advances in Computers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
系列 = 计算机的进步&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial consciousness}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| isbn = 9780120121069| title = Advances in Computers Volume 6&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9780120121069&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial intelligence arms race}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl = 10919/89424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl = 10919/89424&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Artificial intelligence in fiction}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| hdl-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Brain simulation}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Brain–computer interface}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Emerging technologies}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Fermi paradox}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Some Skepticism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一些怀疑论者&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Flynn effect}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Robin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一名: 罗宾&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Futures studies}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Global brain}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{sectionlink|Human intelligence|Improving intelligence}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year = 1998&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1998年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Mind uploading}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| publisher = Robin Hanson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Neuroenhancement}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| accessdate = 2009-06-19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2009-06-19&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Outline of transhumanism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20090828023928/http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年3月24日 | archiveurl =  https://web.archive.org/web/20090828023928/http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Robot learning}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archivedate = 2009-08-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| archivedate = 2009-08-28&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Singularitarianism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological determinism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological revolution}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first=Anthony&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一名: 安东尼&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* {{annotated link|Technological unemployment}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last=Berglas&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Berglas&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title=Artificial Intelligence will Kill our Grandchildren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
人工智能会杀死我们的孙子&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year=2008&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2008年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TODO: end here&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Citations引用 ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://berglas.org/Articles/AIKillGrandchildren/AIKillGrandchildren.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://berglas.org/articles/aikillgrandchildren/aikillgrandchildren.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Reflist&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2008-06-13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2008-06-13&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|refs =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Allen&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url = http://www.technologyreview.com/view/425733/paul-allen-the-singularity-isnt-near |title= Paul Allen: The Singularity Isn't Near |access-date=2015-04-12 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Nick&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一 = 尼克&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;JoyFuture&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation | first=Bill | last=Joy | author-link=Bill Joy | title=Why the future doesn't need us | journal=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired Magazine]] | volume=8 | date= April 2000 | issue=4 |url = https://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html | access-date=2007-08-07 | isbn=978-0-670-03249-5 | publisher=Viking Adult }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Bostrom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
博斯特罗姆&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Nick Bostrom&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
作者: 尼克 · 博斯特罗姆&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;PZMyers&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php |title=Singularly Silly Singularity |access-date=2009-04-13 |first1=PZ |last1=Myers |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090228161422/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/singularly_silly_singularity.php |archive-date=2009-02-28 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title=Existential Risks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
存在风险&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
进化与技术杂志&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Singularity Myth&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil.htm Modis, Theodore. ''The Singularity Myth''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121030072409/http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Kurzweil.htm |date=2012-10-30 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| year=2002&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2002年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| volume=9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| volume = 9&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agi-conf&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Anders Sandberg|Sandberg, Anders]]. [http://agi-conf.org/2010/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/agi10singmodels2.pdf An overview of models of technological singularity]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date=2007-08-07&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| access-date = 2007-08-07&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;catastrophic&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3854/global-catastrophic-risks-report.pdf|title=GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS SURVEY (2008) Technical Report 2008/1 Published by Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University. Anders Sandberg and Nick Bostrom|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110516021945/http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/3854/global-catastrophic-risks-report.pdf|archivedate=2011-05-16}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cnet&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Krazit, Tom. [http://news.cnet.com/2100-1006_3-6119618.html Intel pledges 80 cores in five years], ''CNET News'', 26 September 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| first = Bill&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 第一 = 比尔&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;dreyfus&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Harvnb|Dreyfus|Dreyfus|2000|p=xiv}}: 'The truth is that human intelligence can never be replaced with machine intelligence simply because we are not ourselves &amp;quot;thinking machines&amp;quot; in the sense in which that term is commonly understood.' {{Harvtxt|Hawking|1998}}: 'Some people say that computers can never show true intelligence whatever that may be. But it seems to me that if very complicated chemical molecules can operate in humans to make them intelligent then equally complicated electronic circuits can also make computers act in an intelligent way. And if they are intelligent they can presumably design computers that have even greater complexity and intelligence.'&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| author-link = Bill Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 作者链接 = Bill Hibbard&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Ethical Artificial Intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = Ethical Artificial Intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;episode&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{IMDb title|847969|Episode dated 23 August 2006}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| date = 5 November 2014&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 日期 = 2014年11月5日&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| eprint=1411.1373&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1411.1373&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, ''[[The Age of Spiritual Machines]]'', Viking; 1999,  {{ISBN|978-0-14-028202-3}}. pp. [https://books.google.com/books?id=ldAGcyh0bkUC&amp;amp;pg=PA630 30, 32]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| class = cs.AI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2012年10月12日 | class = cs.AI&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| ref=harv&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= harv&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google13&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Theodore Modis, [http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/TedWEB.htm Forecasting the Growth of Complexity and Change], ''Technological Forecasting &amp;amp; Social Change'', 69, No 4, 2002 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120615054939/http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/TedWEB.htm |date=June 15, 2012 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google4&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dooling, Richard. ''[[Rapture for the Geeks|Rapture for the Geeks: When AI Outsmarts IQ]]'' (2008), [https://books.google.com/books?id=VbBRsv1lxsUC&amp;amp;lpg=PP1&amp;amp;pg=PA88 p. 88]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;google5&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Dooling, Richard. ''[[Rapture for the Geeks|Rapture for the Geeks: When AI Outsmarts IQ]]'' (2008), [https://books.google.com/books?id=VbBRsv1lxsUC&amp;amp;lpg=PP1&amp;amp;pg=PA89 p. 89]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;hplusmagazine&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/nano/singularity-nanotech-or-ai |title=h+ Magazine &amp;amp;#124; Covering technological, scientific, and cultural trends that are changing human beings in fundamental ways |publisher=Hplusmagazine.com |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ieee&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/whos-who-in-the-singularity |title=Who's Who In The Singularity – IEEE Spectrum |publisher=Spectrum.ieee.org |accessdate=2011-09-09}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mathematical&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal|url=https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1958-64-03/S0002-9904-1958-10189-5/S0002-9904-1958-10189-5.pdf | last=Ulam|first=Stanislaw |title=Tribute to John von Neumann|publisher=Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society|volume=64, #3, part 2|date=May 1958|page=5}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;moreblades&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Citation |title=More blades good |author=Anonymous |newspaper=The Economist |date=18 March 2006 |url=http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5624861 |location=London |page=85 |volume=378  |issue=8469 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nickbostrom&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web |url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html |title=Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards |website=nickbostrom.com }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nytimes&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite news |url = https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html |newspaper = The New York Times | first=John | last=Markoff | title=Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced by Cheaper Software | date=2011-03-04}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near, pp. 135–136. Penguin Group, 2005.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, ''The Singularity is Near'', Penguin Group, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularity3&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near, p. 9. Penguin Group, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Eschatology&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 末世论&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Futures studies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 未来研究&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;singularityu&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://singularityu.org/ Singularity University] at its official website&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Philosophy of artificial intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
范畴: 人工智能哲学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Existential risk from artificial general intelligence&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 来自人工一般智能的世界末日&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;This page was moved from [[wikipedia:en:Technological singularity]]. Its edit history can be viewed at [[技术奇点/edithistory]]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:待整理页面]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Alchemist</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E4%B8%AD%E4%BB%8B%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90&amp;diff=22712</id>
		<title>中介分析</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E4%B8%AD%E4%BB%8B%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90&amp;diff=22712"/>
		<updated>2021-05-30T15:52:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Alchemist：&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;此词条暂由彩云小译翻译，翻译字数共2553，未经人工整理和审校，带来阅读不便，请见谅。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Simple Mediation Model.png|thumb|Simple Mediation Model]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Simple Mediation Model&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
简单调解模式&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In [[statistics]], a '''mediation''' model seeks to identify and explain the mechanism or process that underlies an observed relationship between an [[independent variable]] and a [[dependent variable]] via the inclusion of a third hypothetical variable, known as a '''mediator variable''' (also a '''mediating variable''', '''intermediary variable''', or '''intervening variable''').&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|title=Types of Variables|website=[[University of Indiana]]|url=http://www.indiana.edu/~educy520/sec5982/week_2/variable_types.pdf}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Rather than a direct causal relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable, a mediation model proposes that the independent variable influences the (non-observable) mediator variable, which in turn influences the dependent variable. Thus, the mediator variable serves to clarify the nature of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). ''Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis''. New York: Erlbaum.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In statistics, a mediation model seeks to identify and explain the mechanism or process that underlies an observed relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable via the inclusion of a third hypothetical variable, known as a mediator variable (also a mediating variable, intermediary variable, or intervening variable). Rather than a direct causal relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable, a mediation model proposes that the independent variable influences the (non-observable) mediator variable, which in turn influences the dependent variable. Thus, the mediator variable serves to clarify the nature of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在[[统计学]]中，中介模型试图通过加入第三个假设变量，即中介变量(也是中介变量、中介变量或中间变量) ，来识别和解释所观察到的自变量与因变量之间关系的底层机制或过程。一个中介模型没有在自变量和因变量之间建立直接的因果关系，而是提出自变量影响(不可观察的)调解变量，这反过来又影响因变量。因此，中介变量的作用是阐明自变量和因变量之间关系的性质。与自变量和因变量之间存在直接的因果关系不同，中介模型主张：自变量通过影响中介变量（不可观测），进而影响因变量。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mediation analyses are employed to understand a known relationship by exploring the underlying mechanism or process by which one variable influences another variable through a mediator variable.&amp;lt;ref name=CCWA&amp;gt;Cohen, J.; Cohen, P.; West, S. G.; [[Leona S. Aiken|Aiken, L. S.]] (2003) ''Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences'' (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In particular, mediation analysis can contribute to better understanding the relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable when these variables do not have an obvious direct connection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
中介分析，通过探索一个变量通过中介影响其他变量背后的机制或程序，来理解一个已知关系。特别是当变量之间没有明显的直接连接时，中介分析可以更好的理解因变量与自变量之间的关系。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Baron and Kenny's (1986) steps for mediation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Baron and Kenny (1986) 的中介步骤&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Baron and Kenny (1986) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A. (1986) &amp;quot;The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research &amp;amp;ndash; Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations&amp;quot;, [[Journal of Personality and Social Psychology]], Vol. 51(6), pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;1173&amp;amp;ndash;1182.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; laid out several requirements that must be met to form a true mediation relationship. They are outlined below using a real-world example. See the diagram above for a visual representation of the overall mediating relationship to be explained. Note: Hayes (2009)&amp;lt;ref name=Hayes/&amp;gt; critiqued Baron and Kenny's mediation steps approach, and as of 2019, [[David A. Kenny]] on his website stated that mediation can exist in the absence of a 'significant' total effect, and therefore step 1 below may not be needed. This situation is sometimes referred to as &amp;quot;inconsistent mediation&amp;quot;. Later publications by Hayes also questioned the concepts of full or partial mediation and advocated for these terms, along with the classical mediation steps approach outlined below, to be abandoned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Baron and Kenny (1986)  laid out several requirements that must be met to form a true mediation relationship. They are outlined below using a real-world example. See the diagram above for a visual representation of the overall mediating relationship to be explained. Note: Hayes (2009) explains each step of Baron and Kenny's requirements to understand further how a mediation effect is characterized. Step 1 and step 2 use simple regression analysis, whereas step 3 uses multiple regression analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Baron and Kenny (1986) 提出了要形成一个真正的中介关系必需满足的几个条件。下面使用一个真实的例子来概述它们。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
请参阅上面的图表，它可视化了即将被解释的整体中介关系。注:Hayes(2009)[5]批评了Baron和Kenny的中介步骤方法，截至2019年，David a . Kenny在他的网站上表示，中介可以存在于没有“显著的”总体效应的情况下，因此下面的步骤1可能不需要。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这种情况有时被称为“不一致的中介”。后来Hayes在他的著作中也对完全或部分中介的概念提出了质疑，并主张放弃这些术语，以及下面概述的经典中介步骤方法。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 1:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一步:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Regress the dependent variable on the independent variable to confirm that the independent variable is a significant predictor of the dependent variable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How you were parented (i.e., independent variable) predicts how confident you feel about parenting your own children (i.e., dependent variable).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
你是如何被养育的(即，自变量)预测了你对养育自己孩子的信心(即，因变量)。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Independent variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; dependent variable&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 How you were parented &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; confidence in own parenting abilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
你是如何培养孩子对自己养育能力的信心的。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Y=\beta_{10} +\beta_{11}X + \varepsilon_1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is significant&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 2:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第二步:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 2:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How you were parented (i.e., independent variable) predicts your feelings of competence and self-esteem (i.e., mediator).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
你是如何被抚养的(即，独立变量)可以预测你的能力和自尊的感受(即，调解人)。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Regress the mediator on the independent variable to confirm that the independent variable is a significant predictor of the mediator. If the mediator is not associated with the independent variable, then it couldn’t possibly mediate anything.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 How you were parented &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Feelings of competence and self-esteem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
你是如何培养自己的能力和自尊心的。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Independent variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; mediator&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 3:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第三步:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Me=\beta_{20} +\beta_{21}X + \varepsilon_2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;21&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is significant&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Your feelings of competence and self-esteem (i.e., mediator) predict how confident you feel about parenting your own children (i.e., dependent variable), while controlling for how you were parented (i.e., independent variable).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
你的能力和自尊感(即中介者)能够预测你对抚养自己的孩子的自信程度(即因变量) ，同时控制你是如何被抚养的(即自变量)。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 3:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such findings would lead to the conclusion implying that your feelings of competence and self-esteem mediate the relationship between how you were parented and how confident you feel about parenting your own children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这些发现会导致这样的结论，即你的能力和自尊感会调节你是如何被抚养的和你对抚养自己的孩子有多自信之间的关系。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Regress the dependent variable on both the mediator and independent variable to confirm that a) the mediator is a significant predictor of the dependent variable, and b) the strength of the coefficient of the previously significant independent variable in Step #1 is now greatly reduced, if not rendered nonsignificant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: If step 1 does not yield a significant result, one may still have grounds to move to step 2. Sometimes there is actually a significant relationship between independent and dependent variables but because of small sample sizes, or other extraneous factors, there could not be enough power to predict the effect that actually exists (See Shrout &amp;amp; Bolger, 2002  for more info).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
注意: 如果步骤1没有产生显著的结果，一个人可能仍然有理由移动到步骤2。有时，独立变量和因变量之间确实存在显著的关系，但是由于样本量小，或者其他额外的因素，没有足够的能量来预测实际存在的影响(参见 Shrout &amp;amp; Bolger，2002)。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Y=\beta_{30} +\beta_{31}X +\beta_{32}Me + \varepsilon_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;32&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is significant&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct Effect in a Mediation Model&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
调解模式中的直接效果&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;31&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; should be smaller in absolute value than the original effect for the independent variable (β&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; above)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the diagram shown above, the indirect effect is the product of path coefficients &amp;quot;A&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;B&amp;quot;. The direct effect is the coefficient &amp;quot;&amp;amp;nbsp;C'&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;quot;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在上图中，间接效应是路径系数“ a”和“ b”的乘积。直接的影响是系数“ c”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The direct effect measures the extent to which the dependent variable changes when the independent variable increases by one unit and the mediator variable remains unaltered. In contrast, the indirect effect measures the extent to which the dependent variable changes when the independent variable is held fixed and the mediator variable changes by the amount it would have changed had the independent variable increased by one unit. The effect of an independent variable on the dependent variable can become nonsignificant when the mediator is introduced simply because a trivial amount of variance is explained (i.e., not true mediation). Thus, it is imperative to show a significant reduction in variance explained by the independent variable before asserting either full or partial mediation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
直接效应衡量的是当自变量增加一个单位而中介变量保持不变时，因变量变化的程度。相比之下，间接效应衡量的是因变量在自变量固定和中介变量增加一个单位时变化的程度。在引入调解人时，因为只解释了微小的方差(即，不是真正的调解) ，所以自变量对因变量的影响可能变得不重要。因此，在进行全部或部分调解之前，必须显示由独立变量解释的差异显著减少。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Example'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to have statistically significant indirect effects in the absence of a total effect.  This can be explained by the presence of several mediating paths that cancel each other out, and become noticeable when one of the cancelling mediators is controlled for. This implies that the terms 'partial' and 'full' mediation should always be interpreted relative to the set of variables that are present in the model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在没有全面影响的情况下，有可能产生统计上显著的间接影响。这可以通过存在几个相互抵消的调解路径来解释，并且在控制其中一个取消调解器时变得显而易见。这意味着“部分”和“完全”中介术语应该始终相对于模型中存在的一组变量进行解释。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In all cases, the operation of &amp;quot;fixing a variable&amp;quot; must be distinguished from that of &amp;quot;controlling for a variable,&amp;quot; which has been inappropriately used in the literature. is that a sample size of 1000 is required to detect a small effect, a sample size of 100 is sufficient in detecting a medium effect, and a sample size of 50 is required to detect a large effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在所有情况下，“固定一个变量”的操作必须与“控制一个变量”的操作区分开来，后者在文献中被不恰当地使用。检测小效应需要1000个样本量，检测中等效应需要100个样本量，检测大效应需要50个样本量。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following example, drawn from Howell (2009),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Howell, D. C. (2009). Statistical methods for psychology (7th ed.). Belmot, CA: Cengage Learning.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; explains each step of Baron and Kenny's requirements to understand further how a mediation effect is characterized. Step 1 and step 2 use simple regression analysis, whereas step 3 uses [[multiple regression analysis]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bootstrapping method provides some advantages to the Sobel's test, primarily an increase in power. The Preacher and Hayes Bootstrapping method is a non-parametric test (See Non-parametric statistics for a discussion on non-parametric tests and their power). As such, the bootstrap method does not violate assumptions of normality and is therefore recommended for small sample sizes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
自举方法为 Sobel 的测试提供了一些优点，主要是增加了功耗。传道者和 Hayes Bootstrapping 方法是一种非参数检验(参见无母数统计非参数检验及其效力的讨论)。因此，自助法并不违反常态假设，因此建议小样本情况下使用。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:How you were parented (i.e., independent variable) predicts how confident you feel about parenting your own children (i.e., dependent variable).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bootstrapping involves repeatedly randomly sampling observations with replacement from the data set to compute the desired statistic in each resample. Computing over hundreds, or thousands, of bootstrap resamples provide an approximation of the sampling distribution of the statistic of interest. Hayes offers a macro &amp;lt;http://www.afhayes.com/&amp;gt; that calculates bootstrapping directly within SPSS, a computer program used for statistical analyses. This method provides point estimates and confidence intervals by which one can assess the significance or nonsignificance of a mediation effect. Point estimates reveal the mean over the number of bootstrapped samples and if zero does not fall between the resulting confidence intervals of the bootstrapping method, one can confidently conclude that there is a significant mediation effect to report.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
自举涉及重复随机抽样观察和替换从数据集计算期望的统计量在每个重采样。通过计算数百个或数千个引导重采样提供了感兴趣统计量的抽样分布的近似值。提供了一个宏 &amp;lt;  http://www.afhayes.com/ &amp;gt; ，它可以直接计算 SPSS 中的自举，这是一个用于统计分析的计算机程序。这种方法提供了点估计和置信区间，通过这些点估计和置信区间可以评估中介效应的重要性或非重要性。点估计揭示了引导样本数目的平均值，如果零没有落在引导方法产生的置信区间之间，人们可以自信地得出结论，有一个重要的中介效应要报告。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: How you were parented &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; confidence in own parenting abilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 2:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As outlined above, there are a few different options one can choose from to evaluate a mediation model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如上所述，在评估一个中介模型时，可以从几个不同的选项中进行选择。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:How you were parented (i.e., independent variable) predicts your feelings of competence and self-esteem (i.e., mediator).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bootstrapping is becoming the most popular method of testing mediation because it does not require the normality assumption to be met, and because it can be effectively utilized with smaller sample sizes (N&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;&amp;amp;nbsp;25). However, mediation continues to be most frequently determined using the logic of Baron and Kenny  or the Sobel test. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to publish tests of mediation based purely on the Baron and Kenny method or tests that make distributional assumptions such as the Sobel test. Thus, it is important to consider your options when choosing which test to conduct. and interpreted formally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
引导法因为不需要满足正态性假设，并且在样本量较小时(n &amp;lt; 25)可以有效地利用，因此成为最流行的检验中介的方法。然而，调解仍然是最常用的决定使用的逻辑的巴伦和肯尼或索贝尔测试。发布纯粹基于 Baron 和 Kenny 方法的调解测试或者进行分布性假设(如 Sobel 测试)的测试变得越来越困难。因此，在选择进行哪项测试时，考虑你的选择是很重要的。并正式解释。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: How you were parented &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Feelings of competence and self-esteem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1) Experimental-causal-chain design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1)实验因果链设计&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 3:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An experimental-causal-chain design is used when the proposed mediator is experimentally manipulated. Such a design implies that one manipulates some controlled third variable that they have reason to believe could be the underlying mechanism of a given relationship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
实验因果链设计时，所提出的中介体是实验操纵。这样的设计意味着一个人操纵一些他们有理由相信可能是给定关系的潜在机制的受控的第三变量。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Your feelings of competence and self-esteem (i.e., mediator) predict how confident you feel about parenting your own children (i.e., dependent variable), while controlling for how you were parented (i.e., independent variable).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) Measurement-of-mediation design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2)测量调解设计&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such findings would lead to the conclusion implying that your feelings of competence and self-esteem mediate the relationship between how you were parented and how confident you feel about parenting your own children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A measurement-of-mediation design can be conceptualized as a statistical approach. Such a design implies that one measures the proposed intervening variable and then uses statistical analyses to establish mediation. This approach does not involve manipulation of the hypothesized mediating variable, but only involves measurement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
度量中介设计可以概念化为统计方法。这样的设计意味着一个人衡量所提议的中间变量，然后使用统计分析来建立调解。这种方法不涉及对虚拟中介变量的操作，而只涉及测量。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: If step 1 does not yield a significant result, one may still have grounds to move to step 2. Sometimes there is actually a significant relationship between independent and dependent variables but because of small sample sizes, or other extraneous factors, there could not be enough power to predict the effect that actually exists (See Shrout &amp;amp; Bolger, 2002 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Shrout | first1 = P. E. | last2 = Bolger | first2 = N. | year = 2002 | title = Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations | journal = Psychological Methods | volume = 7 | issue = 4| pages = 422–445 | doi=10.1037/1082-989x.7.4.422}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; for more info).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Direct versus indirect effects==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experimental approaches to mediation must be carried out with caution. First, it is important to have strong theoretical support for the exploratory investigation of a potential mediating variable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
调解的试验办法必须谨慎进行。首先，对潜在中介变量的探索性研究必须有强有力的理论支持。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Direct Effect in a Mediation Model.jpg|thumb|Direct Effect in a Mediation Model]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A criticism of a mediation approach rests on the ability to manipulate and measure a mediating variable. Thus, one must be able to manipulate the proposed mediator in an acceptable and ethical fashion. As such, one must be able to measure the intervening process without interfering with the outcome. The mediator must also be able to establish construct validity of manipulation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
对调解方法的批评取决于操纵和测量调解变量的能力。因此，人们必须能够以可以接受和符合道德的方式操纵拟议的调解人。因此，人们必须能够在不干扰结果的情况下衡量干预过程。中介者还必须能够建立操纵的结构效度。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the diagram shown above, the indirect effect is the product of path coefficients &amp;quot;A&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;B&amp;quot;. The direct effect is the coefficient &amp;quot;&amp;amp;nbsp;C'&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;quot;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most common criticisms of the measurement-of-mediation approach is that it is ultimately a correlational design. Consequently, it is possible that some other third variable, independent from the proposed mediator, could be responsible for the proposed effect. However, researchers have worked hard to provide counter-evidence to this disparagement. Specifically, the following counter-arguments have been put forward: and Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
对中介测量方法最常见的批评之一是，它最终是一种相关设计。因此，可能是其他第三个变数，独立于拟议的调解员，可负责拟议的效果。然而，研究人员一直在努力为这种蔑视提供反证据。具体来说，以下的反论点已经提出: 和牧师，拉克尔，和海斯(2007年)。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The direct effect measures the extent to which the dependent variable changes when the independent variable increases by one unit and the mediator variable remains unaltered. In contrast, the indirect effect measures the extent to which the dependent variable changes when the independent variable is held fixed and the mediator variable changes by the amount it would have changed had the independent variable increased by one unit.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Robins&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Pearl-01&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Mediation Model.png|thumb|Indirect Effect in a Simple Mediation Model: The indirect effect constitutes the extent to which the X variable influences the Y variable through the mediator.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In linear systems, the total effect is equal to the sum of the direct and indirect  (''C' + AB'' in the model above). In nonlinear models, the total effect is not generally equal to the sum of the direct and indirect effects, but to a modified combination of the two.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Pearl-01&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are five possible models of moderated mediation, as illustrated in the diagrams below. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如下图所示，有节制的调解有五种可能的模式。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Participants were presented with an initial stimulus (a prime) that made them think of morality or made them think of might. They then participated in the Prisoner's Dilemma Game (PDG), in which participants pretend that they and their partner in crime have been arrested, and they must decide whether to remain loyal to their partner or to compete with their partner and cooperate with the authorities. The researchers found that prosocial individuals were affected by the morality and might primes, whereas proself individuals were not. Thus, social value orientation (proself vs. prosocial) moderated the relationship between the prime (independent variable: morality vs. might) and the behaviour chosen in the PDG (dependent variable: competitive vs. cooperative).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
研究人员向参与者提供了一个初始刺激物(初始刺激物) ，这个刺激物使他们想到道德或者让他们想到可能性。然后，他们参加了囚徒困境游戏(PDG) ，在这个游戏中，参与者假装他们和他们的犯罪同伙已经被逮捕，他们必须决定是继续忠于他们的同伙，还是与他们的同伙竞争并与当局合作。研究人员发现亲社会的个体受到道德和可能的优先权的影响，而亲社会的个体则不受影响。因此，社会价值取向(亲自与亲社会)调节了基本变量(自变量: 道德与可能)与 PDG 中选择的行为(因变量: 竞争与合作)之间的关系。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Full versus partial mediation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The researchers next looked for the presence of a mediated moderation effect. Regression analyses revealed that the type of prime (morality vs. might) mediated the moderating relationship of participants’ social value orientation on PDG behaviour. Prosocial participants who experienced the morality prime expected their partner to cooperate with them, so they chose to cooperate themselves. Prosocial participants who experienced the might prime expected their partner to compete with them, which made them more likely to compete with their partner and cooperate with the authorities. In contrast, participants with a pro-self social value orientation always acted competitively.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
接下来，研究人员寻找中和效应的存在。回归分析显示，初始类型(道德与可能)中介了参与者的社会价值取向对 PDG 行为的调节关系。那些经历过道德优势的亲社会参与者希望他们的伴侣与他们合作，所以他们选择了自己合作。亲社会的参与者经历了可能的主要期望他们的伴侣与他们竞争，这使他们更有可能与他们的伴侣竞争并与当局合作。相比之下，具有亲自我社会价值取向的参与者总是在竞争中行动。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A mediator variable can either account for all or some of the observed relationship between two variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Full mediation'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyt (2005) except in the case of no omitted variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muller，Judd，and Yzerbyt (2005) ，除了没有省略变量的情况。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maximum evidence for mediation, also called full mediation, would occur if inclusion of the mediation variable drops the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable (see pathway ''c'' in diagram above) to zero. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Full Mediation Model.png|thumb|Full Mediation Model]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To illustrate, assume that the error terms of M and Y&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
为了说明，假设 m 和 y 的错误项&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Partial mediation'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
are correlated. Under such conditions, the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
是相关的。在这种情况下,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Mediation.jpg|thumb|The Partial Mediation Model Includes a Direct Effect]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
structural coefficient B and A (between M and Y and between Y and X)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
结构系数 b 和 a (介于 m 和 y 之间，y 和 x 之间)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Partial mediation maintains that the mediating variable accounts for some, but not all, of the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable. Partial mediation implies that there is not only a significant relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable, but also some direct relationship between the independent and dependent variable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
can no longer be estimated by regressing Y on X and M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
不能再通过 x 和 m 的 y 回归来估计。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, the regression slopes may both be nonzero&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
事实上，回归斜率可能都是非零的&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for either full or partial mediation to be established, the reduction in variance explained by the independent variable must be significant as determined by one of several tests, such as the [[Sobel test]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Sobel, M. E. 1982 pp. 290&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Sobel | first1 = M. E. | year = 1982 | title = Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models |  journal = Sociological Methodology | volume = 13 | pages = 290–312 | doi = 10.2307/270723 | jstor = 270723 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The effect of an independent variable on the dependent variable can become nonsignificant when the mediator is introduced simply because a trivial amount of variance is explained (i.e., not true mediation). Thus, it is imperative to show a significant reduction in variance explained by the independent variable before asserting either full or partial mediation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
even when C is zero.  This has two &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
即使 c 是零。这里有两个&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to have statistically significant indirect effects in the absence of a total effect.&amp;lt;ref name=Hayes&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Hayes | first1 = A. F. | year = 2009 | title = Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium |  journal = Communication Monographs | volume = 76 | issue = 4| pages = 408–420 | doi = 10.1080/03637750903310360 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  This can be explained by the presence of several mediating paths that cancel each other out, and become noticeable when one of the cancelling mediators is controlled for. This implies that the terms 'partial' and 'full' mediation should always be interpreted relative to the set of variables that are present in the model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
consequences. First, new strategies must be devised for &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
后果。首先，必须制定新的战略&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In all cases, the operation of &amp;quot;fixing a variable&amp;quot; must be distinguished from that of &amp;quot;controlling for a variable,&amp;quot; which has been inappropriately used in the literature.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Robins&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Kaufman&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; The former stands for physically fixing, while the latter stands for conditioning on, adjusting for, or adding to the regression model. The two notions coincide only when all error terms (not shown in the diagram) are statistically uncorrelated. When errors are correlated, adjustments must be made to neutralize those correlations before embarking on mediation analysis (see [[Bayesian Networks]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
estimating the structural coefficients A,B and C. Second, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
估计结构系数 a，b 和 c,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the basic definitions of direct and indirect effects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
直接和间接影响的基本定义&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sobel's test==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
must go beyond regression analysis, and should&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
必须超越回归分析&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Sobel test}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
invoke an operation that mimics &amp;quot;fixing M&amp;quot;, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
调用一个模仿“修理 m”的操作,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rather than &amp;quot;conditioning on M.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
而不是“对 m 施加条件作用”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, [[Sobel test|Sobel's test]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Sobel, M. E. 1982 pp. 290&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; is performed to determine if the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable has been significantly reduced after inclusion of the mediator variable. In other words, this test assesses whether a mediation effect is significant. It examines the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable compared to the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable including the mediation factor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Sobel test is more accurate than the Baron and Kenny steps explained above; however, it does have low statistical power. As such, large sample sizes are required in order to have sufficient power to detect significant effects. This is because the key assumption of Sobel's test is the assumption of normality. Because Sobel's test evaluates a given sample on the normal distribution, small sample sizes and skewness of the sampling distribution can be problematic (see [[Normal distribution]] for more details). Thus, the rule of thumb as suggested by MacKinnon et al., (2002) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = MacKinnon | first1 = D. P. | last2 = Lockwood | first2 = C. M. | last3 = Lockwood | first3 = J. M. | last4 = West | first4 = S. G. | last5 = Sheets | first5 = V. | year = 2002 | title = A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects |  journal =   Psychological Methods| volume = 7 | issue = 1| pages = 83–104 | doi=10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.83| pmid = 11928892 | pmc=2819363}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is that a sample size of 1000 is required to detect a small effect, a sample size of 100 is sufficient in detecting a medium effect, and a sample size of 50 is required to detect a large effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such an operator, denoted do(M&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;m), was defined in Pearl (1994) or &amp;quot;structural counterfactuals&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这样一个算子，表示 do (m = m) ，在 Pearl (1994)或“结构反事实”中定义。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These new variables provide convenient notation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这些新的变量提供了方便的符号&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Preacher and Hayes (2004) bootstrap method==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
for defining direct and indirect effects. In particular,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
定义直接和间接影响。特别是,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
four types of effects have been defined for the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
四种类型的影响已被定义为&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bootstrapping method provides some advantages to the Sobel's test, primarily an increase in power. The Preacher and Hayes Bootstrapping method is a non-parametric test (See [[Non-parametric statistics]] for a discussion on non-parametric tests and their power). As such, the bootstrap method does not violate assumptions of normality and is therefore recommended for small sample sizes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
transition from X&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;0 to X&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
从 x = 0到 x = 1的跃迁:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bootstrapping involves repeatedly randomly sampling observations with replacement from the data set to compute the desired statistic in each resample. Computing over hundreds, or thousands, of bootstrap resamples provide an approximation of the sampling distribution of the statistic of interest. Hayes offers a macro &amp;lt;http://www.afhayes.com/&amp;gt; that calculates bootstrapping directly within [[SPSS]], a computer program used for statistical analyses. This method provides point estimates and confidence intervals by which one can assess the significance or nonsignificance of a mediation effect. Point estimates reveal the mean over the number of bootstrapped samples and if zero does not fall between the resulting confidence intervals of the bootstrapping method, one can confidently conclude that there is a significant mediation effect to report.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(a) Total effect –  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(a)总效应 -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Significance of mediation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;TE = E [Y(1) - Y(0)] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;          &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[ math &amp;gt; TE = e [ y (1)-y (0)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(b) Controlled direct effect -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(b)受管制的直接影响 -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As outlined above, there are a few different options one can choose from to evaluate a mediation model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; CDE(m) = E [Y(1,m) - Y(0,m) ]  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[ math &amp;gt; CDE (m) = e [ y (1，m)-y (0，m)] &amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(c) Natural direct effect -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(c)天然直接效应 -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bootstrapping (statistics)|Bootstrapping]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/ahayes/sobel.htm |title=Testing of Mediation Models in SPSS and SAS |publisher=Comm.ohio-state.edu |access-date=2012-05-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120518234943/http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/ahayes/sobel.htm |archive-date=2012-05-18 |url-status=dead }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/ahayes/SPSS%20programs/indirect.htm |title=SPSS and SAS Macro for Bootstrapping Specific Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediation Models |publisher=Comm.ohio-state.edu |access-date=2012-05-16}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is becoming the most popular method of testing mediation because it does not require the normality assumption to be met, and because it can be effectively utilized with smaller sample sizes (''N''&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;&amp;amp;nbsp;25). However, mediation continues to be most frequently determined using the logic of Baron and Kenny &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm &amp;quot;Mediation&amp;quot;]. ''davidakenny.net''. Retrieved April 25, 2012.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; or the [[Sobel test]]. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to publish tests of mediation based purely on the Baron and Kenny method or tests that make distributional assumptions such as the Sobel test. Thus, it is important to consider your options when choosing which test to conduct.&amp;lt;ref name=Hayes/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;NDE = E [Y(1,M(0))  - Y(0,M(0))] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[ math &amp;gt; NDE = e [ y (1，m (0)-y (0，m (0)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(d) Natural indirect effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(d)自然间接影响&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Approaches to mediation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; NIE = E [Y(0,M(1)) - Y(0,M(0))] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[ math &amp;gt; NIE = e [ y (0，m (1))-y (0，m (0)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where E[ ] stands for expectation taken over the error terms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
其中 e []表示期望取代了错误项。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the concept of mediation as defined within psychology is theoretically appealing, the methods used to study mediation empirically have been challenged by statisticians and epidemiologists&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Robins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Robins | first1 = J. M. | author-link = James Robins | author-link2 = Sander Greenland | last2 = Greenland | first2 = S. | year = 1992 | title = Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects |  journal = Epidemiology | volume = 3 | issue = 2| pages = 143–55 | doi = 10.1097/00001648-199203000-00013 | pmid = 1576220 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Kaufman&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal|pmc=526390|doi=10.1186/1742-5573-1-4|year=2004|last1=Kaufman|first1=J. S.|title=A further critique of the analytic strategy of adjusting for covariates to identify biologic mediation|journal=Epidemiologic Perspectives &amp;amp; Innovations |volume=1|issue=1|pages=4|last2=MacLehose|first2=R. F.|last3=Kaufman|first3=S|pmid=15507130}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bullock&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal|pmid=20307128|url=http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~schaller/528Readings/BullockGreenHa2010.pdf|year=2010|last1=Bullock|first1=J. G.|title=Yes, but what's the mechanism? (don't expect an easy answer)|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=98|issue=4|pages=550–8|last2=Green|first2=D. P.|last3=Ha|first3=S. E.|doi=10.1037/a0018933}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and interpreted formally.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Pearl-01&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Judea Pearl|Pearl, J.]] (2001) [http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/R273-U.pdf &amp;quot;Direct and indirect effects&amp;quot;]. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, [[Morgan Kaufmann]], 411&amp;amp;ndash;420.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These effects have the following interpretations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这些影响有以下解释:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1) Experimental-causal-chain design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An experimental-causal-chain design is used when the proposed mediator is experimentally manipulated. Such a design implies that one manipulates some controlled third variable that they have reason to believe could be the underlying mechanism of a given relationship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) Measurement-of-mediation design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A controlled version of the indirect effect does not&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
间接效应的受控版本则不会&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A measurement-of-mediation design can be conceptualized as a statistical approach. Such a design implies that one measures the proposed intervening variable and then uses statistical analyses to establish mediation. This approach does not involve manipulation of the hypothesized mediating variable, but only involves measurement.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|pmid=16393019|url=http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~schaller/528Readings/SpencerZannaFong2005.pdf|year=2005|last1=Spencer|first1=S. J.|title=Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=89|issue=6|pages=845–51|last2=Zanna|first2=M. P.|last3=Fong|first3=G. T.|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
exist because there is no way of disabling the &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
因为没有办法禁用&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
direct effect by fixing a variable to a constant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
把一个变量固定在一个常数上的直接效果。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Criticisms of mediation measurement==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to these definitions the total effect can be decomposed as a sum&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
根据这些定义，总效应可以分解为总和&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;TE = NDE - NIE_r &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;TE = NDE - NIE_r &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experimental approaches to mediation must be carried out with caution. First, it is important to have strong theoretical support for the exploratory investigation of a potential mediating variable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where NIE&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;r&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; stands for the reverse transition, from&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
其中 NIE &amp;lt; sub &amp;gt; r &amp;lt;/sub &amp;gt; 代表反向过渡，从&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A criticism of a mediation approach rests on the ability to manipulate and measure a mediating variable. Thus, one must be able to manipulate the proposed mediator in an acceptable and ethical fashion. As such, one must be able to measure the intervening process without interfering with the outcome. The mediator must also be able to establish construct validity of manipulation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
X&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;1 to X = 0; it becomes additive in linear systems,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 to x = 0; 它成为线性系统的可加性,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most common criticisms of the measurement-of-mediation approach is that it is ultimately a correlational design. Consequently, it is possible that some other third variable, independent from the proposed mediator, could be responsible for the proposed effect. However, researchers have worked hard to provide counter-evidence to this disparagement. Specifically, the following counter-arguments have been put forward:&amp;lt;ref name=CCWA/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where reversal of transitions entails sign reversal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
转变的逆转导致了标志的逆转。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1) Temporal precedence. For example, if the independent variable precedes the dependent variable in time, this would provide evidence suggesting a directional, and potentially causal, link from the independent variable to the dependent variable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The power of these definitions lies in their generality; they are applicable to models with arbitrary nonlinear interactions, arbitrary dependencies among the disturbances, and both continuous and categorical variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这些定义的力量在于它们的普遍性，它们适用于任意非线性相互作用的模型，干扰之间的任意依赖，以及连续变量和分类变量。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) Nonspuriousness and/or no confounds. For example, should one identify other third variables and prove that they do not alter the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable he/she would have a stronger argument for their mediation effect. See other 3rd variables below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Formulation of the indirect effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
间接效应的表述&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mediation can be an extremely useful and powerful statistical test; however, it must be used properly. It is important that the measures used to assess the mediator and the dependent variable are theoretically distinct and that the independent variable and mediator cannot interact. Should there be an interaction between the independent variable and the mediator one would have grounds to investigate [[moderation (statistics)|moderation]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In linear analysis, all effects are determined by sums&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在线性分析中，所有的影响都是由和决定的&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other third variables==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of products of structural coefficients, giving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
结构系数的乘积，给出&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
《数学》&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1) Confounding:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\begin{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
开始{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TE        &amp;amp; = C + AB \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
等于 c + AB&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Another model that is often tested is one in which competing variables in the model are alternative potential mediators or an unmeasured cause of the dependent variable. An additional variable in a [[causal model]] may obscure or confound the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Potential confounders are variables that may have a causal impact on both the independent variable and dependent variable. They include common sources of measurement error (as discussed above) as well as other influences shared by both the independent and dependent variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CDE(m) &amp;amp; = NDE = C, \text{ independent of } m\\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CDE (m) &amp;amp; = NDE = c，文本{独立于} m&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NIE        &amp;amp; = AB.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
和 = AB。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Mediation model with two covariates.jpg|thumb|Mediation model with two covariates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\end{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
结束{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In experimental studies, there is a special concern about aspects of the experimental manipulation or setting that may account for study effects, rather than the motivating theoretical factor. Any of these problems may produce spurious relationships between the independent and dependent variables as measured. Ignoring a confounding variable may bias empirical estimates of the causal effect of the independent variable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
数学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, all effects are estimable whenever the model&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
因此，无论何时模型都可以估计所有的影响&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) Suppression:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
is identified.  In non-linear systems, more stringent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
被识别出来。在非线性系统中，更为严格&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
conditions are needed for estimating the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
我们需要一些条件来估计&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:A suppressor variable increases the predictive validity of another variable when included in a regression equation. Suppression can occur when a single causal variable is related to an outcome variable through two separate mediator variables, and when one of those mediated effects is positive and one is negative. In such a case, each mediator variable suppresses or conceals the effect that is carried through the other mediator variable. For example, higher intelligence scores (a causal variable, ''A'') may cause an increase in error detection (a mediator variable, ''B'') which in turn may cause a decrease in errors made at work on an assembly line (an outcome variable, ''X''); at the same time, intelligence could also cause an increase in boredom (''C''), which in turn may cause an ''increase'' in errors (''X''). Thus, in one causal path intelligence decreases errors, and in the other it increases them. When neither mediator is included in the analysis, intelligence appears to have no effect or a weak effect on errors. However, when boredom is controlled intelligence will appear to decrease errors, and when error detection is controlled intelligence will appear to increase errors. If intelligence could be increased while only boredom was held constant, errors would decrease; if intelligence could be increased while holding only error detection constant, errors would increase.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
direct and indirect effects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
直接和间接影响&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In general, the omission of suppressors or confounders will lead to either an underestimation or an overestimation of the effect of ''A'' on ''X'', thereby either reducing or artificially inflating the magnitude of a relationship between two variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, if no confounding exists, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
例如，如果不存在混淆,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i.e.,  ε&amp;lt;sub &amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, and ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are mutually independent) the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(即 ε &amp;lt; sub &amp;gt; 1 &amp;lt;/sub &amp;gt; ，ε &amp;lt; sub &amp;gt; 2 &amp;lt;/sub &amp;gt; ，ε &amp;lt; sub &amp;gt; 3 &amp;lt;/sub &amp;gt; 是相互独立的)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(3) Moderators:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
following formulas can be derived:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
可以推导出以下公式:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and have become the target of estimation in many studies of mediation. They give&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
并成为许多中介研究评价的对象。他们给予&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Other important third variables are moderators. Moderators are variables that can make the relationship between two variables either stronger or weaker. Such variables further characterize interactions in regression by affecting the direction and/or strength of the relationship between ''X'' and ''Y''. A moderating relationship can be thought of as an [[interaction effect|interaction]]. It occurs when the relationship between variables A and B depends on the level of C. See [[moderation (statistics)|moderation]] for further discussion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
distribution-free expressions for direct and indirect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
直接和间接的分布-自由表达式&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
effects and demonstrate that, despite the arbitrary nature of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
尽管我们的研究结果具有随意性&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Moderated mediation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the error distributions and the functions f, g, and h, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
误差分布和函数 f，g，h,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mediated effects can nevertheless be estimated from data using &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
然而，我们可以通过使用数据来估计中介效应&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mediation and [[moderation (statistics)|moderation]] can co-occur in statistical models.  It is possible to mediate moderation and moderate mediation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
regression. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
回归。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The analyses of moderated mediation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有调节的中介分析&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Moderated mediation]] is when the effect of the treatment ''A'' on the mediator and/or the partial effect ''B'' on the dependent variable depend in turn on levels of another variable (moderator). Essentially, in moderated mediation, mediation is first established, and then one investigates if the mediation effect that describes the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable is moderated by different levels of another variable (i.e., a moderator). This definition has been outlined by Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyt (2005)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Muller&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Muller | first1 = D. | last2 = Judd | first2 = C. M. | last3 = Yzerbyt | first3 = V. Y. | year = 2005 | title = When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated |  journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 89 | issue = 6| pages = 852–863 | doi = 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852 | pmid = 16393020 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Preacher&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D. &amp;amp; Hayes, A. F. (2007).  Assessing moderated mediation hypotheses: Strategies, methods, and prescriptions.  Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185&amp;amp;ndash;227.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and mediating moderators fall as special cases of the causal mediation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
和调解人作为因果调解的特殊案例下降&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
analysis, and the mediation formulas identify how various interactions coefficients contribute to the necessary and sufficient components of mediation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
分析，以及调解公式确定各种相互作用系数如何有助于调解的必要和充分的组成部分。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Models of moderated mediation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are five possible models of moderated mediation, as illustrated in the diagrams below.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Muller&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A serial mediation model with two mediator variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一个具有两个中介变量的串行中介模型。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# In the first model the independent variable also moderates the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The second possible model of moderated mediation involves a new variable which moderates the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator (the ''A'' path).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A conceptual diagram that depicts a parallel mediation model with two mediator variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
描述具有两个中介变量的并行中介模型的概念图。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The third model of moderated mediation involves a new moderator variable which moderates the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable (the ''B'' path).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assume the model takes the form&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
假设模型采用这种形式&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Moderated mediation can also occur when one moderating variable affects both the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator (the ''A'' path) and the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable (the  ''B'' path).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
《数学》&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The fifth and final possible model of moderated mediation involves two new moderator variables, one moderating the ''A'' path and the other moderating the ''B'' path.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\begin{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
开始{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
X &amp;amp; = \varepsilon_1 \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
M &amp;amp; = b_0 + b_1X + \varepsilon_2 \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
0 + b 1x + varepsilon 2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Y &amp;amp; = c_0 + c_1X + c_2M + c_3XM + \varepsilon_3 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Y &amp;amp; = c _ 0 + c _ 1x + c _ 2m + c _ 3xm + varepsilon _ 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| [[File:Mediated moderation model 1.png|centre|thumb|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\end{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
结束{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First option: independent variable moderates the ''B'' path.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
数学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| [[File:Mediated moderation model 2.png|centre|thumb|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where the parameter &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;c_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; quantifies the degree to which M modifies the effect of X on Y. Even when all parameters are estimated from data, it is still not obvious what combinations of parameters measure the direct and indirect effect of X on Y, or, more practically, how to assess the fraction of the total effect &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;TE&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that is explained by mediation and the fraction of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;TE&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that is owed to mediation.  In linear analysis, the former fraction is captured by the product &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_1 c_2 / TE&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the latter by the difference &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(TE - c_1)/TE&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the two quantities coincide.  In the presence of interaction, however, each fraction demands a separate analysis, as dictated by the Mediation Formula, which yields:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
其中参数 c _ 3 &amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; 量化了 m 修改 x 对 y 影响的程度。即使所有的参数都是从数据中估计出来的，仍然不清楚哪些参数组合可以衡量 x 对 y 的直接和间接影响，或者更实际地说，如何评估调解和归因于调解的“数学”“数学”“数学”所占总影响的比例。在线性分析中，前者由乘积 &amp;lt; math &amp;gt; b1c2/TE &amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; 获得，后者由差 &amp;lt; math &amp;gt; (TE-c1)/TE &amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; 获得，两个量重合。然而，在存在相互作用的情况下，每个部分都需要按照调解公式进行单独分析，分析结果如下:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second option: fourth variable moderates the ''A'' path.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
《数学》&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| [[File:Mediated moderation model 3.png|centre|thumb|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\begin{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
开始{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Third option: fourth variable moderates the ''B'' path.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NDE &amp;amp; = c_1 + b_0 c_3 \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NDE &amp;amp; = c 1 + b 0 c 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| [[File:Mediated moderation model 4.png|centre|thumb|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NIE &amp;amp; = b_1 c_2 \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 c 2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fourth option: fourth variable moderates both the ''A'' path and the ''B'' path.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TE  &amp;amp; = c_1 + b_0 c_3 + b_1(c_2 + c_3) \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TE &amp;amp; = c1 + b0 c3 + b1(c2 + c3) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| [[File:Mediated moderation model 5.png|centre|thumb|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;amp; = NDE + NIE + b_1 c_3.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;amp; = NDE + NIE + b 1 c 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fifth option: fourth variable moderates the ''A'' path and a fifth variable moderates the ''B'' path.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\end{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
结束{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
数学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mediated moderation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the fraction of output response for which mediation would be sufficient is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
因此，输出响应中中介足够的部分是&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mediated moderation is a variant of both moderation and mediation. This is where there is initially overall moderation and the direct effect of the moderator variable on the outcome is mediated. The main difference between mediated moderation and moderated mediation is that for the former there is initial (overall) moderation and this effect is mediated and for the latter there is no moderation but the effect of either the treatment on the mediator (path ''A'') is moderated or the effect of the mediator on the outcome (path ''B'') is moderated.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Muller&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{NIE}{TE} = \frac{b_1 c_2}{c_1 + b_0 c_3 + b_1 (c_2 + c_3)}, &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 + b _ 0 c _ 3 + b _ 1(c _ 2 + c _ 3) ，&amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to establish mediated moderation, one must first establish [[Moderation (statistics)|moderation]], meaning that the direction and/or the strength of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables (path ''C'') differs depending on the level of a third variable (the moderator variable). Researchers next look for the presence of mediated moderation when they have a theoretical reason to believe that there is a fourth variable that acts as the mechanism or process that causes the relationship between the independent variable and the moderator (path ''A'') or between the moderator and the dependent variable (path ''C'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
while the fraction for which mediation would be necessary is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
而调解的必要部分是&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Example'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; 1- \frac{NDE}{TE} = \frac{b_1 (c_2 +c_3)}{c_1 + b_0c_3 + b_1 (c_2 + c_3)}. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1-frac { NDE }{ TE } = frac { b _ 1(c _ 2 + c _ 3)}{ c _ 1 + b _ 0c _ 3 + b _ 1(c _ 2 + c _ 3)}.数学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following is a published example of mediated moderation in psychological research.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Smeesters | first1 = D. | last2 = Warlop | first2 = L. | last3 = Avermaet | first3 = E. V. | last4 = Corneille | first4 = O. | last5 = Yzerbyt | first5 = V. | year = 2003 | title = Do not prime hawks with doves: The interplay of construct activation and consistency of social value orientation on cooperative behavior |  journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 84 | issue = 5| pages = 972–987 | doi = 10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.972 | pmid = 12757142 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Participants were presented with an initial stimulus (a prime) that made them think of morality or made them think of might. They then participated in the [[Prisoner's dilemma|Prisoner's Dilemma Game]] (PDG), in which participants pretend that they and their partner in crime have been arrested, and they must decide whether to remain loyal to their partner or to compete with their partner and cooperate with the authorities. The researchers found that prosocial individuals were affected by the morality and might primes, whereas proself individuals were not. Thus, [[Social value orientations|social value orientation]] (proself vs. prosocial) moderated the relationship between the prime (independent variable: morality vs. might) and the behaviour chosen in the PDG (dependent variable: competitive vs. cooperative).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These fractions involve non-obvious combinations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这些分数包含不明显的组合&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of the model's parameters, and can be constructed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
模型的参数，可以构造出&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The researchers next looked for the presence of a mediated moderation effect. Regression analyses revealed that the type of prime (morality vs. might) mediated the moderating relationship of participants’ [[Social value orientations|social value orientation]] on PDG behaviour. Prosocial participants who experienced the morality prime expected their partner to cooperate with them, so they chose to cooperate themselves. Prosocial participants who experienced the might prime expected their partner to compete with them, which made them more likely to compete with their partner and cooperate with the authorities. In contrast, participants with a pro-self social value orientation always acted competitively.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mechanically with the help of the Mediation Formula. Significantly, due to interaction, a direct effect can be sustained even when the parameter &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;c_1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; vanishes and, moreover, a total effect can be sustained even when both the direct and indirect effects vanish.  This illustrates that estimating parameters in isolation tells us little about the effect of mediation and, more generally, mediation and moderation are intertwined and cannot be assessed separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
借助调解公式机械地进行调解。值得注意的是，由于相互作用，即使参数 c _ 1 &amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; 消失，直接影响也可以持续，而且，即使直接和间接影响消失，总体影响也可以持续。这表明，孤立地估计参数并不能告诉我们有关调解效果的信息，更普遍地说，调解和调节是相互交织的，不能单独进行评估。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Regression equations for moderated mediation and mediated moderation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyt (2005)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Muller&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; outline three fundamental models that underlie both moderated mediation and mediated moderation. ''Mo'' represents the moderator variable(s), ''Me'' represents the mediator variable(s), and ''ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;'' represents the measurement error of each regression equation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Notes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
注释&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Mediation.jpg|434px|right|A simple statistical mediation model.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bibliography&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
参考书目&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 1''': Moderation of the relationship between the independent variable (X) and the dependent variable (Y), also called the overall treatment effect (path ''C'' in the diagram).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Y=\beta_{40} +\beta_{41}X +\beta_{42}Mo +\beta_{43}XMo + \varepsilon_4&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* To establish overall moderation, the ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;43&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; regression weight must be significant (first step for establishing mediated moderation).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first = Kristopher J.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一，克里斯托弗 j。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Establishing moderated mediation requires that there be no moderation effect, so the ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;43&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; regression weight must not be significant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last2 = Hayes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = Hayes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first2 = Andrew F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = Andrew f.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 2''': Moderation of the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator (path ''A'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | title = SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = 用于估计简单调解模型中的间接影响的 SPSS 和 SAS 程序&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Me=\beta_{50} +\beta_{51}X +\beta_{52}Mo +\beta_{53}XMo + \varepsilon_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | journal = Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
行为研究方法，仪器和计算机&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If the ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;53&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; regression weight is significant, the moderator affects the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | volume = 36&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
36&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | issue = 4&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第四期&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 3''': Moderation of both the relationship between the independent and dependent variables (path ''A'') and the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable (path ''B'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | pages = 717–731&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 页数 = 717-731&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Y=\beta_{60} +\beta_{61}X +\beta_{62}Mo +\beta_{63}XMo +\beta_{64}Me +\beta_{65}MeMo  + \varepsilon_6&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | url = http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If both ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;53&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; in step 2 and ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;63&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; in step 3 are significant, the moderator affects the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator (path ''A'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | year = 2004&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2004年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If both ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;53&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; in step 2 and ''β&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;65&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;'' in step 3 are significant, the moderator affects the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable (path ''B'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | doi = 10.3758/BF03206553&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.3758/BF03206553&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Either or both of the conditions above may be true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
      | pmid = 15641418&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
15641418&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 | doi-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
免费访问&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Causal mediation analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Fixing versus conditioning===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first = Kristopher J.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一，克里斯托弗 j。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mediation analysis quantifies the &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last2 = Hayes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = Hayes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
extent to which a variable participates in the transmittance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first2 = Andrew F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = Andrew f.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of change from a cause to its effect. It is inherently a causal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | title = Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = 评估和比较多重介质模型中间接影响的渐近和重采样策略&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
notion, hence it cannot be defined in statistical terms.  Traditionally,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | journal = Behavior Research Methods&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
行为研究方法&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
however, the bulk of mediation analysis has been conducted&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | volume = 40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
within the confines of linear regression, with statistical &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | issue = 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第三期&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
terminology masking the causal character of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | pages = 879–891&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
879-891&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
relationships involved. This led to difficulties,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | url = http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
biases, and limitations that have been alleviated by&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | year = 2008&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2008年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
modern methods of causal analysis, based on causal diagrams&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | doi = 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.3758/BRM. 40.3.879&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and counterfactual logic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | pmid = 18697684&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
18697684&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
      | doi-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
免费访问&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The source of these difficulties lies in defining mediation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in terms of changes induced by adding a third variables into &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a regression equation. Such statistical changes are&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
epiphenomena which sometimes accompany mediation but, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first = K. J.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 第一 = k. j。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in general, fail to capture the causal relationships that&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last2 = Zyphur&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = Zyphur&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mediation analysis aims to quantify.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first2 = M. J.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = m. j.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last3 = Zhang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3 = Zhang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic premise of the causal approach is that it is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first3 = Z.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3 = z.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
not always appropriate to &amp;quot;control&amp;quot; for the mediator ''M''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | title = A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = 用于评估多层次调解的通用多层次结构方程模型框架&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
when we seek to estimate the direct effect of ''X'' on ''Y''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | journal = Psychological Methods&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
心理学方法&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(see the Figure above).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | volume = 15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The classical rationale for &amp;quot;controlling&amp;quot; for ''M''&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | issue = 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第三期&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
is that, if we succeed in preventing ''M'' from changing, then &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | pages = 209–233&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| pages = 209-233&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
whatever changes we measure in Y are attributable solely &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | year = 2010&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2010年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to variations in ''X'' and we are justified then in proclaiming the &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | doi = 10.1037/a0020141&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1037/a0020141&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
effect observed as &amp;quot;direct effect of ''X'' on ''Y''.&amp;quot; Unfortunately,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | pmid = 20822249&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
20822249&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;controlling for ''M''&amp;quot; does not physically prevent ''M'' from changing;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | citeseerx = 10.1.1.570.7747&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
10.1.1.570.7747&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
it merely narrows the analyst's attention to cases&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of equal ''M'' values.  Moreover, the language of probability &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
theory does not possess the notation to express the idea &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of &amp;quot;preventing ''M'' from changing&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;physically holding ''M'' constant&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The only operator probability provides is &amp;quot;Conditioning&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which is what we do when we &amp;quot;control&amp;quot; for ''M'', &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or add ''M'' as a regressor in the equation for ''Y''. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The result is that, instead of physically holding ''M&amp;quot; constant &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(say at ''M'' = ''m'') and comparing ''Y'' for units under ''X''&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;1' to those under &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''X'' = 0, we allow ''M'' to vary but ignore all units except those in &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which ''M'' achieves the value ''M''&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;''m''. These two operations are &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
fundamentally different, and yield different results,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last1=Robins|first1=J.M.|last2=Greenland|first2=S.|title=Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects|journal=Epidemiology|date=1992|volume=3|issue=2|pages=143–155|doi=10.1097/00001648-199203000-00013|pmid=1576220}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;pearl1994&amp;quot; &amp;gt;{{cite journal|last1=Pearl|first1=Judea|editor1-last=Lopez de Mantaras|editor1-first=R.|editor2-last=Poole|editor2-first=D.|title=A probabilistic calculus of actions|journal=Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 10|volume=1302|date=1994|pages=454–462|publisher=[[Morgan Kaufmann]]|location=San Mateo, CA|bibcode=2013arXiv1302.6835P|arxiv=1302.6835}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; except in the case of no omitted variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To illustrate, assume that the error terms of ''M'' and ''Y''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
are correlated. Under such conditions, the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
structural coefficient ''B'' and ''A'' (between ''M'' and ''Y'' and between ''Y'' and ''X'')&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
can no longer be estimated by regressing ''Y'' on ''X'' and ''M''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, the regression slopes may both be nonzero&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
even when ''C'' is zero.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|pmid=24885338|year=2014|last1=Pearl|first1=J|title=Interpretation and identification of causal mediation|journal=Psychological Methods|volume=19|issue=4|pages=459–81|doi=10.1037/a0036434|url=ftp://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/r389-imai-etal-commentary-r421-reprint.pdf}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  This has two &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
consequences. First, new strategies must be devised for &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
estimating the structural coefficients ''A,B'' and ''C''. Second, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the basic definitions of direct and indirect effects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
must go beyond regression analysis, and should&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
invoke an operation that mimics &amp;quot;fixing ''M''&amp;quot;, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rather than &amp;quot;conditioning on ''M''.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Statistical models&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 统计模型&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Independence (probability theory)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 独立概率论&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Definitions===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Psychometrics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 心理测量学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;This page was moved from [[wikipedia:en:Mediation (statistics)]]. Its edit history can be viewed at [[中介变量/edithistory]]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:待整理页面]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Alchemist</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E4%B8%AD%E4%BB%8B%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90&amp;diff=22711</id>
		<title>中介分析</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E4%B8%AD%E4%BB%8B%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90&amp;diff=22711"/>
		<updated>2021-05-30T15:49:45Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Alchemist：&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;此词条暂由彩云小译翻译，翻译字数共2553，未经人工整理和审校，带来阅读不便，请见谅。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Simple Mediation Model.png|thumb|Simple Mediation Model]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Simple Mediation Model&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
简单调解模式&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In [[statistics]], a '''mediation''' model seeks to identify and explain the mechanism or process that underlies an observed relationship between an [[independent variable]] and a [[dependent variable]] via the inclusion of a third hypothetical variable, known as a '''mediator variable''' (also a '''mediating variable''', '''intermediary variable''', or '''intervening variable''').&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|title=Types of Variables|website=[[University of Indiana]]|url=http://www.indiana.edu/~educy520/sec5982/week_2/variable_types.pdf}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Rather than a direct causal relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable, a mediation model proposes that the independent variable influences the (non-observable) mediator variable, which in turn influences the dependent variable. Thus, the mediator variable serves to clarify the nature of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). ''Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis''. New York: Erlbaum.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In statistics, a mediation model seeks to identify and explain the mechanism or process that underlies an observed relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable via the inclusion of a third hypothetical variable, known as a mediator variable (also a mediating variable, intermediary variable, or intervening variable). Rather than a direct causal relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable, a mediation model proposes that the independent variable influences the (non-observable) mediator variable, which in turn influences the dependent variable. Thus, the mediator variable serves to clarify the nature of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在[[统计学]]中，中介模型试图通过加入第三个假设变量，即中介变量(也是中介变量、中介变量或中间变量) ，来识别和解释所观察到的自变量与因变量之间关系的底层机制或过程。一个中介模型没有在自变量和因变量之间建立直接的因果关系，而是提出自变量影响(不可观察的)调解变量，这反过来又影响因变量。因此，中介变量的作用是阐明自变量和因变量之间关系的性质。与自变量和因变量之间存在直接的因果关系不同，中介模型主张：自变量通过影响中介变量（不可观测），进而影响因变量。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mediation analyses are employed to understand a known relationship by exploring the underlying mechanism or process by which one variable influences another variable through a mediator variable.&amp;lt;ref name=CCWA&amp;gt;Cohen, J.; Cohen, P.; West, S. G.; [[Leona S. Aiken|Aiken, L. S.]] (2003) ''Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences'' (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In particular, mediation analysis can contribute to better understanding the relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable when these variables do not have an obvious direct connection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mediation analyses are employed to understand a known relationship by exploring the underlying mechanism or process by which one variable influences another variable through a mediator variable. In particular, mediation analysis can contribute to better understanding the relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable when these variables do not have an obvious direct connection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
中介分析，通过探索一个变量通过中介影响其他变量背后的机制或程序，来理解一个已知关系。特别是当变量之间没有明显的直接连接时，中介分析可以更好的理解因变量与自变量之间的关系。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Baron and Kenny's (1986) steps for mediation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Baron and Kenny (1986) 的中介步骤&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Baron and Kenny (1986) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A. (1986) &amp;quot;The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research &amp;amp;ndash; Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations&amp;quot;, [[Journal of Personality and Social Psychology]], Vol. 51(6), pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;1173&amp;amp;ndash;1182.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; laid out several requirements that must be met to form a true mediation relationship. They are outlined below using a real-world example. See the diagram above for a visual representation of the overall mediating relationship to be explained. Note: Hayes (2009)&amp;lt;ref name=Hayes/&amp;gt; critiqued Baron and Kenny's mediation steps approach, and as of 2019, [[David A. Kenny]] on his website stated that mediation can exist in the absence of a 'significant' total effect, and therefore step 1 below may not be needed. This situation is sometimes referred to as &amp;quot;inconsistent mediation&amp;quot;. Later publications by Hayes also questioned the concepts of full or partial mediation and advocated for these terms, along with the classical mediation steps approach outlined below, to be abandoned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Baron and Kenny (1986)  laid out several requirements that must be met to form a true mediation relationship. They are outlined below using a real-world example. See the diagram above for a visual representation of the overall mediating relationship to be explained. Note: Hayes (2009) explains each step of Baron and Kenny's requirements to understand further how a mediation effect is characterized. Step 1 and step 2 use simple regression analysis, whereas step 3 uses multiple regression analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Baron and Kenny (1986) 提出了要形成一个真正的中介关系必需满足的几个条件。下面使用一个真实的例子来概述它们。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
请参阅上面的图表，它可视化了即将被解释的整体中介关系。注:Hayes(2009)[5]批评了Baron和Kenny的中介步骤方法，截至2019年，David a . Kenny在他的网站上表示，中介可以存在于没有“显著的”总体效应的情况下，因此下面的步骤1可能不需要。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这种情况有时被称为“不一致的中介”。后来Hayes在他的著作中也对完全或部分中介的概念提出了质疑，并主张放弃这些术语，以及下面概述的经典中介步骤方法。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 1:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一步:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Regress the dependent variable on the independent variable to confirm that the independent variable is a significant predictor of the dependent variable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How you were parented (i.e., independent variable) predicts how confident you feel about parenting your own children (i.e., dependent variable).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
你是如何被抚养的(即，独立变量)预示着你对抚养自己的孩子有多自信(即，因变量)。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Independent variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; dependent variable&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 How you were parented &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; confidence in own parenting abilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
你是如何培养孩子对自己养育能力的信心的。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Y=\beta_{10} +\beta_{11}X + \varepsilon_1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is significant&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 2:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第二步:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 2:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How you were parented (i.e., independent variable) predicts your feelings of competence and self-esteem (i.e., mediator).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
你是如何被抚养的(即，独立变量)可以预测你的能力和自尊的感受(即，调解人)。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Regress the mediator on the independent variable to confirm that the independent variable is a significant predictor of the mediator. If the mediator is not associated with the independent variable, then it couldn’t possibly mediate anything.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 How you were parented &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Feelings of competence and self-esteem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
你是如何培养自己的能力和自尊心的。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Independent variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; mediator&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 3:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第三步:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Me=\beta_{20} +\beta_{21}X + \varepsilon_2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;21&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is significant&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Your feelings of competence and self-esteem (i.e., mediator) predict how confident you feel about parenting your own children (i.e., dependent variable), while controlling for how you were parented (i.e., independent variable).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
你的能力和自尊感(即中介者)能够预测你对抚养自己的孩子的自信程度(即因变量) ，同时控制你是如何被抚养的(即自变量)。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 3:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such findings would lead to the conclusion implying that your feelings of competence and self-esteem mediate the relationship between how you were parented and how confident you feel about parenting your own children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这些发现会导致这样的结论，即你的能力和自尊感会调节你是如何被抚养的和你对抚养自己的孩子有多自信之间的关系。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Regress the dependent variable on both the mediator and independent variable to confirm that a) the mediator is a significant predictor of the dependent variable, and b) the strength of the coefficient of the previously significant independent variable in Step #1 is now greatly reduced, if not rendered nonsignificant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: If step 1 does not yield a significant result, one may still have grounds to move to step 2. Sometimes there is actually a significant relationship between independent and dependent variables but because of small sample sizes, or other extraneous factors, there could not be enough power to predict the effect that actually exists (See Shrout &amp;amp; Bolger, 2002  for more info).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
注意: 如果步骤1没有产生显著的结果，一个人可能仍然有理由移动到步骤2。有时，独立变量和因变量之间确实存在显著的关系，但是由于样本量小，或者其他额外的因素，没有足够的能量来预测实际存在的影响(参见 Shrout &amp;amp; Bolger，2002)。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Y=\beta_{30} +\beta_{31}X +\beta_{32}Me + \varepsilon_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;32&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is significant&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct Effect in a Mediation Model&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
调解模式中的直接效果&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;31&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; should be smaller in absolute value than the original effect for the independent variable (β&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; above)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the diagram shown above, the indirect effect is the product of path coefficients &amp;quot;A&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;B&amp;quot;. The direct effect is the coefficient &amp;quot;&amp;amp;nbsp;C'&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;quot;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在上图中，间接效应是路径系数“ a”和“ b”的乘积。直接的影响是系数“ c”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The direct effect measures the extent to which the dependent variable changes when the independent variable increases by one unit and the mediator variable remains unaltered. In contrast, the indirect effect measures the extent to which the dependent variable changes when the independent variable is held fixed and the mediator variable changes by the amount it would have changed had the independent variable increased by one unit. The effect of an independent variable on the dependent variable can become nonsignificant when the mediator is introduced simply because a trivial amount of variance is explained (i.e., not true mediation). Thus, it is imperative to show a significant reduction in variance explained by the independent variable before asserting either full or partial mediation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
直接效应衡量的是当自变量增加一个单位而中介变量保持不变时，因变量变化的程度。相比之下，间接效应衡量的是因变量在自变量固定和中介变量增加一个单位时变化的程度。在引入调解人时，因为只解释了微小的方差(即，不是真正的调解) ，所以自变量对因变量的影响可能变得不重要。因此，在进行全部或部分调解之前，必须显示由独立变量解释的差异显著减少。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Example'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to have statistically significant indirect effects in the absence of a total effect.  This can be explained by the presence of several mediating paths that cancel each other out, and become noticeable when one of the cancelling mediators is controlled for. This implies that the terms 'partial' and 'full' mediation should always be interpreted relative to the set of variables that are present in the model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在没有全面影响的情况下，有可能产生统计上显著的间接影响。这可以通过存在几个相互抵消的调解路径来解释，并且在控制其中一个取消调解器时变得显而易见。这意味着“部分”和“完全”中介术语应该始终相对于模型中存在的一组变量进行解释。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In all cases, the operation of &amp;quot;fixing a variable&amp;quot; must be distinguished from that of &amp;quot;controlling for a variable,&amp;quot; which has been inappropriately used in the literature. is that a sample size of 1000 is required to detect a small effect, a sample size of 100 is sufficient in detecting a medium effect, and a sample size of 50 is required to detect a large effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在所有情况下，“固定一个变量”的操作必须与“控制一个变量”的操作区分开来，后者在文献中被不恰当地使用。检测小效应需要1000个样本量，检测中等效应需要100个样本量，检测大效应需要50个样本量。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following example, drawn from Howell (2009),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Howell, D. C. (2009). Statistical methods for psychology (7th ed.). Belmot, CA: Cengage Learning.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; explains each step of Baron and Kenny's requirements to understand further how a mediation effect is characterized. Step 1 and step 2 use simple regression analysis, whereas step 3 uses [[multiple regression analysis]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bootstrapping method provides some advantages to the Sobel's test, primarily an increase in power. The Preacher and Hayes Bootstrapping method is a non-parametric test (See Non-parametric statistics for a discussion on non-parametric tests and their power). As such, the bootstrap method does not violate assumptions of normality and is therefore recommended for small sample sizes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
自举方法为 Sobel 的测试提供了一些优点，主要是增加了功耗。传道者和 Hayes Bootstrapping 方法是一种非参数检验(参见无母数统计非参数检验及其效力的讨论)。因此，自助法并不违反常态假设，因此建议小样本情况下使用。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:How you were parented (i.e., independent variable) predicts how confident you feel about parenting your own children (i.e., dependent variable).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bootstrapping involves repeatedly randomly sampling observations with replacement from the data set to compute the desired statistic in each resample. Computing over hundreds, or thousands, of bootstrap resamples provide an approximation of the sampling distribution of the statistic of interest. Hayes offers a macro &amp;lt;http://www.afhayes.com/&amp;gt; that calculates bootstrapping directly within SPSS, a computer program used for statistical analyses. This method provides point estimates and confidence intervals by which one can assess the significance or nonsignificance of a mediation effect. Point estimates reveal the mean over the number of bootstrapped samples and if zero does not fall between the resulting confidence intervals of the bootstrapping method, one can confidently conclude that there is a significant mediation effect to report.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
自举涉及重复随机抽样观察和替换从数据集计算期望的统计量在每个重采样。通过计算数百个或数千个引导重采样提供了感兴趣统计量的抽样分布的近似值。提供了一个宏 &amp;lt;  http://www.afhayes.com/ &amp;gt; ，它可以直接计算 SPSS 中的自举，这是一个用于统计分析的计算机程序。这种方法提供了点估计和置信区间，通过这些点估计和置信区间可以评估中介效应的重要性或非重要性。点估计揭示了引导样本数目的平均值，如果零没有落在引导方法产生的置信区间之间，人们可以自信地得出结论，有一个重要的中介效应要报告。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: How you were parented &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; confidence in own parenting abilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 2:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As outlined above, there are a few different options one can choose from to evaluate a mediation model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如上所述，在评估一个中介模型时，可以从几个不同的选项中进行选择。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:How you were parented (i.e., independent variable) predicts your feelings of competence and self-esteem (i.e., mediator).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bootstrapping is becoming the most popular method of testing mediation because it does not require the normality assumption to be met, and because it can be effectively utilized with smaller sample sizes (N&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;&amp;amp;nbsp;25). However, mediation continues to be most frequently determined using the logic of Baron and Kenny  or the Sobel test. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to publish tests of mediation based purely on the Baron and Kenny method or tests that make distributional assumptions such as the Sobel test. Thus, it is important to consider your options when choosing which test to conduct. and interpreted formally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
引导法因为不需要满足正态性假设，并且在样本量较小时(n &amp;lt; 25)可以有效地利用，因此成为最流行的检验中介的方法。然而，调解仍然是最常用的决定使用的逻辑的巴伦和肯尼或索贝尔测试。发布纯粹基于 Baron 和 Kenny 方法的调解测试或者进行分布性假设(如 Sobel 测试)的测试变得越来越困难。因此，在选择进行哪项测试时，考虑你的选择是很重要的。并正式解释。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: How you were parented &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Feelings of competence and self-esteem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1) Experimental-causal-chain design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1)实验因果链设计&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 3:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An experimental-causal-chain design is used when the proposed mediator is experimentally manipulated. Such a design implies that one manipulates some controlled third variable that they have reason to believe could be the underlying mechanism of a given relationship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
实验因果链设计时，所提出的中介体是实验操纵。这样的设计意味着一个人操纵一些他们有理由相信可能是给定关系的潜在机制的受控的第三变量。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Your feelings of competence and self-esteem (i.e., mediator) predict how confident you feel about parenting your own children (i.e., dependent variable), while controlling for how you were parented (i.e., independent variable).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) Measurement-of-mediation design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2)测量调解设计&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such findings would lead to the conclusion implying that your feelings of competence and self-esteem mediate the relationship between how you were parented and how confident you feel about parenting your own children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A measurement-of-mediation design can be conceptualized as a statistical approach. Such a design implies that one measures the proposed intervening variable and then uses statistical analyses to establish mediation. This approach does not involve manipulation of the hypothesized mediating variable, but only involves measurement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
度量中介设计可以概念化为统计方法。这样的设计意味着一个人衡量所提议的中间变量，然后使用统计分析来建立调解。这种方法不涉及对虚拟中介变量的操作，而只涉及测量。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: If step 1 does not yield a significant result, one may still have grounds to move to step 2. Sometimes there is actually a significant relationship between independent and dependent variables but because of small sample sizes, or other extraneous factors, there could not be enough power to predict the effect that actually exists (See Shrout &amp;amp; Bolger, 2002 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Shrout | first1 = P. E. | last2 = Bolger | first2 = N. | year = 2002 | title = Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations | journal = Psychological Methods | volume = 7 | issue = 4| pages = 422–445 | doi=10.1037/1082-989x.7.4.422}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; for more info).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Direct versus indirect effects==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experimental approaches to mediation must be carried out with caution. First, it is important to have strong theoretical support for the exploratory investigation of a potential mediating variable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
调解的试验办法必须谨慎进行。首先，对潜在中介变量的探索性研究必须有强有力的理论支持。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Direct Effect in a Mediation Model.jpg|thumb|Direct Effect in a Mediation Model]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A criticism of a mediation approach rests on the ability to manipulate and measure a mediating variable. Thus, one must be able to manipulate the proposed mediator in an acceptable and ethical fashion. As such, one must be able to measure the intervening process without interfering with the outcome. The mediator must also be able to establish construct validity of manipulation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
对调解方法的批评取决于操纵和测量调解变量的能力。因此，人们必须能够以可以接受和符合道德的方式操纵拟议的调解人。因此，人们必须能够在不干扰结果的情况下衡量干预过程。中介者还必须能够建立操纵的结构效度。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the diagram shown above, the indirect effect is the product of path coefficients &amp;quot;A&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;B&amp;quot;. The direct effect is the coefficient &amp;quot;&amp;amp;nbsp;C'&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;quot;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most common criticisms of the measurement-of-mediation approach is that it is ultimately a correlational design. Consequently, it is possible that some other third variable, independent from the proposed mediator, could be responsible for the proposed effect. However, researchers have worked hard to provide counter-evidence to this disparagement. Specifically, the following counter-arguments have been put forward: and Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
对中介测量方法最常见的批评之一是，它最终是一种相关设计。因此，可能是其他第三个变数，独立于拟议的调解员，可负责拟议的效果。然而，研究人员一直在努力为这种蔑视提供反证据。具体来说，以下的反论点已经提出: 和牧师，拉克尔，和海斯(2007年)。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The direct effect measures the extent to which the dependent variable changes when the independent variable increases by one unit and the mediator variable remains unaltered. In contrast, the indirect effect measures the extent to which the dependent variable changes when the independent variable is held fixed and the mediator variable changes by the amount it would have changed had the independent variable increased by one unit.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Robins&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Pearl-01&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Mediation Model.png|thumb|Indirect Effect in a Simple Mediation Model: The indirect effect constitutes the extent to which the X variable influences the Y variable through the mediator.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In linear systems, the total effect is equal to the sum of the direct and indirect  (''C' + AB'' in the model above). In nonlinear models, the total effect is not generally equal to the sum of the direct and indirect effects, but to a modified combination of the two.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Pearl-01&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are five possible models of moderated mediation, as illustrated in the diagrams below. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如下图所示，有节制的调解有五种可能的模式。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Participants were presented with an initial stimulus (a prime) that made them think of morality or made them think of might. They then participated in the Prisoner's Dilemma Game (PDG), in which participants pretend that they and their partner in crime have been arrested, and they must decide whether to remain loyal to their partner or to compete with their partner and cooperate with the authorities. The researchers found that prosocial individuals were affected by the morality and might primes, whereas proself individuals were not. Thus, social value orientation (proself vs. prosocial) moderated the relationship between the prime (independent variable: morality vs. might) and the behaviour chosen in the PDG (dependent variable: competitive vs. cooperative).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
研究人员向参与者提供了一个初始刺激物(初始刺激物) ，这个刺激物使他们想到道德或者让他们想到可能性。然后，他们参加了囚徒困境游戏(PDG) ，在这个游戏中，参与者假装他们和他们的犯罪同伙已经被逮捕，他们必须决定是继续忠于他们的同伙，还是与他们的同伙竞争并与当局合作。研究人员发现亲社会的个体受到道德和可能的优先权的影响，而亲社会的个体则不受影响。因此，社会价值取向(亲自与亲社会)调节了基本变量(自变量: 道德与可能)与 PDG 中选择的行为(因变量: 竞争与合作)之间的关系。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Full versus partial mediation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The researchers next looked for the presence of a mediated moderation effect. Regression analyses revealed that the type of prime (morality vs. might) mediated the moderating relationship of participants’ social value orientation on PDG behaviour. Prosocial participants who experienced the morality prime expected their partner to cooperate with them, so they chose to cooperate themselves. Prosocial participants who experienced the might prime expected their partner to compete with them, which made them more likely to compete with their partner and cooperate with the authorities. In contrast, participants with a pro-self social value orientation always acted competitively.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
接下来，研究人员寻找中和效应的存在。回归分析显示，初始类型(道德与可能)中介了参与者的社会价值取向对 PDG 行为的调节关系。那些经历过道德优势的亲社会参与者希望他们的伴侣与他们合作，所以他们选择了自己合作。亲社会的参与者经历了可能的主要期望他们的伴侣与他们竞争，这使他们更有可能与他们的伴侣竞争并与当局合作。相比之下，具有亲自我社会价值取向的参与者总是在竞争中行动。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A mediator variable can either account for all or some of the observed relationship between two variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Full mediation'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyt (2005) except in the case of no omitted variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muller，Judd，and Yzerbyt (2005) ，除了没有省略变量的情况。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maximum evidence for mediation, also called full mediation, would occur if inclusion of the mediation variable drops the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable (see pathway ''c'' in diagram above) to zero. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Full Mediation Model.png|thumb|Full Mediation Model]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To illustrate, assume that the error terms of M and Y&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
为了说明，假设 m 和 y 的错误项&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Partial mediation'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
are correlated. Under such conditions, the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
是相关的。在这种情况下,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Mediation.jpg|thumb|The Partial Mediation Model Includes a Direct Effect]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
structural coefficient B and A (between M and Y and between Y and X)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
结构系数 b 和 a (介于 m 和 y 之间，y 和 x 之间)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Partial mediation maintains that the mediating variable accounts for some, but not all, of the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable. Partial mediation implies that there is not only a significant relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable, but also some direct relationship between the independent and dependent variable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
can no longer be estimated by regressing Y on X and M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
不能再通过 x 和 m 的 y 回归来估计。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, the regression slopes may both be nonzero&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
事实上，回归斜率可能都是非零的&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for either full or partial mediation to be established, the reduction in variance explained by the independent variable must be significant as determined by one of several tests, such as the [[Sobel test]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Sobel, M. E. 1982 pp. 290&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Sobel | first1 = M. E. | year = 1982 | title = Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models |  journal = Sociological Methodology | volume = 13 | pages = 290–312 | doi = 10.2307/270723 | jstor = 270723 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The effect of an independent variable on the dependent variable can become nonsignificant when the mediator is introduced simply because a trivial amount of variance is explained (i.e., not true mediation). Thus, it is imperative to show a significant reduction in variance explained by the independent variable before asserting either full or partial mediation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
even when C is zero.  This has two &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
即使 c 是零。这里有两个&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to have statistically significant indirect effects in the absence of a total effect.&amp;lt;ref name=Hayes&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Hayes | first1 = A. F. | year = 2009 | title = Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium |  journal = Communication Monographs | volume = 76 | issue = 4| pages = 408–420 | doi = 10.1080/03637750903310360 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  This can be explained by the presence of several mediating paths that cancel each other out, and become noticeable when one of the cancelling mediators is controlled for. This implies that the terms 'partial' and 'full' mediation should always be interpreted relative to the set of variables that are present in the model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
consequences. First, new strategies must be devised for &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
后果。首先，必须制定新的战略&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In all cases, the operation of &amp;quot;fixing a variable&amp;quot; must be distinguished from that of &amp;quot;controlling for a variable,&amp;quot; which has been inappropriately used in the literature.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Robins&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Kaufman&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; The former stands for physically fixing, while the latter stands for conditioning on, adjusting for, or adding to the regression model. The two notions coincide only when all error terms (not shown in the diagram) are statistically uncorrelated. When errors are correlated, adjustments must be made to neutralize those correlations before embarking on mediation analysis (see [[Bayesian Networks]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
estimating the structural coefficients A,B and C. Second, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
估计结构系数 a，b 和 c,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the basic definitions of direct and indirect effects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
直接和间接影响的基本定义&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sobel's test==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
must go beyond regression analysis, and should&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
必须超越回归分析&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Sobel test}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
invoke an operation that mimics &amp;quot;fixing M&amp;quot;, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
调用一个模仿“修理 m”的操作,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rather than &amp;quot;conditioning on M.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
而不是“对 m 施加条件作用”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, [[Sobel test|Sobel's test]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Sobel, M. E. 1982 pp. 290&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; is performed to determine if the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable has been significantly reduced after inclusion of the mediator variable. In other words, this test assesses whether a mediation effect is significant. It examines the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable compared to the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable including the mediation factor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Sobel test is more accurate than the Baron and Kenny steps explained above; however, it does have low statistical power. As such, large sample sizes are required in order to have sufficient power to detect significant effects. This is because the key assumption of Sobel's test is the assumption of normality. Because Sobel's test evaluates a given sample on the normal distribution, small sample sizes and skewness of the sampling distribution can be problematic (see [[Normal distribution]] for more details). Thus, the rule of thumb as suggested by MacKinnon et al., (2002) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = MacKinnon | first1 = D. P. | last2 = Lockwood | first2 = C. M. | last3 = Lockwood | first3 = J. M. | last4 = West | first4 = S. G. | last5 = Sheets | first5 = V. | year = 2002 | title = A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects |  journal =   Psychological Methods| volume = 7 | issue = 1| pages = 83–104 | doi=10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.83| pmid = 11928892 | pmc=2819363}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is that a sample size of 1000 is required to detect a small effect, a sample size of 100 is sufficient in detecting a medium effect, and a sample size of 50 is required to detect a large effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such an operator, denoted do(M&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;m), was defined in Pearl (1994) or &amp;quot;structural counterfactuals&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这样一个算子，表示 do (m = m) ，在 Pearl (1994)或“结构反事实”中定义。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These new variables provide convenient notation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这些新的变量提供了方便的符号&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Preacher and Hayes (2004) bootstrap method==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
for defining direct and indirect effects. In particular,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
定义直接和间接影响。特别是,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
four types of effects have been defined for the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
四种类型的影响已被定义为&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bootstrapping method provides some advantages to the Sobel's test, primarily an increase in power. The Preacher and Hayes Bootstrapping method is a non-parametric test (See [[Non-parametric statistics]] for a discussion on non-parametric tests and their power). As such, the bootstrap method does not violate assumptions of normality and is therefore recommended for small sample sizes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
transition from X&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;0 to X&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
从 x = 0到 x = 1的跃迁:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bootstrapping involves repeatedly randomly sampling observations with replacement from the data set to compute the desired statistic in each resample. Computing over hundreds, or thousands, of bootstrap resamples provide an approximation of the sampling distribution of the statistic of interest. Hayes offers a macro &amp;lt;http://www.afhayes.com/&amp;gt; that calculates bootstrapping directly within [[SPSS]], a computer program used for statistical analyses. This method provides point estimates and confidence intervals by which one can assess the significance or nonsignificance of a mediation effect. Point estimates reveal the mean over the number of bootstrapped samples and if zero does not fall between the resulting confidence intervals of the bootstrapping method, one can confidently conclude that there is a significant mediation effect to report.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(a) Total effect –  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(a)总效应 -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Significance of mediation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;TE = E [Y(1) - Y(0)] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;          &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[ math &amp;gt; TE = e [ y (1)-y (0)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(b) Controlled direct effect -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(b)受管制的直接影响 -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As outlined above, there are a few different options one can choose from to evaluate a mediation model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; CDE(m) = E [Y(1,m) - Y(0,m) ]  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[ math &amp;gt; CDE (m) = e [ y (1，m)-y (0，m)] &amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(c) Natural direct effect -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(c)天然直接效应 -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bootstrapping (statistics)|Bootstrapping]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/ahayes/sobel.htm |title=Testing of Mediation Models in SPSS and SAS |publisher=Comm.ohio-state.edu |access-date=2012-05-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120518234943/http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/ahayes/sobel.htm |archive-date=2012-05-18 |url-status=dead }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/ahayes/SPSS%20programs/indirect.htm |title=SPSS and SAS Macro for Bootstrapping Specific Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediation Models |publisher=Comm.ohio-state.edu |access-date=2012-05-16}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is becoming the most popular method of testing mediation because it does not require the normality assumption to be met, and because it can be effectively utilized with smaller sample sizes (''N''&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;&amp;amp;nbsp;25). However, mediation continues to be most frequently determined using the logic of Baron and Kenny &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm &amp;quot;Mediation&amp;quot;]. ''davidakenny.net''. Retrieved April 25, 2012.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; or the [[Sobel test]]. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to publish tests of mediation based purely on the Baron and Kenny method or tests that make distributional assumptions such as the Sobel test. Thus, it is important to consider your options when choosing which test to conduct.&amp;lt;ref name=Hayes/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;NDE = E [Y(1,M(0))  - Y(0,M(0))] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[ math &amp;gt; NDE = e [ y (1，m (0)-y (0，m (0)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(d) Natural indirect effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(d)自然间接影响&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Approaches to mediation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; NIE = E [Y(0,M(1)) - Y(0,M(0))] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[ math &amp;gt; NIE = e [ y (0，m (1))-y (0，m (0)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where E[ ] stands for expectation taken over the error terms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
其中 e []表示期望取代了错误项。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the concept of mediation as defined within psychology is theoretically appealing, the methods used to study mediation empirically have been challenged by statisticians and epidemiologists&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Robins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Robins | first1 = J. M. | author-link = James Robins | author-link2 = Sander Greenland | last2 = Greenland | first2 = S. | year = 1992 | title = Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects |  journal = Epidemiology | volume = 3 | issue = 2| pages = 143–55 | doi = 10.1097/00001648-199203000-00013 | pmid = 1576220 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Kaufman&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal|pmc=526390|doi=10.1186/1742-5573-1-4|year=2004|last1=Kaufman|first1=J. S.|title=A further critique of the analytic strategy of adjusting for covariates to identify biologic mediation|journal=Epidemiologic Perspectives &amp;amp; Innovations |volume=1|issue=1|pages=4|last2=MacLehose|first2=R. F.|last3=Kaufman|first3=S|pmid=15507130}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bullock&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal|pmid=20307128|url=http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~schaller/528Readings/BullockGreenHa2010.pdf|year=2010|last1=Bullock|first1=J. G.|title=Yes, but what's the mechanism? (don't expect an easy answer)|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=98|issue=4|pages=550–8|last2=Green|first2=D. P.|last3=Ha|first3=S. E.|doi=10.1037/a0018933}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and interpreted formally.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Pearl-01&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Judea Pearl|Pearl, J.]] (2001) [http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/R273-U.pdf &amp;quot;Direct and indirect effects&amp;quot;]. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, [[Morgan Kaufmann]], 411&amp;amp;ndash;420.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These effects have the following interpretations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这些影响有以下解释:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1) Experimental-causal-chain design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An experimental-causal-chain design is used when the proposed mediator is experimentally manipulated. Such a design implies that one manipulates some controlled third variable that they have reason to believe could be the underlying mechanism of a given relationship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) Measurement-of-mediation design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A controlled version of the indirect effect does not&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
间接效应的受控版本则不会&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A measurement-of-mediation design can be conceptualized as a statistical approach. Such a design implies that one measures the proposed intervening variable and then uses statistical analyses to establish mediation. This approach does not involve manipulation of the hypothesized mediating variable, but only involves measurement.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|pmid=16393019|url=http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~schaller/528Readings/SpencerZannaFong2005.pdf|year=2005|last1=Spencer|first1=S. J.|title=Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=89|issue=6|pages=845–51|last2=Zanna|first2=M. P.|last3=Fong|first3=G. T.|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
exist because there is no way of disabling the &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
因为没有办法禁用&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
direct effect by fixing a variable to a constant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
把一个变量固定在一个常数上的直接效果。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Criticisms of mediation measurement==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to these definitions the total effect can be decomposed as a sum&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
根据这些定义，总效应可以分解为总和&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;TE = NDE - NIE_r &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;TE = NDE - NIE_r &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experimental approaches to mediation must be carried out with caution. First, it is important to have strong theoretical support for the exploratory investigation of a potential mediating variable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where NIE&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;r&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; stands for the reverse transition, from&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
其中 NIE &amp;lt; sub &amp;gt; r &amp;lt;/sub &amp;gt; 代表反向过渡，从&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A criticism of a mediation approach rests on the ability to manipulate and measure a mediating variable. Thus, one must be able to manipulate the proposed mediator in an acceptable and ethical fashion. As such, one must be able to measure the intervening process without interfering with the outcome. The mediator must also be able to establish construct validity of manipulation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
X&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;1 to X = 0; it becomes additive in linear systems,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 to x = 0; 它成为线性系统的可加性,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most common criticisms of the measurement-of-mediation approach is that it is ultimately a correlational design. Consequently, it is possible that some other third variable, independent from the proposed mediator, could be responsible for the proposed effect. However, researchers have worked hard to provide counter-evidence to this disparagement. Specifically, the following counter-arguments have been put forward:&amp;lt;ref name=CCWA/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where reversal of transitions entails sign reversal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
转变的逆转导致了标志的逆转。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1) Temporal precedence. For example, if the independent variable precedes the dependent variable in time, this would provide evidence suggesting a directional, and potentially causal, link from the independent variable to the dependent variable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The power of these definitions lies in their generality; they are applicable to models with arbitrary nonlinear interactions, arbitrary dependencies among the disturbances, and both continuous and categorical variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这些定义的力量在于它们的普遍性，它们适用于任意非线性相互作用的模型，干扰之间的任意依赖，以及连续变量和分类变量。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) Nonspuriousness and/or no confounds. For example, should one identify other third variables and prove that they do not alter the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable he/she would have a stronger argument for their mediation effect. See other 3rd variables below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Formulation of the indirect effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
间接效应的表述&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mediation can be an extremely useful and powerful statistical test; however, it must be used properly. It is important that the measures used to assess the mediator and the dependent variable are theoretically distinct and that the independent variable and mediator cannot interact. Should there be an interaction between the independent variable and the mediator one would have grounds to investigate [[moderation (statistics)|moderation]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In linear analysis, all effects are determined by sums&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在线性分析中，所有的影响都是由和决定的&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other third variables==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of products of structural coefficients, giving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
结构系数的乘积，给出&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
《数学》&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1) Confounding:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\begin{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
开始{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TE        &amp;amp; = C + AB \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
等于 c + AB&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Another model that is often tested is one in which competing variables in the model are alternative potential mediators or an unmeasured cause of the dependent variable. An additional variable in a [[causal model]] may obscure or confound the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Potential confounders are variables that may have a causal impact on both the independent variable and dependent variable. They include common sources of measurement error (as discussed above) as well as other influences shared by both the independent and dependent variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CDE(m) &amp;amp; = NDE = C, \text{ independent of } m\\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CDE (m) &amp;amp; = NDE = c，文本{独立于} m&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NIE        &amp;amp; = AB.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
和 = AB。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Mediation model with two covariates.jpg|thumb|Mediation model with two covariates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\end{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
结束{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In experimental studies, there is a special concern about aspects of the experimental manipulation or setting that may account for study effects, rather than the motivating theoretical factor. Any of these problems may produce spurious relationships between the independent and dependent variables as measured. Ignoring a confounding variable may bias empirical estimates of the causal effect of the independent variable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
数学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, all effects are estimable whenever the model&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
因此，无论何时模型都可以估计所有的影响&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) Suppression:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
is identified.  In non-linear systems, more stringent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
被识别出来。在非线性系统中，更为严格&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
conditions are needed for estimating the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
我们需要一些条件来估计&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:A suppressor variable increases the predictive validity of another variable when included in a regression equation. Suppression can occur when a single causal variable is related to an outcome variable through two separate mediator variables, and when one of those mediated effects is positive and one is negative. In such a case, each mediator variable suppresses or conceals the effect that is carried through the other mediator variable. For example, higher intelligence scores (a causal variable, ''A'') may cause an increase in error detection (a mediator variable, ''B'') which in turn may cause a decrease in errors made at work on an assembly line (an outcome variable, ''X''); at the same time, intelligence could also cause an increase in boredom (''C''), which in turn may cause an ''increase'' in errors (''X''). Thus, in one causal path intelligence decreases errors, and in the other it increases them. When neither mediator is included in the analysis, intelligence appears to have no effect or a weak effect on errors. However, when boredom is controlled intelligence will appear to decrease errors, and when error detection is controlled intelligence will appear to increase errors. If intelligence could be increased while only boredom was held constant, errors would decrease; if intelligence could be increased while holding only error detection constant, errors would increase.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
direct and indirect effects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
直接和间接影响&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In general, the omission of suppressors or confounders will lead to either an underestimation or an overestimation of the effect of ''A'' on ''X'', thereby either reducing or artificially inflating the magnitude of a relationship between two variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, if no confounding exists, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
例如，如果不存在混淆,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i.e.,  ε&amp;lt;sub &amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, and ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are mutually independent) the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(即 ε &amp;lt; sub &amp;gt; 1 &amp;lt;/sub &amp;gt; ，ε &amp;lt; sub &amp;gt; 2 &amp;lt;/sub &amp;gt; ，ε &amp;lt; sub &amp;gt; 3 &amp;lt;/sub &amp;gt; 是相互独立的)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(3) Moderators:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
following formulas can be derived:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
可以推导出以下公式:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and have become the target of estimation in many studies of mediation. They give&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
并成为许多中介研究评价的对象。他们给予&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Other important third variables are moderators. Moderators are variables that can make the relationship between two variables either stronger or weaker. Such variables further characterize interactions in regression by affecting the direction and/or strength of the relationship between ''X'' and ''Y''. A moderating relationship can be thought of as an [[interaction effect|interaction]]. It occurs when the relationship between variables A and B depends on the level of C. See [[moderation (statistics)|moderation]] for further discussion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
distribution-free expressions for direct and indirect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
直接和间接的分布-自由表达式&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
effects and demonstrate that, despite the arbitrary nature of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
尽管我们的研究结果具有随意性&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Moderated mediation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the error distributions and the functions f, g, and h, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
误差分布和函数 f，g，h,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mediated effects can nevertheless be estimated from data using &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
然而，我们可以通过使用数据来估计中介效应&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mediation and [[moderation (statistics)|moderation]] can co-occur in statistical models.  It is possible to mediate moderation and moderate mediation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
regression. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
回归。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The analyses of moderated mediation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有调节的中介分析&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Moderated mediation]] is when the effect of the treatment ''A'' on the mediator and/or the partial effect ''B'' on the dependent variable depend in turn on levels of another variable (moderator). Essentially, in moderated mediation, mediation is first established, and then one investigates if the mediation effect that describes the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable is moderated by different levels of another variable (i.e., a moderator). This definition has been outlined by Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyt (2005)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Muller&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Muller | first1 = D. | last2 = Judd | first2 = C. M. | last3 = Yzerbyt | first3 = V. Y. | year = 2005 | title = When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated |  journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 89 | issue = 6| pages = 852–863 | doi = 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852 | pmid = 16393020 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Preacher&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D. &amp;amp; Hayes, A. F. (2007).  Assessing moderated mediation hypotheses: Strategies, methods, and prescriptions.  Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185&amp;amp;ndash;227.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and mediating moderators fall as special cases of the causal mediation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
和调解人作为因果调解的特殊案例下降&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
analysis, and the mediation formulas identify how various interactions coefficients contribute to the necessary and sufficient components of mediation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
分析，以及调解公式确定各种相互作用系数如何有助于调解的必要和充分的组成部分。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Models of moderated mediation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are five possible models of moderated mediation, as illustrated in the diagrams below.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Muller&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A serial mediation model with two mediator variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一个具有两个中介变量的串行中介模型。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# In the first model the independent variable also moderates the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The second possible model of moderated mediation involves a new variable which moderates the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator (the ''A'' path).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A conceptual diagram that depicts a parallel mediation model with two mediator variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
描述具有两个中介变量的并行中介模型的概念图。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The third model of moderated mediation involves a new moderator variable which moderates the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable (the ''B'' path).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assume the model takes the form&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
假设模型采用这种形式&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Moderated mediation can also occur when one moderating variable affects both the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator (the ''A'' path) and the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable (the  ''B'' path).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
《数学》&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The fifth and final possible model of moderated mediation involves two new moderator variables, one moderating the ''A'' path and the other moderating the ''B'' path.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\begin{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
开始{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
X &amp;amp; = \varepsilon_1 \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
M &amp;amp; = b_0 + b_1X + \varepsilon_2 \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
0 + b 1x + varepsilon 2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Y &amp;amp; = c_0 + c_1X + c_2M + c_3XM + \varepsilon_3 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Y &amp;amp; = c _ 0 + c _ 1x + c _ 2m + c _ 3xm + varepsilon _ 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| [[File:Mediated moderation model 1.png|centre|thumb|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\end{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
结束{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First option: independent variable moderates the ''B'' path.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
数学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| [[File:Mediated moderation model 2.png|centre|thumb|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where the parameter &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;c_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; quantifies the degree to which M modifies the effect of X on Y. Even when all parameters are estimated from data, it is still not obvious what combinations of parameters measure the direct and indirect effect of X on Y, or, more practically, how to assess the fraction of the total effect &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;TE&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that is explained by mediation and the fraction of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;TE&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that is owed to mediation.  In linear analysis, the former fraction is captured by the product &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_1 c_2 / TE&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the latter by the difference &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(TE - c_1)/TE&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the two quantities coincide.  In the presence of interaction, however, each fraction demands a separate analysis, as dictated by the Mediation Formula, which yields:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
其中参数 c _ 3 &amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; 量化了 m 修改 x 对 y 影响的程度。即使所有的参数都是从数据中估计出来的，仍然不清楚哪些参数组合可以衡量 x 对 y 的直接和间接影响，或者更实际地说，如何评估调解和归因于调解的“数学”“数学”“数学”所占总影响的比例。在线性分析中，前者由乘积 &amp;lt; math &amp;gt; b1c2/TE &amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; 获得，后者由差 &amp;lt; math &amp;gt; (TE-c1)/TE &amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; 获得，两个量重合。然而，在存在相互作用的情况下，每个部分都需要按照调解公式进行单独分析，分析结果如下:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second option: fourth variable moderates the ''A'' path.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
《数学》&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| [[File:Mediated moderation model 3.png|centre|thumb|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\begin{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
开始{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Third option: fourth variable moderates the ''B'' path.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NDE &amp;amp; = c_1 + b_0 c_3 \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NDE &amp;amp; = c 1 + b 0 c 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| [[File:Mediated moderation model 4.png|centre|thumb|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NIE &amp;amp; = b_1 c_2 \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 c 2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fourth option: fourth variable moderates both the ''A'' path and the ''B'' path.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TE  &amp;amp; = c_1 + b_0 c_3 + b_1(c_2 + c_3) \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TE &amp;amp; = c1 + b0 c3 + b1(c2 + c3) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| [[File:Mediated moderation model 5.png|centre|thumb|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;amp; = NDE + NIE + b_1 c_3.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;amp; = NDE + NIE + b 1 c 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fifth option: fourth variable moderates the ''A'' path and a fifth variable moderates the ''B'' path.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\end{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
结束{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
数学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mediated moderation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the fraction of output response for which mediation would be sufficient is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
因此，输出响应中中介足够的部分是&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mediated moderation is a variant of both moderation and mediation. This is where there is initially overall moderation and the direct effect of the moderator variable on the outcome is mediated. The main difference between mediated moderation and moderated mediation is that for the former there is initial (overall) moderation and this effect is mediated and for the latter there is no moderation but the effect of either the treatment on the mediator (path ''A'') is moderated or the effect of the mediator on the outcome (path ''B'') is moderated.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Muller&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{NIE}{TE} = \frac{b_1 c_2}{c_1 + b_0 c_3 + b_1 (c_2 + c_3)}, &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 + b _ 0 c _ 3 + b _ 1(c _ 2 + c _ 3) ，&amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to establish mediated moderation, one must first establish [[Moderation (statistics)|moderation]], meaning that the direction and/or the strength of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables (path ''C'') differs depending on the level of a third variable (the moderator variable). Researchers next look for the presence of mediated moderation when they have a theoretical reason to believe that there is a fourth variable that acts as the mechanism or process that causes the relationship between the independent variable and the moderator (path ''A'') or between the moderator and the dependent variable (path ''C'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
while the fraction for which mediation would be necessary is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
而调解的必要部分是&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Example'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; 1- \frac{NDE}{TE} = \frac{b_1 (c_2 +c_3)}{c_1 + b_0c_3 + b_1 (c_2 + c_3)}. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1-frac { NDE }{ TE } = frac { b _ 1(c _ 2 + c _ 3)}{ c _ 1 + b _ 0c _ 3 + b _ 1(c _ 2 + c _ 3)}.数学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following is a published example of mediated moderation in psychological research.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Smeesters | first1 = D. | last2 = Warlop | first2 = L. | last3 = Avermaet | first3 = E. V. | last4 = Corneille | first4 = O. | last5 = Yzerbyt | first5 = V. | year = 2003 | title = Do not prime hawks with doves: The interplay of construct activation and consistency of social value orientation on cooperative behavior |  journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 84 | issue = 5| pages = 972–987 | doi = 10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.972 | pmid = 12757142 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Participants were presented with an initial stimulus (a prime) that made them think of morality or made them think of might. They then participated in the [[Prisoner's dilemma|Prisoner's Dilemma Game]] (PDG), in which participants pretend that they and their partner in crime have been arrested, and they must decide whether to remain loyal to their partner or to compete with their partner and cooperate with the authorities. The researchers found that prosocial individuals were affected by the morality and might primes, whereas proself individuals were not. Thus, [[Social value orientations|social value orientation]] (proself vs. prosocial) moderated the relationship between the prime (independent variable: morality vs. might) and the behaviour chosen in the PDG (dependent variable: competitive vs. cooperative).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These fractions involve non-obvious combinations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这些分数包含不明显的组合&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of the model's parameters, and can be constructed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
模型的参数，可以构造出&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The researchers next looked for the presence of a mediated moderation effect. Regression analyses revealed that the type of prime (morality vs. might) mediated the moderating relationship of participants’ [[Social value orientations|social value orientation]] on PDG behaviour. Prosocial participants who experienced the morality prime expected their partner to cooperate with them, so they chose to cooperate themselves. Prosocial participants who experienced the might prime expected their partner to compete with them, which made them more likely to compete with their partner and cooperate with the authorities. In contrast, participants with a pro-self social value orientation always acted competitively.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mechanically with the help of the Mediation Formula. Significantly, due to interaction, a direct effect can be sustained even when the parameter &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;c_1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; vanishes and, moreover, a total effect can be sustained even when both the direct and indirect effects vanish.  This illustrates that estimating parameters in isolation tells us little about the effect of mediation and, more generally, mediation and moderation are intertwined and cannot be assessed separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
借助调解公式机械地进行调解。值得注意的是，由于相互作用，即使参数 c _ 1 &amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; 消失，直接影响也可以持续，而且，即使直接和间接影响消失，总体影响也可以持续。这表明，孤立地估计参数并不能告诉我们有关调解效果的信息，更普遍地说，调解和调节是相互交织的，不能单独进行评估。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Regression equations for moderated mediation and mediated moderation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyt (2005)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Muller&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; outline three fundamental models that underlie both moderated mediation and mediated moderation. ''Mo'' represents the moderator variable(s), ''Me'' represents the mediator variable(s), and ''ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;'' represents the measurement error of each regression equation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Notes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
注释&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Mediation.jpg|434px|right|A simple statistical mediation model.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bibliography&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
参考书目&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 1''': Moderation of the relationship between the independent variable (X) and the dependent variable (Y), also called the overall treatment effect (path ''C'' in the diagram).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Y=\beta_{40} +\beta_{41}X +\beta_{42}Mo +\beta_{43}XMo + \varepsilon_4&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* To establish overall moderation, the ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;43&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; regression weight must be significant (first step for establishing mediated moderation).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first = Kristopher J.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一，克里斯托弗 j。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Establishing moderated mediation requires that there be no moderation effect, so the ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;43&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; regression weight must not be significant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last2 = Hayes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = Hayes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first2 = Andrew F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = Andrew f.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 2''': Moderation of the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator (path ''A'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | title = SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = 用于估计简单调解模型中的间接影响的 SPSS 和 SAS 程序&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Me=\beta_{50} +\beta_{51}X +\beta_{52}Mo +\beta_{53}XMo + \varepsilon_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | journal = Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
行为研究方法，仪器和计算机&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If the ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;53&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; regression weight is significant, the moderator affects the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | volume = 36&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
36&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | issue = 4&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第四期&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 3''': Moderation of both the relationship between the independent and dependent variables (path ''A'') and the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable (path ''B'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | pages = 717–731&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 页数 = 717-731&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Y=\beta_{60} +\beta_{61}X +\beta_{62}Mo +\beta_{63}XMo +\beta_{64}Me +\beta_{65}MeMo  + \varepsilon_6&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | url = http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If both ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;53&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; in step 2 and ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;63&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; in step 3 are significant, the moderator affects the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator (path ''A'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | year = 2004&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2004年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If both ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;53&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; in step 2 and ''β&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;65&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;'' in step 3 are significant, the moderator affects the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable (path ''B'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | doi = 10.3758/BF03206553&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.3758/BF03206553&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Either or both of the conditions above may be true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
      | pmid = 15641418&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
15641418&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 | doi-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
免费访问&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Causal mediation analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Fixing versus conditioning===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first = Kristopher J.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一，克里斯托弗 j。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mediation analysis quantifies the &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last2 = Hayes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = Hayes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
extent to which a variable participates in the transmittance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first2 = Andrew F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = Andrew f.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of change from a cause to its effect. It is inherently a causal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | title = Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = 评估和比较多重介质模型中间接影响的渐近和重采样策略&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
notion, hence it cannot be defined in statistical terms.  Traditionally,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | journal = Behavior Research Methods&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
行为研究方法&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
however, the bulk of mediation analysis has been conducted&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | volume = 40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
within the confines of linear regression, with statistical &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | issue = 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第三期&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
terminology masking the causal character of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | pages = 879–891&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
879-891&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
relationships involved. This led to difficulties,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | url = http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
biases, and limitations that have been alleviated by&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | year = 2008&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2008年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
modern methods of causal analysis, based on causal diagrams&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | doi = 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.3758/BRM. 40.3.879&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and counterfactual logic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | pmid = 18697684&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
18697684&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
      | doi-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
免费访问&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The source of these difficulties lies in defining mediation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in terms of changes induced by adding a third variables into &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a regression equation. Such statistical changes are&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
epiphenomena which sometimes accompany mediation but, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first = K. J.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 第一 = k. j。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in general, fail to capture the causal relationships that&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last2 = Zyphur&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = Zyphur&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mediation analysis aims to quantify.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first2 = M. J.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = m. j.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last3 = Zhang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3 = Zhang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic premise of the causal approach is that it is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first3 = Z.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3 = z.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
not always appropriate to &amp;quot;control&amp;quot; for the mediator ''M''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | title = A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = 用于评估多层次调解的通用多层次结构方程模型框架&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
when we seek to estimate the direct effect of ''X'' on ''Y''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | journal = Psychological Methods&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
心理学方法&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(see the Figure above).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | volume = 15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The classical rationale for &amp;quot;controlling&amp;quot; for ''M''&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | issue = 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第三期&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
is that, if we succeed in preventing ''M'' from changing, then &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | pages = 209–233&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| pages = 209-233&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
whatever changes we measure in Y are attributable solely &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | year = 2010&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2010年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to variations in ''X'' and we are justified then in proclaiming the &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | doi = 10.1037/a0020141&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1037/a0020141&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
effect observed as &amp;quot;direct effect of ''X'' on ''Y''.&amp;quot; Unfortunately,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | pmid = 20822249&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
20822249&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;controlling for ''M''&amp;quot; does not physically prevent ''M'' from changing;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | citeseerx = 10.1.1.570.7747&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
10.1.1.570.7747&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
it merely narrows the analyst's attention to cases&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of equal ''M'' values.  Moreover, the language of probability &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
theory does not possess the notation to express the idea &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of &amp;quot;preventing ''M'' from changing&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;physically holding ''M'' constant&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The only operator probability provides is &amp;quot;Conditioning&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which is what we do when we &amp;quot;control&amp;quot; for ''M'', &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or add ''M'' as a regressor in the equation for ''Y''. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The result is that, instead of physically holding ''M&amp;quot; constant &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(say at ''M'' = ''m'') and comparing ''Y'' for units under ''X''&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;1' to those under &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''X'' = 0, we allow ''M'' to vary but ignore all units except those in &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which ''M'' achieves the value ''M''&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;''m''. These two operations are &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
fundamentally different, and yield different results,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last1=Robins|first1=J.M.|last2=Greenland|first2=S.|title=Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects|journal=Epidemiology|date=1992|volume=3|issue=2|pages=143–155|doi=10.1097/00001648-199203000-00013|pmid=1576220}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;pearl1994&amp;quot; &amp;gt;{{cite journal|last1=Pearl|first1=Judea|editor1-last=Lopez de Mantaras|editor1-first=R.|editor2-last=Poole|editor2-first=D.|title=A probabilistic calculus of actions|journal=Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 10|volume=1302|date=1994|pages=454–462|publisher=[[Morgan Kaufmann]]|location=San Mateo, CA|bibcode=2013arXiv1302.6835P|arxiv=1302.6835}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; except in the case of no omitted variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To illustrate, assume that the error terms of ''M'' and ''Y''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
are correlated. Under such conditions, the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
structural coefficient ''B'' and ''A'' (between ''M'' and ''Y'' and between ''Y'' and ''X'')&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
can no longer be estimated by regressing ''Y'' on ''X'' and ''M''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, the regression slopes may both be nonzero&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
even when ''C'' is zero.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|pmid=24885338|year=2014|last1=Pearl|first1=J|title=Interpretation and identification of causal mediation|journal=Psychological Methods|volume=19|issue=4|pages=459–81|doi=10.1037/a0036434|url=ftp://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/r389-imai-etal-commentary-r421-reprint.pdf}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  This has two &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
consequences. First, new strategies must be devised for &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
estimating the structural coefficients ''A,B'' and ''C''. Second, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the basic definitions of direct and indirect effects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
must go beyond regression analysis, and should&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
invoke an operation that mimics &amp;quot;fixing ''M''&amp;quot;, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rather than &amp;quot;conditioning on ''M''.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Statistical models&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 统计模型&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Independence (probability theory)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 独立概率论&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Definitions===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Psychometrics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 心理测量学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;This page was moved from [[wikipedia:en:Mediation (statistics)]]. Its edit history can be viewed at [[中介变量/edithistory]]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:待整理页面]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Alchemist</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E4%B8%AD%E4%BB%8B%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90&amp;diff=22570</id>
		<title>中介分析</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E4%B8%AD%E4%BB%8B%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90&amp;diff=22570"/>
		<updated>2021-05-27T07:50:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Alchemist：&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;此词条暂由彩云小译翻译，翻译字数共2553，未经人工整理和审校，带来阅读不便，请见谅。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Simple Mediation Model.png|thumb|Simple Mediation Model]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Simple Mediation Model&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
简单调解模式&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In [[statistics]], a '''mediation''' model seeks to identify and explain the mechanism or process that underlies an observed relationship between an [[independent variable]] and a [[dependent variable]] via the inclusion of a third hypothetical variable, known as a '''mediator variable''' (also a '''mediating variable''', '''intermediary variable''', or '''intervening variable''').&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|title=Types of Variables|website=[[University of Indiana]]|url=http://www.indiana.edu/~educy520/sec5982/week_2/variable_types.pdf}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Rather than a direct causal relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable, a mediation model proposes that the independent variable influences the (non-observable) mediator variable, which in turn influences the dependent variable. Thus, the mediator variable serves to clarify the nature of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). ''Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis''. New York: Erlbaum.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In statistics, a mediation model seeks to identify and explain the mechanism or process that underlies an observed relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable via the inclusion of a third hypothetical variable, known as a mediator variable (also a mediating variable, intermediary variable, or intervening variable). Rather than a direct causal relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable, a mediation model proposes that the independent variable influences the (non-observable) mediator variable, which in turn influences the dependent variable. Thus, the mediator variable serves to clarify the nature of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在[[统计学]]中，中介模型试图通过加入第三个假设变量，即中介变量(也是中介变量、中介变量或中间变量) ，来识别和解释所观察到的自变量与因变量之间关系的底层机制或过程。一个中介模型没有在自变量和因变量之间建立直接的因果关系，而是提出自变量影响(不可观察的)调解变量，这反过来又影响因变量。因此，中介变量的作用是阐明自变量和因变量之间关系的性质。与自变量和因变量之间存在直接的因果关系不同，中介模型主张：自变量通过影响中介变量（不可观测），进而影响因变量。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mediation analyses are employed to understand a known relationship by exploring the underlying mechanism or process by which one variable influences another variable through a mediator variable.&amp;lt;ref name=CCWA&amp;gt;Cohen, J.; Cohen, P.; West, S. G.; [[Leona S. Aiken|Aiken, L. S.]] (2003) ''Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences'' (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In particular, mediation analysis can contribute to better understanding the relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable when these variables do not have an obvious direct connection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mediation analyses are employed to understand a known relationship by exploring the underlying mechanism or process by which one variable influences another variable through a mediator variable. In particular, mediation analysis can contribute to better understanding the relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable when these variables do not have an obvious direct connection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
中介分析通过探索一个变量通过一个中介变量影响另一个变量的潜在机制或过程来理解一个已知的关系。特别是，中介分析有助于更好地理解自变量和因变量之间的关系，当这些变量没有明显的直接联系。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Baron and Kenny's (1986) steps for mediation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Baron and Kenny (1986) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A. (1986) &amp;quot;The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research &amp;amp;ndash; Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations&amp;quot;, [[Journal of Personality and Social Psychology]], Vol. 51(6), pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;1173&amp;amp;ndash;1182.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; laid out several requirements that must be met to form a true mediation relationship. They are outlined below using a real-world example. See the diagram above for a visual representation of the overall mediating relationship to be explained. Note: Hayes (2009)&amp;lt;ref name=Hayes/&amp;gt; critiqued Baron and Kenny's mediation steps approach, and as of 2019, [[David A. Kenny]] on his website stated that mediation can exist in the absence of a 'significant' total effect, and therefore step 1 below may not be needed. This situation is sometimes referred to as &amp;quot;inconsistent mediation&amp;quot;. Later publications by Hayes also questioned the concepts of full or partial mediation and advocated for these terms, along with the classical mediation steps approach outlined below, to be abandoned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Baron and Kenny (1986)  laid out several requirements that must be met to form a true mediation relationship. They are outlined below using a real-world example. See the diagram above for a visual representation of the overall mediating relationship to be explained. Note: Hayes (2009) explains each step of Baron and Kenny's requirements to understand further how a mediation effect is characterized. Step 1 and step 2 use simple regression analysis, whereas step 3 uses multiple regression analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
巴伦和肯尼(1986)提出了若干必须满足的要求，以形成一个真正的调解关系。下面用一个现实世界的例子对它们进行了概述。请参阅上面的图表以了解整个中介关系的可视化表示形式。注: Hayes (2009)解释了 Baron 和 Kenny 的每一步要求，以进一步了解调解效应是如何表现的。第一步和第二步使用简单的回归分析/回归分析，而第三步使用多个/频率/频率。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 1:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一步:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Regress the dependent variable on the independent variable to confirm that the independent variable is a significant predictor of the dependent variable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How you were parented (i.e., independent variable) predicts how confident you feel about parenting your own children (i.e., dependent variable).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
你是如何被抚养的(即，独立变量)预示着你对抚养自己的孩子有多自信(即，因变量)。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Independent variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; dependent variable&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 How you were parented &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; confidence in own parenting abilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
你是如何培养孩子对自己养育能力的信心的。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Y=\beta_{10} +\beta_{11}X + \varepsilon_1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is significant&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 2:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第二步:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 2:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How you were parented (i.e., independent variable) predicts your feelings of competence and self-esteem (i.e., mediator).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
你是如何被抚养的(即，独立变量)可以预测你的能力和自尊的感受(即，调解人)。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Regress the mediator on the independent variable to confirm that the independent variable is a significant predictor of the mediator. If the mediator is not associated with the independent variable, then it couldn’t possibly mediate anything.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 How you were parented &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Feelings of competence and self-esteem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
你是如何培养自己的能力和自尊心的。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Independent variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; mediator&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 3:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第三步:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Me=\beta_{20} +\beta_{21}X + \varepsilon_2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;21&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is significant&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Your feelings of competence and self-esteem (i.e., mediator) predict how confident you feel about parenting your own children (i.e., dependent variable), while controlling for how you were parented (i.e., independent variable).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
你的能力和自尊感(即中介者)能够预测你对抚养自己的孩子的自信程度(即因变量) ，同时控制你是如何被抚养的(即自变量)。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 3:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such findings would lead to the conclusion implying that your feelings of competence and self-esteem mediate the relationship between how you were parented and how confident you feel about parenting your own children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这些发现会导致这样的结论，即你的能力和自尊感会调节你是如何被抚养的和你对抚养自己的孩子有多自信之间的关系。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Regress the dependent variable on both the mediator and independent variable to confirm that a) the mediator is a significant predictor of the dependent variable, and b) the strength of the coefficient of the previously significant independent variable in Step #1 is now greatly reduced, if not rendered nonsignificant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: If step 1 does not yield a significant result, one may still have grounds to move to step 2. Sometimes there is actually a significant relationship between independent and dependent variables but because of small sample sizes, or other extraneous factors, there could not be enough power to predict the effect that actually exists (See Shrout &amp;amp; Bolger, 2002  for more info).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
注意: 如果步骤1没有产生显著的结果，一个人可能仍然有理由移动到步骤2。有时，独立变量和因变量之间确实存在显著的关系，但是由于样本量小，或者其他额外的因素，没有足够的能量来预测实际存在的影响(参见 Shrout &amp;amp; Bolger，2002)。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Y=\beta_{30} +\beta_{31}X +\beta_{32}Me + \varepsilon_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;32&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is significant&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct Effect in a Mediation Model&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
调解模式中的直接效果&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;31&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; should be smaller in absolute value than the original effect for the independent variable (β&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; above)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the diagram shown above, the indirect effect is the product of path coefficients &amp;quot;A&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;B&amp;quot;. The direct effect is the coefficient &amp;quot;&amp;amp;nbsp;C'&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;quot;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在上图中，间接效应是路径系数“ a”和“ b”的乘积。直接的影响是系数“ c”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The direct effect measures the extent to which the dependent variable changes when the independent variable increases by one unit and the mediator variable remains unaltered. In contrast, the indirect effect measures the extent to which the dependent variable changes when the independent variable is held fixed and the mediator variable changes by the amount it would have changed had the independent variable increased by one unit. The effect of an independent variable on the dependent variable can become nonsignificant when the mediator is introduced simply because a trivial amount of variance is explained (i.e., not true mediation). Thus, it is imperative to show a significant reduction in variance explained by the independent variable before asserting either full or partial mediation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
直接效应衡量的是当自变量增加一个单位而中介变量保持不变时，因变量变化的程度。相比之下，间接效应衡量的是因变量在自变量固定和中介变量增加一个单位时变化的程度。在引入调解人时，因为只解释了微小的方差(即，不是真正的调解) ，所以自变量对因变量的影响可能变得不重要。因此，在进行全部或部分调解之前，必须显示由独立变量解释的差异显著减少。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Example'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to have statistically significant indirect effects in the absence of a total effect.  This can be explained by the presence of several mediating paths that cancel each other out, and become noticeable when one of the cancelling mediators is controlled for. This implies that the terms 'partial' and 'full' mediation should always be interpreted relative to the set of variables that are present in the model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在没有全面影响的情况下，有可能产生统计上显著的间接影响。这可以通过存在几个相互抵消的调解路径来解释，并且在控制其中一个取消调解器时变得显而易见。这意味着“部分”和“完全”中介术语应该始终相对于模型中存在的一组变量进行解释。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In all cases, the operation of &amp;quot;fixing a variable&amp;quot; must be distinguished from that of &amp;quot;controlling for a variable,&amp;quot; which has been inappropriately used in the literature. is that a sample size of 1000 is required to detect a small effect, a sample size of 100 is sufficient in detecting a medium effect, and a sample size of 50 is required to detect a large effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在所有情况下，“固定一个变量”的操作必须与“控制一个变量”的操作区分开来，后者在文献中被不恰当地使用。检测小效应需要1000个样本量，检测中等效应需要100个样本量，检测大效应需要50个样本量。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following example, drawn from Howell (2009),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Howell, D. C. (2009). Statistical methods for psychology (7th ed.). Belmot, CA: Cengage Learning.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; explains each step of Baron and Kenny's requirements to understand further how a mediation effect is characterized. Step 1 and step 2 use simple regression analysis, whereas step 3 uses [[multiple regression analysis]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bootstrapping method provides some advantages to the Sobel's test, primarily an increase in power. The Preacher and Hayes Bootstrapping method is a non-parametric test (See Non-parametric statistics for a discussion on non-parametric tests and their power). As such, the bootstrap method does not violate assumptions of normality and is therefore recommended for small sample sizes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
自举方法为 Sobel 的测试提供了一些优点，主要是增加了功耗。传道者和 Hayes Bootstrapping 方法是一种非参数检验(参见无母数统计非参数检验及其效力的讨论)。因此，自助法并不违反常态假设，因此建议小样本情况下使用。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:How you were parented (i.e., independent variable) predicts how confident you feel about parenting your own children (i.e., dependent variable).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bootstrapping involves repeatedly randomly sampling observations with replacement from the data set to compute the desired statistic in each resample. Computing over hundreds, or thousands, of bootstrap resamples provide an approximation of the sampling distribution of the statistic of interest. Hayes offers a macro &amp;lt;http://www.afhayes.com/&amp;gt; that calculates bootstrapping directly within SPSS, a computer program used for statistical analyses. This method provides point estimates and confidence intervals by which one can assess the significance or nonsignificance of a mediation effect. Point estimates reveal the mean over the number of bootstrapped samples and if zero does not fall between the resulting confidence intervals of the bootstrapping method, one can confidently conclude that there is a significant mediation effect to report.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
自举涉及重复随机抽样观察和替换从数据集计算期望的统计量在每个重采样。通过计算数百个或数千个引导重采样提供了感兴趣统计量的抽样分布的近似值。提供了一个宏 &amp;lt;  http://www.afhayes.com/ &amp;gt; ，它可以直接计算 SPSS 中的自举，这是一个用于统计分析的计算机程序。这种方法提供了点估计和置信区间，通过这些点估计和置信区间可以评估中介效应的重要性或非重要性。点估计揭示了引导样本数目的平均值，如果零没有落在引导方法产生的置信区间之间，人们可以自信地得出结论，有一个重要的中介效应要报告。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: How you were parented &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; confidence in own parenting abilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 2:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As outlined above, there are a few different options one can choose from to evaluate a mediation model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如上所述，在评估一个中介模型时，可以从几个不同的选项中进行选择。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:How you were parented (i.e., independent variable) predicts your feelings of competence and self-esteem (i.e., mediator).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bootstrapping is becoming the most popular method of testing mediation because it does not require the normality assumption to be met, and because it can be effectively utilized with smaller sample sizes (N&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;&amp;amp;nbsp;25). However, mediation continues to be most frequently determined using the logic of Baron and Kenny  or the Sobel test. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to publish tests of mediation based purely on the Baron and Kenny method or tests that make distributional assumptions such as the Sobel test. Thus, it is important to consider your options when choosing which test to conduct. and interpreted formally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
引导法因为不需要满足正态性假设，并且在样本量较小时(n &amp;lt; 25)可以有效地利用，因此成为最流行的检验中介的方法。然而，调解仍然是最常用的决定使用的逻辑的巴伦和肯尼或索贝尔测试。发布纯粹基于 Baron 和 Kenny 方法的调解测试或者进行分布性假设(如 Sobel 测试)的测试变得越来越困难。因此，在选择进行哪项测试时，考虑你的选择是很重要的。并正式解释。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: How you were parented &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Feelings of competence and self-esteem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1) Experimental-causal-chain design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1)实验因果链设计&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 3:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An experimental-causal-chain design is used when the proposed mediator is experimentally manipulated. Such a design implies that one manipulates some controlled third variable that they have reason to believe could be the underlying mechanism of a given relationship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
实验因果链设计时，所提出的中介体是实验操纵。这样的设计意味着一个人操纵一些他们有理由相信可能是给定关系的潜在机制的受控的第三变量。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Your feelings of competence and self-esteem (i.e., mediator) predict how confident you feel about parenting your own children (i.e., dependent variable), while controlling for how you were parented (i.e., independent variable).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) Measurement-of-mediation design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2)测量调解设计&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such findings would lead to the conclusion implying that your feelings of competence and self-esteem mediate the relationship between how you were parented and how confident you feel about parenting your own children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A measurement-of-mediation design can be conceptualized as a statistical approach. Such a design implies that one measures the proposed intervening variable and then uses statistical analyses to establish mediation. This approach does not involve manipulation of the hypothesized mediating variable, but only involves measurement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
度量中介设计可以概念化为统计方法。这样的设计意味着一个人衡量所提议的中间变量，然后使用统计分析来建立调解。这种方法不涉及对虚拟中介变量的操作，而只涉及测量。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: If step 1 does not yield a significant result, one may still have grounds to move to step 2. Sometimes there is actually a significant relationship between independent and dependent variables but because of small sample sizes, or other extraneous factors, there could not be enough power to predict the effect that actually exists (See Shrout &amp;amp; Bolger, 2002 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Shrout | first1 = P. E. | last2 = Bolger | first2 = N. | year = 2002 | title = Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations | journal = Psychological Methods | volume = 7 | issue = 4| pages = 422–445 | doi=10.1037/1082-989x.7.4.422}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; for more info).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Direct versus indirect effects==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experimental approaches to mediation must be carried out with caution. First, it is important to have strong theoretical support for the exploratory investigation of a potential mediating variable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
调解的试验办法必须谨慎进行。首先，对潜在中介变量的探索性研究必须有强有力的理论支持。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Direct Effect in a Mediation Model.jpg|thumb|Direct Effect in a Mediation Model]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A criticism of a mediation approach rests on the ability to manipulate and measure a mediating variable. Thus, one must be able to manipulate the proposed mediator in an acceptable and ethical fashion. As such, one must be able to measure the intervening process without interfering with the outcome. The mediator must also be able to establish construct validity of manipulation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
对调解方法的批评取决于操纵和测量调解变量的能力。因此，人们必须能够以可以接受和符合道德的方式操纵拟议的调解人。因此，人们必须能够在不干扰结果的情况下衡量干预过程。中介者还必须能够建立操纵的结构效度。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the diagram shown above, the indirect effect is the product of path coefficients &amp;quot;A&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;B&amp;quot;. The direct effect is the coefficient &amp;quot;&amp;amp;nbsp;C'&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;quot;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most common criticisms of the measurement-of-mediation approach is that it is ultimately a correlational design. Consequently, it is possible that some other third variable, independent from the proposed mediator, could be responsible for the proposed effect. However, researchers have worked hard to provide counter-evidence to this disparagement. Specifically, the following counter-arguments have been put forward: and Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
对中介测量方法最常见的批评之一是，它最终是一种相关设计。因此，可能是其他第三个变数，独立于拟议的调解员，可负责拟议的效果。然而，研究人员一直在努力为这种蔑视提供反证据。具体来说，以下的反论点已经提出: 和牧师，拉克尔，和海斯(2007年)。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The direct effect measures the extent to which the dependent variable changes when the independent variable increases by one unit and the mediator variable remains unaltered. In contrast, the indirect effect measures the extent to which the dependent variable changes when the independent variable is held fixed and the mediator variable changes by the amount it would have changed had the independent variable increased by one unit.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Robins&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Pearl-01&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Mediation Model.png|thumb|Indirect Effect in a Simple Mediation Model: The indirect effect constitutes the extent to which the X variable influences the Y variable through the mediator.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In linear systems, the total effect is equal to the sum of the direct and indirect  (''C' + AB'' in the model above). In nonlinear models, the total effect is not generally equal to the sum of the direct and indirect effects, but to a modified combination of the two.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Pearl-01&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are five possible models of moderated mediation, as illustrated in the diagrams below. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如下图所示，有节制的调解有五种可能的模式。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Participants were presented with an initial stimulus (a prime) that made them think of morality or made them think of might. They then participated in the Prisoner's Dilemma Game (PDG), in which participants pretend that they and their partner in crime have been arrested, and they must decide whether to remain loyal to their partner or to compete with their partner and cooperate with the authorities. The researchers found that prosocial individuals were affected by the morality and might primes, whereas proself individuals were not. Thus, social value orientation (proself vs. prosocial) moderated the relationship between the prime (independent variable: morality vs. might) and the behaviour chosen in the PDG (dependent variable: competitive vs. cooperative).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
研究人员向参与者提供了一个初始刺激物(初始刺激物) ，这个刺激物使他们想到道德或者让他们想到可能性。然后，他们参加了囚徒困境游戏(PDG) ，在这个游戏中，参与者假装他们和他们的犯罪同伙已经被逮捕，他们必须决定是继续忠于他们的同伙，还是与他们的同伙竞争并与当局合作。研究人员发现亲社会的个体受到道德和可能的优先权的影响，而亲社会的个体则不受影响。因此，社会价值取向(亲自与亲社会)调节了基本变量(自变量: 道德与可能)与 PDG 中选择的行为(因变量: 竞争与合作)之间的关系。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Full versus partial mediation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The researchers next looked for the presence of a mediated moderation effect. Regression analyses revealed that the type of prime (morality vs. might) mediated the moderating relationship of participants’ social value orientation on PDG behaviour. Prosocial participants who experienced the morality prime expected their partner to cooperate with them, so they chose to cooperate themselves. Prosocial participants who experienced the might prime expected their partner to compete with them, which made them more likely to compete with their partner and cooperate with the authorities. In contrast, participants with a pro-self social value orientation always acted competitively.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
接下来，研究人员寻找中和效应的存在。回归分析显示，初始类型(道德与可能)中介了参与者的社会价值取向对 PDG 行为的调节关系。那些经历过道德优势的亲社会参与者希望他们的伴侣与他们合作，所以他们选择了自己合作。亲社会的参与者经历了可能的主要期望他们的伴侣与他们竞争，这使他们更有可能与他们的伴侣竞争并与当局合作。相比之下，具有亲自我社会价值取向的参与者总是在竞争中行动。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A mediator variable can either account for all or some of the observed relationship between two variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Full mediation'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyt (2005) except in the case of no omitted variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muller，Judd，and Yzerbyt (2005) ，除了没有省略变量的情况。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maximum evidence for mediation, also called full mediation, would occur if inclusion of the mediation variable drops the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable (see pathway ''c'' in diagram above) to zero. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Full Mediation Model.png|thumb|Full Mediation Model]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To illustrate, assume that the error terms of M and Y&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
为了说明，假设 m 和 y 的错误项&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Partial mediation'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
are correlated. Under such conditions, the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
是相关的。在这种情况下,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Mediation.jpg|thumb|The Partial Mediation Model Includes a Direct Effect]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
structural coefficient B and A (between M and Y and between Y and X)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
结构系数 b 和 a (介于 m 和 y 之间，y 和 x 之间)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Partial mediation maintains that the mediating variable accounts for some, but not all, of the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable. Partial mediation implies that there is not only a significant relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable, but also some direct relationship between the independent and dependent variable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
can no longer be estimated by regressing Y on X and M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
不能再通过 x 和 m 的 y 回归来估计。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, the regression slopes may both be nonzero&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
事实上，回归斜率可能都是非零的&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for either full or partial mediation to be established, the reduction in variance explained by the independent variable must be significant as determined by one of several tests, such as the [[Sobel test]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Sobel, M. E. 1982 pp. 290&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Sobel | first1 = M. E. | year = 1982 | title = Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models |  journal = Sociological Methodology | volume = 13 | pages = 290–312 | doi = 10.2307/270723 | jstor = 270723 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The effect of an independent variable on the dependent variable can become nonsignificant when the mediator is introduced simply because a trivial amount of variance is explained (i.e., not true mediation). Thus, it is imperative to show a significant reduction in variance explained by the independent variable before asserting either full or partial mediation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
even when C is zero.  This has two &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
即使 c 是零。这里有两个&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to have statistically significant indirect effects in the absence of a total effect.&amp;lt;ref name=Hayes&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Hayes | first1 = A. F. | year = 2009 | title = Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium |  journal = Communication Monographs | volume = 76 | issue = 4| pages = 408–420 | doi = 10.1080/03637750903310360 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  This can be explained by the presence of several mediating paths that cancel each other out, and become noticeable when one of the cancelling mediators is controlled for. This implies that the terms 'partial' and 'full' mediation should always be interpreted relative to the set of variables that are present in the model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
consequences. First, new strategies must be devised for &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
后果。首先，必须制定新的战略&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In all cases, the operation of &amp;quot;fixing a variable&amp;quot; must be distinguished from that of &amp;quot;controlling for a variable,&amp;quot; which has been inappropriately used in the literature.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Robins&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Kaufman&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; The former stands for physically fixing, while the latter stands for conditioning on, adjusting for, or adding to the regression model. The two notions coincide only when all error terms (not shown in the diagram) are statistically uncorrelated. When errors are correlated, adjustments must be made to neutralize those correlations before embarking on mediation analysis (see [[Bayesian Networks]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
estimating the structural coefficients A,B and C. Second, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
估计结构系数 a，b 和 c,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the basic definitions of direct and indirect effects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
直接和间接影响的基本定义&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sobel's test==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
must go beyond regression analysis, and should&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
必须超越回归分析&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Sobel test}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
invoke an operation that mimics &amp;quot;fixing M&amp;quot;, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
调用一个模仿“修理 m”的操作,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rather than &amp;quot;conditioning on M.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
而不是“对 m 施加条件作用”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, [[Sobel test|Sobel's test]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Sobel, M. E. 1982 pp. 290&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; is performed to determine if the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable has been significantly reduced after inclusion of the mediator variable. In other words, this test assesses whether a mediation effect is significant. It examines the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable compared to the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable including the mediation factor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Sobel test is more accurate than the Baron and Kenny steps explained above; however, it does have low statistical power. As such, large sample sizes are required in order to have sufficient power to detect significant effects. This is because the key assumption of Sobel's test is the assumption of normality. Because Sobel's test evaluates a given sample on the normal distribution, small sample sizes and skewness of the sampling distribution can be problematic (see [[Normal distribution]] for more details). Thus, the rule of thumb as suggested by MacKinnon et al., (2002) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = MacKinnon | first1 = D. P. | last2 = Lockwood | first2 = C. M. | last3 = Lockwood | first3 = J. M. | last4 = West | first4 = S. G. | last5 = Sheets | first5 = V. | year = 2002 | title = A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects |  journal =   Psychological Methods| volume = 7 | issue = 1| pages = 83–104 | doi=10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.83| pmid = 11928892 | pmc=2819363}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is that a sample size of 1000 is required to detect a small effect, a sample size of 100 is sufficient in detecting a medium effect, and a sample size of 50 is required to detect a large effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such an operator, denoted do(M&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;m), was defined in Pearl (1994) or &amp;quot;structural counterfactuals&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这样一个算子，表示 do (m = m) ，在 Pearl (1994)或“结构反事实”中定义。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These new variables provide convenient notation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这些新的变量提供了方便的符号&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Preacher and Hayes (2004) bootstrap method==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
for defining direct and indirect effects. In particular,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
定义直接和间接影响。特别是,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
four types of effects have been defined for the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
四种类型的影响已被定义为&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bootstrapping method provides some advantages to the Sobel's test, primarily an increase in power. The Preacher and Hayes Bootstrapping method is a non-parametric test (See [[Non-parametric statistics]] for a discussion on non-parametric tests and their power). As such, the bootstrap method does not violate assumptions of normality and is therefore recommended for small sample sizes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
transition from X&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;0 to X&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
从 x = 0到 x = 1的跃迁:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bootstrapping involves repeatedly randomly sampling observations with replacement from the data set to compute the desired statistic in each resample. Computing over hundreds, or thousands, of bootstrap resamples provide an approximation of the sampling distribution of the statistic of interest. Hayes offers a macro &amp;lt;http://www.afhayes.com/&amp;gt; that calculates bootstrapping directly within [[SPSS]], a computer program used for statistical analyses. This method provides point estimates and confidence intervals by which one can assess the significance or nonsignificance of a mediation effect. Point estimates reveal the mean over the number of bootstrapped samples and if zero does not fall between the resulting confidence intervals of the bootstrapping method, one can confidently conclude that there is a significant mediation effect to report.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(a) Total effect –  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(a)总效应 -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Significance of mediation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;TE = E [Y(1) - Y(0)] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;          &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[ math &amp;gt; TE = e [ y (1)-y (0)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(b) Controlled direct effect -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(b)受管制的直接影响 -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As outlined above, there are a few different options one can choose from to evaluate a mediation model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; CDE(m) = E [Y(1,m) - Y(0,m) ]  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[ math &amp;gt; CDE (m) = e [ y (1，m)-y (0，m)] &amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(c) Natural direct effect -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(c)天然直接效应 -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bootstrapping (statistics)|Bootstrapping]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/ahayes/sobel.htm |title=Testing of Mediation Models in SPSS and SAS |publisher=Comm.ohio-state.edu |access-date=2012-05-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120518234943/http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/ahayes/sobel.htm |archive-date=2012-05-18 |url-status=dead }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/ahayes/SPSS%20programs/indirect.htm |title=SPSS and SAS Macro for Bootstrapping Specific Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediation Models |publisher=Comm.ohio-state.edu |access-date=2012-05-16}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is becoming the most popular method of testing mediation because it does not require the normality assumption to be met, and because it can be effectively utilized with smaller sample sizes (''N''&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;&amp;amp;nbsp;25). However, mediation continues to be most frequently determined using the logic of Baron and Kenny &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm &amp;quot;Mediation&amp;quot;]. ''davidakenny.net''. Retrieved April 25, 2012.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; or the [[Sobel test]]. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to publish tests of mediation based purely on the Baron and Kenny method or tests that make distributional assumptions such as the Sobel test. Thus, it is important to consider your options when choosing which test to conduct.&amp;lt;ref name=Hayes/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;NDE = E [Y(1,M(0))  - Y(0,M(0))] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[ math &amp;gt; NDE = e [ y (1，m (0)-y (0，m (0)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(d) Natural indirect effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(d)自然间接影响&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Approaches to mediation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; NIE = E [Y(0,M(1)) - Y(0,M(0))] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[ math &amp;gt; NIE = e [ y (0，m (1))-y (0，m (0)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where E[ ] stands for expectation taken over the error terms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
其中 e []表示期望取代了错误项。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the concept of mediation as defined within psychology is theoretically appealing, the methods used to study mediation empirically have been challenged by statisticians and epidemiologists&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Robins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Robins | first1 = J. M. | author-link = James Robins | author-link2 = Sander Greenland | last2 = Greenland | first2 = S. | year = 1992 | title = Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects |  journal = Epidemiology | volume = 3 | issue = 2| pages = 143–55 | doi = 10.1097/00001648-199203000-00013 | pmid = 1576220 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Kaufman&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal|pmc=526390|doi=10.1186/1742-5573-1-4|year=2004|last1=Kaufman|first1=J. S.|title=A further critique of the analytic strategy of adjusting for covariates to identify biologic mediation|journal=Epidemiologic Perspectives &amp;amp; Innovations |volume=1|issue=1|pages=4|last2=MacLehose|first2=R. F.|last3=Kaufman|first3=S|pmid=15507130}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bullock&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal|pmid=20307128|url=http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~schaller/528Readings/BullockGreenHa2010.pdf|year=2010|last1=Bullock|first1=J. G.|title=Yes, but what's the mechanism? (don't expect an easy answer)|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=98|issue=4|pages=550–8|last2=Green|first2=D. P.|last3=Ha|first3=S. E.|doi=10.1037/a0018933}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and interpreted formally.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Pearl-01&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Judea Pearl|Pearl, J.]] (2001) [http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/R273-U.pdf &amp;quot;Direct and indirect effects&amp;quot;]. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, [[Morgan Kaufmann]], 411&amp;amp;ndash;420.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These effects have the following interpretations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这些影响有以下解释:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1) Experimental-causal-chain design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An experimental-causal-chain design is used when the proposed mediator is experimentally manipulated. Such a design implies that one manipulates some controlled third variable that they have reason to believe could be the underlying mechanism of a given relationship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) Measurement-of-mediation design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A controlled version of the indirect effect does not&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
间接效应的受控版本则不会&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A measurement-of-mediation design can be conceptualized as a statistical approach. Such a design implies that one measures the proposed intervening variable and then uses statistical analyses to establish mediation. This approach does not involve manipulation of the hypothesized mediating variable, but only involves measurement.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|pmid=16393019|url=http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~schaller/528Readings/SpencerZannaFong2005.pdf|year=2005|last1=Spencer|first1=S. J.|title=Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=89|issue=6|pages=845–51|last2=Zanna|first2=M. P.|last3=Fong|first3=G. T.|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
exist because there is no way of disabling the &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
因为没有办法禁用&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
direct effect by fixing a variable to a constant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
把一个变量固定在一个常数上的直接效果。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Criticisms of mediation measurement==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to these definitions the total effect can be decomposed as a sum&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
根据这些定义，总效应可以分解为总和&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;TE = NDE - NIE_r &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;TE = NDE - NIE_r &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experimental approaches to mediation must be carried out with caution. First, it is important to have strong theoretical support for the exploratory investigation of a potential mediating variable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where NIE&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;r&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; stands for the reverse transition, from&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
其中 NIE &amp;lt; sub &amp;gt; r &amp;lt;/sub &amp;gt; 代表反向过渡，从&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A criticism of a mediation approach rests on the ability to manipulate and measure a mediating variable. Thus, one must be able to manipulate the proposed mediator in an acceptable and ethical fashion. As such, one must be able to measure the intervening process without interfering with the outcome. The mediator must also be able to establish construct validity of manipulation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
X&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;1 to X = 0; it becomes additive in linear systems,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 to x = 0; 它成为线性系统的可加性,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most common criticisms of the measurement-of-mediation approach is that it is ultimately a correlational design. Consequently, it is possible that some other third variable, independent from the proposed mediator, could be responsible for the proposed effect. However, researchers have worked hard to provide counter-evidence to this disparagement. Specifically, the following counter-arguments have been put forward:&amp;lt;ref name=CCWA/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where reversal of transitions entails sign reversal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
转变的逆转导致了标志的逆转。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1) Temporal precedence. For example, if the independent variable precedes the dependent variable in time, this would provide evidence suggesting a directional, and potentially causal, link from the independent variable to the dependent variable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The power of these definitions lies in their generality; they are applicable to models with arbitrary nonlinear interactions, arbitrary dependencies among the disturbances, and both continuous and categorical variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这些定义的力量在于它们的普遍性，它们适用于任意非线性相互作用的模型，干扰之间的任意依赖，以及连续变量和分类变量。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) Nonspuriousness and/or no confounds. For example, should one identify other third variables and prove that they do not alter the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable he/she would have a stronger argument for their mediation effect. See other 3rd variables below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Formulation of the indirect effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
间接效应的表述&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mediation can be an extremely useful and powerful statistical test; however, it must be used properly. It is important that the measures used to assess the mediator and the dependent variable are theoretically distinct and that the independent variable and mediator cannot interact. Should there be an interaction between the independent variable and the mediator one would have grounds to investigate [[moderation (statistics)|moderation]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In linear analysis, all effects are determined by sums&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在线性分析中，所有的影响都是由和决定的&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other third variables==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of products of structural coefficients, giving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
结构系数的乘积，给出&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
《数学》&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1) Confounding:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\begin{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
开始{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TE        &amp;amp; = C + AB \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
等于 c + AB&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Another model that is often tested is one in which competing variables in the model are alternative potential mediators or an unmeasured cause of the dependent variable. An additional variable in a [[causal model]] may obscure or confound the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Potential confounders are variables that may have a causal impact on both the independent variable and dependent variable. They include common sources of measurement error (as discussed above) as well as other influences shared by both the independent and dependent variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CDE(m) &amp;amp; = NDE = C, \text{ independent of } m\\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CDE (m) &amp;amp; = NDE = c，文本{独立于} m&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NIE        &amp;amp; = AB.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
和 = AB。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Mediation model with two covariates.jpg|thumb|Mediation model with two covariates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\end{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
结束{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In experimental studies, there is a special concern about aspects of the experimental manipulation or setting that may account for study effects, rather than the motivating theoretical factor. Any of these problems may produce spurious relationships between the independent and dependent variables as measured. Ignoring a confounding variable may bias empirical estimates of the causal effect of the independent variable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
数学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, all effects are estimable whenever the model&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
因此，无论何时模型都可以估计所有的影响&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) Suppression:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
is identified.  In non-linear systems, more stringent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
被识别出来。在非线性系统中，更为严格&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
conditions are needed for estimating the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
我们需要一些条件来估计&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:A suppressor variable increases the predictive validity of another variable when included in a regression equation. Suppression can occur when a single causal variable is related to an outcome variable through two separate mediator variables, and when one of those mediated effects is positive and one is negative. In such a case, each mediator variable suppresses or conceals the effect that is carried through the other mediator variable. For example, higher intelligence scores (a causal variable, ''A'') may cause an increase in error detection (a mediator variable, ''B'') which in turn may cause a decrease in errors made at work on an assembly line (an outcome variable, ''X''); at the same time, intelligence could also cause an increase in boredom (''C''), which in turn may cause an ''increase'' in errors (''X''). Thus, in one causal path intelligence decreases errors, and in the other it increases them. When neither mediator is included in the analysis, intelligence appears to have no effect or a weak effect on errors. However, when boredom is controlled intelligence will appear to decrease errors, and when error detection is controlled intelligence will appear to increase errors. If intelligence could be increased while only boredom was held constant, errors would decrease; if intelligence could be increased while holding only error detection constant, errors would increase.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
direct and indirect effects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
直接和间接影响&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In general, the omission of suppressors or confounders will lead to either an underestimation or an overestimation of the effect of ''A'' on ''X'', thereby either reducing or artificially inflating the magnitude of a relationship between two variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, if no confounding exists, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
例如，如果不存在混淆,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i.e.,  ε&amp;lt;sub &amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, and ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are mutually independent) the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(即 ε &amp;lt; sub &amp;gt; 1 &amp;lt;/sub &amp;gt; ，ε &amp;lt; sub &amp;gt; 2 &amp;lt;/sub &amp;gt; ，ε &amp;lt; sub &amp;gt; 3 &amp;lt;/sub &amp;gt; 是相互独立的)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(3) Moderators:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
following formulas can be derived:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
可以推导出以下公式:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and have become the target of estimation in many studies of mediation. They give&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
并成为许多中介研究评价的对象。他们给予&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Other important third variables are moderators. Moderators are variables that can make the relationship between two variables either stronger or weaker. Such variables further characterize interactions in regression by affecting the direction and/or strength of the relationship between ''X'' and ''Y''. A moderating relationship can be thought of as an [[interaction effect|interaction]]. It occurs when the relationship between variables A and B depends on the level of C. See [[moderation (statistics)|moderation]] for further discussion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
distribution-free expressions for direct and indirect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
直接和间接的分布-自由表达式&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
effects and demonstrate that, despite the arbitrary nature of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
尽管我们的研究结果具有随意性&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Moderated mediation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the error distributions and the functions f, g, and h, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
误差分布和函数 f，g，h,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mediated effects can nevertheless be estimated from data using &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
然而，我们可以通过使用数据来估计中介效应&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mediation and [[moderation (statistics)|moderation]] can co-occur in statistical models.  It is possible to mediate moderation and moderate mediation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
regression. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
回归。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The analyses of moderated mediation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有调节的中介分析&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Moderated mediation]] is when the effect of the treatment ''A'' on the mediator and/or the partial effect ''B'' on the dependent variable depend in turn on levels of another variable (moderator). Essentially, in moderated mediation, mediation is first established, and then one investigates if the mediation effect that describes the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable is moderated by different levels of another variable (i.e., a moderator). This definition has been outlined by Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyt (2005)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Muller&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Muller | first1 = D. | last2 = Judd | first2 = C. M. | last3 = Yzerbyt | first3 = V. Y. | year = 2005 | title = When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated |  journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 89 | issue = 6| pages = 852–863 | doi = 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852 | pmid = 16393020 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Preacher&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D. &amp;amp; Hayes, A. F. (2007).  Assessing moderated mediation hypotheses: Strategies, methods, and prescriptions.  Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185&amp;amp;ndash;227.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and mediating moderators fall as special cases of the causal mediation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
和调解人作为因果调解的特殊案例下降&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
analysis, and the mediation formulas identify how various interactions coefficients contribute to the necessary and sufficient components of mediation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
分析，以及调解公式确定各种相互作用系数如何有助于调解的必要和充分的组成部分。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Models of moderated mediation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are five possible models of moderated mediation, as illustrated in the diagrams below.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Muller&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A serial mediation model with two mediator variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一个具有两个中介变量的串行中介模型。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# In the first model the independent variable also moderates the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The second possible model of moderated mediation involves a new variable which moderates the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator (the ''A'' path).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A conceptual diagram that depicts a parallel mediation model with two mediator variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
描述具有两个中介变量的并行中介模型的概念图。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The third model of moderated mediation involves a new moderator variable which moderates the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable (the ''B'' path).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assume the model takes the form&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
假设模型采用这种形式&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Moderated mediation can also occur when one moderating variable affects both the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator (the ''A'' path) and the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable (the  ''B'' path).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
《数学》&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The fifth and final possible model of moderated mediation involves two new moderator variables, one moderating the ''A'' path and the other moderating the ''B'' path.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\begin{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
开始{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
X &amp;amp; = \varepsilon_1 \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
M &amp;amp; = b_0 + b_1X + \varepsilon_2 \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
0 + b 1x + varepsilon 2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Y &amp;amp; = c_0 + c_1X + c_2M + c_3XM + \varepsilon_3 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Y &amp;amp; = c _ 0 + c _ 1x + c _ 2m + c _ 3xm + varepsilon _ 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| [[File:Mediated moderation model 1.png|centre|thumb|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\end{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
结束{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First option: independent variable moderates the ''B'' path.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
数学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| [[File:Mediated moderation model 2.png|centre|thumb|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where the parameter &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;c_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; quantifies the degree to which M modifies the effect of X on Y. Even when all parameters are estimated from data, it is still not obvious what combinations of parameters measure the direct and indirect effect of X on Y, or, more practically, how to assess the fraction of the total effect &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;TE&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that is explained by mediation and the fraction of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;TE&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that is owed to mediation.  In linear analysis, the former fraction is captured by the product &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_1 c_2 / TE&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the latter by the difference &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(TE - c_1)/TE&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the two quantities coincide.  In the presence of interaction, however, each fraction demands a separate analysis, as dictated by the Mediation Formula, which yields:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
其中参数 c _ 3 &amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; 量化了 m 修改 x 对 y 影响的程度。即使所有的参数都是从数据中估计出来的，仍然不清楚哪些参数组合可以衡量 x 对 y 的直接和间接影响，或者更实际地说，如何评估调解和归因于调解的“数学”“数学”“数学”所占总影响的比例。在线性分析中，前者由乘积 &amp;lt; math &amp;gt; b1c2/TE &amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; 获得，后者由差 &amp;lt; math &amp;gt; (TE-c1)/TE &amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; 获得，两个量重合。然而，在存在相互作用的情况下，每个部分都需要按照调解公式进行单独分析，分析结果如下:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second option: fourth variable moderates the ''A'' path.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
《数学》&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| [[File:Mediated moderation model 3.png|centre|thumb|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\begin{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
开始{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Third option: fourth variable moderates the ''B'' path.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NDE &amp;amp; = c_1 + b_0 c_3 \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NDE &amp;amp; = c 1 + b 0 c 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| [[File:Mediated moderation model 4.png|centre|thumb|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NIE &amp;amp; = b_1 c_2 \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 c 2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fourth option: fourth variable moderates both the ''A'' path and the ''B'' path.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TE  &amp;amp; = c_1 + b_0 c_3 + b_1(c_2 + c_3) \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TE &amp;amp; = c1 + b0 c3 + b1(c2 + c3) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| [[File:Mediated moderation model 5.png|centre|thumb|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;amp; = NDE + NIE + b_1 c_3.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;amp; = NDE + NIE + b 1 c 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fifth option: fourth variable moderates the ''A'' path and a fifth variable moderates the ''B'' path.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\end{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
结束{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
数学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mediated moderation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the fraction of output response for which mediation would be sufficient is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
因此，输出响应中中介足够的部分是&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mediated moderation is a variant of both moderation and mediation. This is where there is initially overall moderation and the direct effect of the moderator variable on the outcome is mediated. The main difference between mediated moderation and moderated mediation is that for the former there is initial (overall) moderation and this effect is mediated and for the latter there is no moderation but the effect of either the treatment on the mediator (path ''A'') is moderated or the effect of the mediator on the outcome (path ''B'') is moderated.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Muller&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{NIE}{TE} = \frac{b_1 c_2}{c_1 + b_0 c_3 + b_1 (c_2 + c_3)}, &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 + b _ 0 c _ 3 + b _ 1(c _ 2 + c _ 3) ，&amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to establish mediated moderation, one must first establish [[Moderation (statistics)|moderation]], meaning that the direction and/or the strength of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables (path ''C'') differs depending on the level of a third variable (the moderator variable). Researchers next look for the presence of mediated moderation when they have a theoretical reason to believe that there is a fourth variable that acts as the mechanism or process that causes the relationship between the independent variable and the moderator (path ''A'') or between the moderator and the dependent variable (path ''C'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
while the fraction for which mediation would be necessary is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
而调解的必要部分是&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Example'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; 1- \frac{NDE}{TE} = \frac{b_1 (c_2 +c_3)}{c_1 + b_0c_3 + b_1 (c_2 + c_3)}. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1-frac { NDE }{ TE } = frac { b _ 1(c _ 2 + c _ 3)}{ c _ 1 + b _ 0c _ 3 + b _ 1(c _ 2 + c _ 3)}.数学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following is a published example of mediated moderation in psychological research.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Smeesters | first1 = D. | last2 = Warlop | first2 = L. | last3 = Avermaet | first3 = E. V. | last4 = Corneille | first4 = O. | last5 = Yzerbyt | first5 = V. | year = 2003 | title = Do not prime hawks with doves: The interplay of construct activation and consistency of social value orientation on cooperative behavior |  journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 84 | issue = 5| pages = 972–987 | doi = 10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.972 | pmid = 12757142 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Participants were presented with an initial stimulus (a prime) that made them think of morality or made them think of might. They then participated in the [[Prisoner's dilemma|Prisoner's Dilemma Game]] (PDG), in which participants pretend that they and their partner in crime have been arrested, and they must decide whether to remain loyal to their partner or to compete with their partner and cooperate with the authorities. The researchers found that prosocial individuals were affected by the morality and might primes, whereas proself individuals were not. Thus, [[Social value orientations|social value orientation]] (proself vs. prosocial) moderated the relationship between the prime (independent variable: morality vs. might) and the behaviour chosen in the PDG (dependent variable: competitive vs. cooperative).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These fractions involve non-obvious combinations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这些分数包含不明显的组合&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of the model's parameters, and can be constructed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
模型的参数，可以构造出&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The researchers next looked for the presence of a mediated moderation effect. Regression analyses revealed that the type of prime (morality vs. might) mediated the moderating relationship of participants’ [[Social value orientations|social value orientation]] on PDG behaviour. Prosocial participants who experienced the morality prime expected their partner to cooperate with them, so they chose to cooperate themselves. Prosocial participants who experienced the might prime expected their partner to compete with them, which made them more likely to compete with their partner and cooperate with the authorities. In contrast, participants with a pro-self social value orientation always acted competitively.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mechanically with the help of the Mediation Formula. Significantly, due to interaction, a direct effect can be sustained even when the parameter &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;c_1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; vanishes and, moreover, a total effect can be sustained even when both the direct and indirect effects vanish.  This illustrates that estimating parameters in isolation tells us little about the effect of mediation and, more generally, mediation and moderation are intertwined and cannot be assessed separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
借助调解公式机械地进行调解。值得注意的是，由于相互作用，即使参数 c _ 1 &amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; 消失，直接影响也可以持续，而且，即使直接和间接影响消失，总体影响也可以持续。这表明，孤立地估计参数并不能告诉我们有关调解效果的信息，更普遍地说，调解和调节是相互交织的，不能单独进行评估。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Regression equations for moderated mediation and mediated moderation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyt (2005)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Muller&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; outline three fundamental models that underlie both moderated mediation and mediated moderation. ''Mo'' represents the moderator variable(s), ''Me'' represents the mediator variable(s), and ''ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;'' represents the measurement error of each regression equation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Notes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
注释&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Mediation.jpg|434px|right|A simple statistical mediation model.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bibliography&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
参考书目&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 1''': Moderation of the relationship between the independent variable (X) and the dependent variable (Y), also called the overall treatment effect (path ''C'' in the diagram).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Y=\beta_{40} +\beta_{41}X +\beta_{42}Mo +\beta_{43}XMo + \varepsilon_4&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* To establish overall moderation, the ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;43&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; regression weight must be significant (first step for establishing mediated moderation).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first = Kristopher J.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一，克里斯托弗 j。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Establishing moderated mediation requires that there be no moderation effect, so the ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;43&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; regression weight must not be significant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last2 = Hayes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = Hayes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first2 = Andrew F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = Andrew f.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 2''': Moderation of the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator (path ''A'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | title = SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = 用于估计简单调解模型中的间接影响的 SPSS 和 SAS 程序&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Me=\beta_{50} +\beta_{51}X +\beta_{52}Mo +\beta_{53}XMo + \varepsilon_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | journal = Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
行为研究方法，仪器和计算机&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If the ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;53&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; regression weight is significant, the moderator affects the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | volume = 36&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
36&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | issue = 4&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第四期&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 3''': Moderation of both the relationship between the independent and dependent variables (path ''A'') and the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable (path ''B'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | pages = 717–731&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 页数 = 717-731&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Y=\beta_{60} +\beta_{61}X +\beta_{62}Mo +\beta_{63}XMo +\beta_{64}Me +\beta_{65}MeMo  + \varepsilon_6&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | url = http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If both ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;53&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; in step 2 and ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;63&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; in step 3 are significant, the moderator affects the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator (path ''A'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | year = 2004&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2004年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If both ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;53&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; in step 2 and ''β&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;65&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;'' in step 3 are significant, the moderator affects the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable (path ''B'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | doi = 10.3758/BF03206553&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.3758/BF03206553&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Either or both of the conditions above may be true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
      | pmid = 15641418&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
15641418&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 | doi-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
免费访问&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Causal mediation analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Fixing versus conditioning===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first = Kristopher J.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一，克里斯托弗 j。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mediation analysis quantifies the &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last2 = Hayes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = Hayes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
extent to which a variable participates in the transmittance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first2 = Andrew F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = Andrew f.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of change from a cause to its effect. It is inherently a causal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | title = Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = 评估和比较多重介质模型中间接影响的渐近和重采样策略&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
notion, hence it cannot be defined in statistical terms.  Traditionally,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | journal = Behavior Research Methods&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
行为研究方法&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
however, the bulk of mediation analysis has been conducted&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | volume = 40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
within the confines of linear regression, with statistical &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | issue = 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第三期&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
terminology masking the causal character of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | pages = 879–891&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
879-891&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
relationships involved. This led to difficulties,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | url = http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
biases, and limitations that have been alleviated by&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | year = 2008&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2008年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
modern methods of causal analysis, based on causal diagrams&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | doi = 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.3758/BRM. 40.3.879&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and counterfactual logic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | pmid = 18697684&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
18697684&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
      | doi-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
免费访问&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The source of these difficulties lies in defining mediation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in terms of changes induced by adding a third variables into &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a regression equation. Such statistical changes are&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
epiphenomena which sometimes accompany mediation but, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first = K. J.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 第一 = k. j。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in general, fail to capture the causal relationships that&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last2 = Zyphur&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = Zyphur&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mediation analysis aims to quantify.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first2 = M. J.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = m. j.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last3 = Zhang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3 = Zhang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic premise of the causal approach is that it is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first3 = Z.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3 = z.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
not always appropriate to &amp;quot;control&amp;quot; for the mediator ''M''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | title = A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = 用于评估多层次调解的通用多层次结构方程模型框架&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
when we seek to estimate the direct effect of ''X'' on ''Y''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | journal = Psychological Methods&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
心理学方法&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(see the Figure above).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | volume = 15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The classical rationale for &amp;quot;controlling&amp;quot; for ''M''&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | issue = 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第三期&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
is that, if we succeed in preventing ''M'' from changing, then &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | pages = 209–233&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| pages = 209-233&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
whatever changes we measure in Y are attributable solely &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | year = 2010&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2010年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to variations in ''X'' and we are justified then in proclaiming the &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | doi = 10.1037/a0020141&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1037/a0020141&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
effect observed as &amp;quot;direct effect of ''X'' on ''Y''.&amp;quot; Unfortunately,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | pmid = 20822249&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
20822249&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;controlling for ''M''&amp;quot; does not physically prevent ''M'' from changing;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | citeseerx = 10.1.1.570.7747&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
10.1.1.570.7747&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
it merely narrows the analyst's attention to cases&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of equal ''M'' values.  Moreover, the language of probability &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
theory does not possess the notation to express the idea &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of &amp;quot;preventing ''M'' from changing&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;physically holding ''M'' constant&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The only operator probability provides is &amp;quot;Conditioning&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which is what we do when we &amp;quot;control&amp;quot; for ''M'', &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or add ''M'' as a regressor in the equation for ''Y''. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The result is that, instead of physically holding ''M&amp;quot; constant &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(say at ''M'' = ''m'') and comparing ''Y'' for units under ''X''&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;1' to those under &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''X'' = 0, we allow ''M'' to vary but ignore all units except those in &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which ''M'' achieves the value ''M''&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;''m''. These two operations are &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
fundamentally different, and yield different results,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last1=Robins|first1=J.M.|last2=Greenland|first2=S.|title=Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects|journal=Epidemiology|date=1992|volume=3|issue=2|pages=143–155|doi=10.1097/00001648-199203000-00013|pmid=1576220}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;pearl1994&amp;quot; &amp;gt;{{cite journal|last1=Pearl|first1=Judea|editor1-last=Lopez de Mantaras|editor1-first=R.|editor2-last=Poole|editor2-first=D.|title=A probabilistic calculus of actions|journal=Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 10|volume=1302|date=1994|pages=454–462|publisher=[[Morgan Kaufmann]]|location=San Mateo, CA|bibcode=2013arXiv1302.6835P|arxiv=1302.6835}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; except in the case of no omitted variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To illustrate, assume that the error terms of ''M'' and ''Y''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
are correlated. Under such conditions, the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
structural coefficient ''B'' and ''A'' (between ''M'' and ''Y'' and between ''Y'' and ''X'')&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
can no longer be estimated by regressing ''Y'' on ''X'' and ''M''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, the regression slopes may both be nonzero&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
even when ''C'' is zero.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|pmid=24885338|year=2014|last1=Pearl|first1=J|title=Interpretation and identification of causal mediation|journal=Psychological Methods|volume=19|issue=4|pages=459–81|doi=10.1037/a0036434|url=ftp://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/r389-imai-etal-commentary-r421-reprint.pdf}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  This has two &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
consequences. First, new strategies must be devised for &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
estimating the structural coefficients ''A,B'' and ''C''. Second, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the basic definitions of direct and indirect effects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
must go beyond regression analysis, and should&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
invoke an operation that mimics &amp;quot;fixing ''M''&amp;quot;, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rather than &amp;quot;conditioning on ''M''.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Statistical models&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 统计模型&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Independence (probability theory)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 独立概率论&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Definitions===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Psychometrics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 心理测量学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;This page was moved from [[wikipedia:en:Mediation (statistics)]]. Its edit history can be viewed at [[中介变量/edithistory]]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:待整理页面]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Alchemist</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E4%B8%AD%E4%BB%8B%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90&amp;diff=22569</id>
		<title>中介分析</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=%E4%B8%AD%E4%BB%8B%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90&amp;diff=22569"/>
		<updated>2021-05-27T07:38:42Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Alchemist：&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;此词条暂由彩云小译翻译，翻译字数共2553，未经人工整理和审校，带来阅读不便，请见谅。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Simple Mediation Model.png|thumb|Simple Mediation Model]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Simple Mediation Model&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
简单调解模式&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In [[statistics]], a '''mediation''' model seeks to identify and explain the mechanism or process that underlies an observed relationship between an [[independent variable]] and a [[dependent variable]] via the inclusion of a third hypothetical variable, known as a '''mediator variable''' (also a '''mediating variable''', '''intermediary variable''', or '''intervening variable''').&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|title=Types of Variables|website=[[University of Indiana]]|url=http://www.indiana.edu/~educy520/sec5982/week_2/variable_types.pdf}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Rather than a direct causal relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable, a mediation model proposes that the independent variable influences the (non-observable) mediator variable, which in turn influences the dependent variable. Thus, the mediator variable serves to clarify the nature of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). ''Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis''. New York: Erlbaum.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In statistics, a mediation model seeks to identify and explain the mechanism or process that underlies an observed relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable via the inclusion of a third hypothetical variable, known as a mediator variable (also a mediating variable, intermediary variable, or intervening variable). Rather than a direct causal relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable, a mediation model proposes that the independent variable influences the (non-observable) mediator variable, which in turn influences the dependent variable. Thus, the mediator variable serves to clarify the nature of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在统计学中，中介模型试图通过加入第三个假设变量，即中介变量(也是中介变量、中介变量或中间变量) ，来识别和解释自变量和因变量之间的观察关系所依据的机制或过程。一个调解模型没有在自变量和因变量之间建立直接的因果关系，而是提出自变量影响(不可观察的)调解变量，这反过来又影响因变量。因此，中介变量的作用是阐明自变量和因变量之间关系的性质。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mediation analyses are employed to understand a known relationship by exploring the underlying mechanism or process by which one variable influences another variable through a mediator variable.&amp;lt;ref name=CCWA&amp;gt;Cohen, J.; Cohen, P.; West, S. G.; [[Leona S. Aiken|Aiken, L. S.]] (2003) ''Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences'' (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In particular, mediation analysis can contribute to better understanding the relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable when these variables do not have an obvious direct connection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mediation analyses are employed to understand a known relationship by exploring the underlying mechanism or process by which one variable influences another variable through a mediator variable. In particular, mediation analysis can contribute to better understanding the relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable when these variables do not have an obvious direct connection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
中介分析通过探索一个变量通过一个中介变量影响另一个变量的潜在机制或过程来理解一个已知的关系。特别是，中介分析有助于更好地理解自变量和因变量之间的关系，当这些变量没有明显的直接联系。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Baron and Kenny's (1986) steps for mediation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Baron and Kenny (1986) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A. (1986) &amp;quot;The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research &amp;amp;ndash; Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations&amp;quot;, [[Journal of Personality and Social Psychology]], Vol. 51(6), pp.&amp;amp;nbsp;1173&amp;amp;ndash;1182.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; laid out several requirements that must be met to form a true mediation relationship. They are outlined below using a real-world example. See the diagram above for a visual representation of the overall mediating relationship to be explained. Note: Hayes (2009)&amp;lt;ref name=Hayes/&amp;gt; critiqued Baron and Kenny's mediation steps approach, and as of 2019, [[David A. Kenny]] on his website stated that mediation can exist in the absence of a 'significant' total effect, and therefore step 1 below may not be needed. This situation is sometimes referred to as &amp;quot;inconsistent mediation&amp;quot;. Later publications by Hayes also questioned the concepts of full or partial mediation and advocated for these terms, along with the classical mediation steps approach outlined below, to be abandoned.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Baron and Kenny (1986)  laid out several requirements that must be met to form a true mediation relationship. They are outlined below using a real-world example. See the diagram above for a visual representation of the overall mediating relationship to be explained. Note: Hayes (2009) explains each step of Baron and Kenny's requirements to understand further how a mediation effect is characterized. Step 1 and step 2 use simple regression analysis, whereas step 3 uses multiple regression analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
巴伦和肯尼(1986)提出了若干必须满足的要求，以形成一个真正的调解关系。下面用一个现实世界的例子对它们进行了概述。请参阅上面的图表以了解整个中介关系的可视化表示形式。注: Hayes (2009)解释了 Baron 和 Kenny 的每一步要求，以进一步了解调解效应是如何表现的。第一步和第二步使用简单的回归分析/回归分析，而第三步使用多个/频率/频率。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 1:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一步:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Regress the dependent variable on the independent variable to confirm that the independent variable is a significant predictor of the dependent variable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How you were parented (i.e., independent variable) predicts how confident you feel about parenting your own children (i.e., dependent variable).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
你是如何被抚养的(即，独立变量)预示着你对抚养自己的孩子有多自信(即，因变量)。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Independent variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; dependent variable&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 How you were parented &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; confidence in own parenting abilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
你是如何培养孩子对自己养育能力的信心的。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Y=\beta_{10} +\beta_{11}X + \varepsilon_1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is significant&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 2:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第二步:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 2:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How you were parented (i.e., independent variable) predicts your feelings of competence and self-esteem (i.e., mediator).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
你是如何被抚养的(即，独立变量)可以预测你的能力和自尊的感受(即，调解人)。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Regress the mediator on the independent variable to confirm that the independent variable is a significant predictor of the mediator. If the mediator is not associated with the independent variable, then it couldn’t possibly mediate anything.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 How you were parented &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Feelings of competence and self-esteem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
你是如何培养自己的能力和自尊心的。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Independent variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; mediator&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 3:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第三步:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Me=\beta_{20} +\beta_{21}X + \varepsilon_2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;21&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is significant&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Your feelings of competence and self-esteem (i.e., mediator) predict how confident you feel about parenting your own children (i.e., dependent variable), while controlling for how you were parented (i.e., independent variable).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
你的能力和自尊感(即中介者)能够预测你对抚养自己的孩子的自信程度(即因变量) ，同时控制你是如何被抚养的(即自变量)。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 3:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such findings would lead to the conclusion implying that your feelings of competence and self-esteem mediate the relationship between how you were parented and how confident you feel about parenting your own children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这些发现会导致这样的结论，即你的能力和自尊感会调节你是如何被抚养的和你对抚养自己的孩子有多自信之间的关系。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Regress the dependent variable on both the mediator and independent variable to confirm that a) the mediator is a significant predictor of the dependent variable, and b) the strength of the coefficient of the previously significant independent variable in Step #1 is now greatly reduced, if not rendered nonsignificant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: If step 1 does not yield a significant result, one may still have grounds to move to step 2. Sometimes there is actually a significant relationship between independent and dependent variables but because of small sample sizes, or other extraneous factors, there could not be enough power to predict the effect that actually exists (See Shrout &amp;amp; Bolger, 2002  for more info).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
注意: 如果步骤1没有产生显著的结果，一个人可能仍然有理由移动到步骤2。有时，独立变量和因变量之间确实存在显著的关系，但是由于样本量小，或者其他额外的因素，没有足够的能量来预测实际存在的影响(参见 Shrout &amp;amp; Bolger，2002)。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Y=\beta_{30} +\beta_{31}X +\beta_{32}Me + \varepsilon_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;32&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is significant&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Direct Effect in a Mediation Model&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
调解模式中的直接效果&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;31&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; should be smaller in absolute value than the original effect for the independent variable (β&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; above)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the diagram shown above, the indirect effect is the product of path coefficients &amp;quot;A&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;B&amp;quot;. The direct effect is the coefficient &amp;quot;&amp;amp;nbsp;C'&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;quot;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在上图中，间接效应是路径系数“ a”和“ b”的乘积。直接的影响是系数“ c”。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The direct effect measures the extent to which the dependent variable changes when the independent variable increases by one unit and the mediator variable remains unaltered. In contrast, the indirect effect measures the extent to which the dependent variable changes when the independent variable is held fixed and the mediator variable changes by the amount it would have changed had the independent variable increased by one unit. The effect of an independent variable on the dependent variable can become nonsignificant when the mediator is introduced simply because a trivial amount of variance is explained (i.e., not true mediation). Thus, it is imperative to show a significant reduction in variance explained by the independent variable before asserting either full or partial mediation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
直接效应衡量的是当自变量增加一个单位而中介变量保持不变时，因变量变化的程度。相比之下，间接效应衡量的是因变量在自变量固定和中介变量增加一个单位时变化的程度。在引入调解人时，因为只解释了微小的方差(即，不是真正的调解) ，所以自变量对因变量的影响可能变得不重要。因此，在进行全部或部分调解之前，必须显示由独立变量解释的差异显著减少。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Example'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to have statistically significant indirect effects in the absence of a total effect.  This can be explained by the presence of several mediating paths that cancel each other out, and become noticeable when one of the cancelling mediators is controlled for. This implies that the terms 'partial' and 'full' mediation should always be interpreted relative to the set of variables that are present in the model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在没有全面影响的情况下，有可能产生统计上显著的间接影响。这可以通过存在几个相互抵消的调解路径来解释，并且在控制其中一个取消调解器时变得显而易见。这意味着“部分”和“完全”中介术语应该始终相对于模型中存在的一组变量进行解释。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In all cases, the operation of &amp;quot;fixing a variable&amp;quot; must be distinguished from that of &amp;quot;controlling for a variable,&amp;quot; which has been inappropriately used in the literature. is that a sample size of 1000 is required to detect a small effect, a sample size of 100 is sufficient in detecting a medium effect, and a sample size of 50 is required to detect a large effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在所有情况下，“固定一个变量”的操作必须与“控制一个变量”的操作区分开来，后者在文献中被不恰当地使用。检测小效应需要1000个样本量，检测中等效应需要100个样本量，检测大效应需要50个样本量。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following example, drawn from Howell (2009),&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Howell, D. C. (2009). Statistical methods for psychology (7th ed.). Belmot, CA: Cengage Learning.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; explains each step of Baron and Kenny's requirements to understand further how a mediation effect is characterized. Step 1 and step 2 use simple regression analysis, whereas step 3 uses [[multiple regression analysis]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bootstrapping method provides some advantages to the Sobel's test, primarily an increase in power. The Preacher and Hayes Bootstrapping method is a non-parametric test (See Non-parametric statistics for a discussion on non-parametric tests and their power). As such, the bootstrap method does not violate assumptions of normality and is therefore recommended for small sample sizes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
自举方法为 Sobel 的测试提供了一些优点，主要是增加了功耗。传道者和 Hayes Bootstrapping 方法是一种非参数检验(参见无母数统计非参数检验及其效力的讨论)。因此，自助法并不违反常态假设，因此建议小样本情况下使用。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:How you were parented (i.e., independent variable) predicts how confident you feel about parenting your own children (i.e., dependent variable).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bootstrapping involves repeatedly randomly sampling observations with replacement from the data set to compute the desired statistic in each resample. Computing over hundreds, or thousands, of bootstrap resamples provide an approximation of the sampling distribution of the statistic of interest. Hayes offers a macro &amp;lt;http://www.afhayes.com/&amp;gt; that calculates bootstrapping directly within SPSS, a computer program used for statistical analyses. This method provides point estimates and confidence intervals by which one can assess the significance or nonsignificance of a mediation effect. Point estimates reveal the mean over the number of bootstrapped samples and if zero does not fall between the resulting confidence intervals of the bootstrapping method, one can confidently conclude that there is a significant mediation effect to report.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
自举涉及重复随机抽样观察和替换从数据集计算期望的统计量在每个重采样。通过计算数百个或数千个引导重采样提供了感兴趣统计量的抽样分布的近似值。提供了一个宏 &amp;lt;  http://www.afhayes.com/ &amp;gt; ，它可以直接计算 SPSS 中的自举，这是一个用于统计分析的计算机程序。这种方法提供了点估计和置信区间，通过这些点估计和置信区间可以评估中介效应的重要性或非重要性。点估计揭示了引导样本数目的平均值，如果零没有落在引导方法产生的置信区间之间，人们可以自信地得出结论，有一个重要的中介效应要报告。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: How you were parented &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; confidence in own parenting abilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 2:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As outlined above, there are a few different options one can choose from to evaluate a mediation model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如上所述，在评估一个中介模型时，可以从几个不同的选项中进行选择。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:How you were parented (i.e., independent variable) predicts your feelings of competence and self-esteem (i.e., mediator).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bootstrapping is becoming the most popular method of testing mediation because it does not require the normality assumption to be met, and because it can be effectively utilized with smaller sample sizes (N&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;&amp;amp;nbsp;25). However, mediation continues to be most frequently determined using the logic of Baron and Kenny  or the Sobel test. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to publish tests of mediation based purely on the Baron and Kenny method or tests that make distributional assumptions such as the Sobel test. Thus, it is important to consider your options when choosing which test to conduct. and interpreted formally.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
引导法因为不需要满足正态性假设，并且在样本量较小时(n &amp;lt; 25)可以有效地利用，因此成为最流行的检验中介的方法。然而，调解仍然是最常用的决定使用的逻辑的巴伦和肯尼或索贝尔测试。发布纯粹基于 Baron 和 Kenny 方法的调解测试或者进行分布性假设(如 Sobel 测试)的测试变得越来越困难。因此，在选择进行哪项测试时，考虑你的选择是很重要的。并正式解释。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: How you were parented &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \to &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Feelings of competence and self-esteem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1) Experimental-causal-chain design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1)实验因果链设计&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Step 3:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An experimental-causal-chain design is used when the proposed mediator is experimentally manipulated. Such a design implies that one manipulates some controlled third variable that they have reason to believe could be the underlying mechanism of a given relationship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
实验因果链设计时，所提出的中介体是实验操纵。这样的设计意味着一个人操纵一些他们有理由相信可能是给定关系的潜在机制的受控的第三变量。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Your feelings of competence and self-esteem (i.e., mediator) predict how confident you feel about parenting your own children (i.e., dependent variable), while controlling for how you were parented (i.e., independent variable).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) Measurement-of-mediation design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2)测量调解设计&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such findings would lead to the conclusion implying that your feelings of competence and self-esteem mediate the relationship between how you were parented and how confident you feel about parenting your own children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A measurement-of-mediation design can be conceptualized as a statistical approach. Such a design implies that one measures the proposed intervening variable and then uses statistical analyses to establish mediation. This approach does not involve manipulation of the hypothesized mediating variable, but only involves measurement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
度量中介设计可以概念化为统计方法。这样的设计意味着一个人衡量所提议的中间变量，然后使用统计分析来建立调解。这种方法不涉及对虚拟中介变量的操作，而只涉及测量。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note: If step 1 does not yield a significant result, one may still have grounds to move to step 2. Sometimes there is actually a significant relationship between independent and dependent variables but because of small sample sizes, or other extraneous factors, there could not be enough power to predict the effect that actually exists (See Shrout &amp;amp; Bolger, 2002 &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Shrout | first1 = P. E. | last2 = Bolger | first2 = N. | year = 2002 | title = Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations | journal = Psychological Methods | volume = 7 | issue = 4| pages = 422–445 | doi=10.1037/1082-989x.7.4.422}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; for more info).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Direct versus indirect effects==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experimental approaches to mediation must be carried out with caution. First, it is important to have strong theoretical support for the exploratory investigation of a potential mediating variable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
调解的试验办法必须谨慎进行。首先，对潜在中介变量的探索性研究必须有强有力的理论支持。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Direct Effect in a Mediation Model.jpg|thumb|Direct Effect in a Mediation Model]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A criticism of a mediation approach rests on the ability to manipulate and measure a mediating variable. Thus, one must be able to manipulate the proposed mediator in an acceptable and ethical fashion. As such, one must be able to measure the intervening process without interfering with the outcome. The mediator must also be able to establish construct validity of manipulation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
对调解方法的批评取决于操纵和测量调解变量的能力。因此，人们必须能够以可以接受和符合道德的方式操纵拟议的调解人。因此，人们必须能够在不干扰结果的情况下衡量干预过程。中介者还必须能够建立操纵的结构效度。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the diagram shown above, the indirect effect is the product of path coefficients &amp;quot;A&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;B&amp;quot;. The direct effect is the coefficient &amp;quot;&amp;amp;nbsp;C'&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;quot;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most common criticisms of the measurement-of-mediation approach is that it is ultimately a correlational design. Consequently, it is possible that some other third variable, independent from the proposed mediator, could be responsible for the proposed effect. However, researchers have worked hard to provide counter-evidence to this disparagement. Specifically, the following counter-arguments have been put forward: and Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
对中介测量方法最常见的批评之一是，它最终是一种相关设计。因此，可能是其他第三个变数，独立于拟议的调解员，可负责拟议的效果。然而，研究人员一直在努力为这种蔑视提供反证据。具体来说，以下的反论点已经提出: 和牧师，拉克尔，和海斯(2007年)。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The direct effect measures the extent to which the dependent variable changes when the independent variable increases by one unit and the mediator variable remains unaltered. In contrast, the indirect effect measures the extent to which the dependent variable changes when the independent variable is held fixed and the mediator variable changes by the amount it would have changed had the independent variable increased by one unit.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Robins&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Pearl-01&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Mediation Model.png|thumb|Indirect Effect in a Simple Mediation Model: The indirect effect constitutes the extent to which the X variable influences the Y variable through the mediator.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In linear systems, the total effect is equal to the sum of the direct and indirect  (''C' + AB'' in the model above). In nonlinear models, the total effect is not generally equal to the sum of the direct and indirect effects, but to a modified combination of the two.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Pearl-01&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are five possible models of moderated mediation, as illustrated in the diagrams below. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
如下图所示，有节制的调解有五种可能的模式。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Participants were presented with an initial stimulus (a prime) that made them think of morality or made them think of might. They then participated in the Prisoner's Dilemma Game (PDG), in which participants pretend that they and their partner in crime have been arrested, and they must decide whether to remain loyal to their partner or to compete with their partner and cooperate with the authorities. The researchers found that prosocial individuals were affected by the morality and might primes, whereas proself individuals were not. Thus, social value orientation (proself vs. prosocial) moderated the relationship between the prime (independent variable: morality vs. might) and the behaviour chosen in the PDG (dependent variable: competitive vs. cooperative).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
研究人员向参与者提供了一个初始刺激物(初始刺激物) ，这个刺激物使他们想到道德或者让他们想到可能性。然后，他们参加了囚徒困境游戏(PDG) ，在这个游戏中，参与者假装他们和他们的犯罪同伙已经被逮捕，他们必须决定是继续忠于他们的同伙，还是与他们的同伙竞争并与当局合作。研究人员发现亲社会的个体受到道德和可能的优先权的影响，而亲社会的个体则不受影响。因此，社会价值取向(亲自与亲社会)调节了基本变量(自变量: 道德与可能)与 PDG 中选择的行为(因变量: 竞争与合作)之间的关系。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Full versus partial mediation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The researchers next looked for the presence of a mediated moderation effect. Regression analyses revealed that the type of prime (morality vs. might) mediated the moderating relationship of participants’ social value orientation on PDG behaviour. Prosocial participants who experienced the morality prime expected their partner to cooperate with them, so they chose to cooperate themselves. Prosocial participants who experienced the might prime expected their partner to compete with them, which made them more likely to compete with their partner and cooperate with the authorities. In contrast, participants with a pro-self social value orientation always acted competitively.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
接下来，研究人员寻找中和效应的存在。回归分析显示，初始类型(道德与可能)中介了参与者的社会价值取向对 PDG 行为的调节关系。那些经历过道德优势的亲社会参与者希望他们的伴侣与他们合作，所以他们选择了自己合作。亲社会的参与者经历了可能的主要期望他们的伴侣与他们竞争，这使他们更有可能与他们的伴侣竞争并与当局合作。相比之下，具有亲自我社会价值取向的参与者总是在竞争中行动。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A mediator variable can either account for all or some of the observed relationship between two variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Full mediation'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyt (2005) except in the case of no omitted variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muller，Judd，and Yzerbyt (2005) ，除了没有省略变量的情况。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maximum evidence for mediation, also called full mediation, would occur if inclusion of the mediation variable drops the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable (see pathway ''c'' in diagram above) to zero. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Full Mediation Model.png|thumb|Full Mediation Model]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To illustrate, assume that the error terms of M and Y&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
为了说明，假设 m 和 y 的错误项&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Partial mediation'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
are correlated. Under such conditions, the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
是相关的。在这种情况下,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Mediation.jpg|thumb|The Partial Mediation Model Includes a Direct Effect]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
structural coefficient B and A (between M and Y and between Y and X)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
结构系数 b 和 a (介于 m 和 y 之间，y 和 x 之间)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Partial mediation maintains that the mediating variable accounts for some, but not all, of the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable. Partial mediation implies that there is not only a significant relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable, but also some direct relationship between the independent and dependent variable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
can no longer be estimated by regressing Y on X and M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
不能再通过 x 和 m 的 y 回归来估计。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, the regression slopes may both be nonzero&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
事实上，回归斜率可能都是非零的&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for either full or partial mediation to be established, the reduction in variance explained by the independent variable must be significant as determined by one of several tests, such as the [[Sobel test]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Sobel, M. E. 1982 pp. 290&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Sobel | first1 = M. E. | year = 1982 | title = Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models |  journal = Sociological Methodology | volume = 13 | pages = 290–312 | doi = 10.2307/270723 | jstor = 270723 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The effect of an independent variable on the dependent variable can become nonsignificant when the mediator is introduced simply because a trivial amount of variance is explained (i.e., not true mediation). Thus, it is imperative to show a significant reduction in variance explained by the independent variable before asserting either full or partial mediation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
even when C is zero.  This has two &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
即使 c 是零。这里有两个&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to have statistically significant indirect effects in the absence of a total effect.&amp;lt;ref name=Hayes&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Hayes | first1 = A. F. | year = 2009 | title = Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium |  journal = Communication Monographs | volume = 76 | issue = 4| pages = 408–420 | doi = 10.1080/03637750903310360 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  This can be explained by the presence of several mediating paths that cancel each other out, and become noticeable when one of the cancelling mediators is controlled for. This implies that the terms 'partial' and 'full' mediation should always be interpreted relative to the set of variables that are present in the model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
consequences. First, new strategies must be devised for &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
后果。首先，必须制定新的战略&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In all cases, the operation of &amp;quot;fixing a variable&amp;quot; must be distinguished from that of &amp;quot;controlling for a variable,&amp;quot; which has been inappropriately used in the literature.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Robins&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Kaufman&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; The former stands for physically fixing, while the latter stands for conditioning on, adjusting for, or adding to the regression model. The two notions coincide only when all error terms (not shown in the diagram) are statistically uncorrelated. When errors are correlated, adjustments must be made to neutralize those correlations before embarking on mediation analysis (see [[Bayesian Networks]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
estimating the structural coefficients A,B and C. Second, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
估计结构系数 a，b 和 c,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the basic definitions of direct and indirect effects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
直接和间接影响的基本定义&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sobel's test==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
must go beyond regression analysis, and should&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
必须超越回归分析&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Sobel test}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
invoke an operation that mimics &amp;quot;fixing M&amp;quot;, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
调用一个模仿“修理 m”的操作,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rather than &amp;quot;conditioning on M.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
而不是“对 m 施加条件作用”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, [[Sobel test|Sobel's test]]&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Sobel, M. E. 1982 pp. 290&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; is performed to determine if the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable has been significantly reduced after inclusion of the mediator variable. In other words, this test assesses whether a mediation effect is significant. It examines the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable compared to the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable including the mediation factor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Sobel test is more accurate than the Baron and Kenny steps explained above; however, it does have low statistical power. As such, large sample sizes are required in order to have sufficient power to detect significant effects. This is because the key assumption of Sobel's test is the assumption of normality. Because Sobel's test evaluates a given sample on the normal distribution, small sample sizes and skewness of the sampling distribution can be problematic (see [[Normal distribution]] for more details). Thus, the rule of thumb as suggested by MacKinnon et al., (2002) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = MacKinnon | first1 = D. P. | last2 = Lockwood | first2 = C. M. | last3 = Lockwood | first3 = J. M. | last4 = West | first4 = S. G. | last5 = Sheets | first5 = V. | year = 2002 | title = A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects |  journal =   Psychological Methods| volume = 7 | issue = 1| pages = 83–104 | doi=10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.83| pmid = 11928892 | pmc=2819363}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is that a sample size of 1000 is required to detect a small effect, a sample size of 100 is sufficient in detecting a medium effect, and a sample size of 50 is required to detect a large effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such an operator, denoted do(M&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;m), was defined in Pearl (1994) or &amp;quot;structural counterfactuals&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这样一个算子，表示 do (m = m) ，在 Pearl (1994)或“结构反事实”中定义。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These new variables provide convenient notation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这些新的变量提供了方便的符号&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Preacher and Hayes (2004) bootstrap method==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
for defining direct and indirect effects. In particular,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
定义直接和间接影响。特别是,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
four types of effects have been defined for the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
四种类型的影响已被定义为&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The bootstrapping method provides some advantages to the Sobel's test, primarily an increase in power. The Preacher and Hayes Bootstrapping method is a non-parametric test (See [[Non-parametric statistics]] for a discussion on non-parametric tests and their power). As such, the bootstrap method does not violate assumptions of normality and is therefore recommended for small sample sizes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
transition from X&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;0 to X&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;1:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
从 x = 0到 x = 1的跃迁:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bootstrapping involves repeatedly randomly sampling observations with replacement from the data set to compute the desired statistic in each resample. Computing over hundreds, or thousands, of bootstrap resamples provide an approximation of the sampling distribution of the statistic of interest. Hayes offers a macro &amp;lt;http://www.afhayes.com/&amp;gt; that calculates bootstrapping directly within [[SPSS]], a computer program used for statistical analyses. This method provides point estimates and confidence intervals by which one can assess the significance or nonsignificance of a mediation effect. Point estimates reveal the mean over the number of bootstrapped samples and if zero does not fall between the resulting confidence intervals of the bootstrapping method, one can confidently conclude that there is a significant mediation effect to report.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(a) Total effect –  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(a)总效应 -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Significance of mediation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;TE = E [Y(1) - Y(0)] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;          &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[ math &amp;gt; TE = e [ y (1)-y (0)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(b) Controlled direct effect -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(b)受管制的直接影响 -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As outlined above, there are a few different options one can choose from to evaluate a mediation model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; CDE(m) = E [Y(1,m) - Y(0,m) ]  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[ math &amp;gt; CDE (m) = e [ y (1，m)-y (0，m)] &amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(c) Natural direct effect -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(c)天然直接效应 -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bootstrapping (statistics)|Bootstrapping]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web |url=http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/ahayes/sobel.htm |title=Testing of Mediation Models in SPSS and SAS |publisher=Comm.ohio-state.edu |access-date=2012-05-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120518234943/http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/ahayes/sobel.htm |archive-date=2012-05-18 |url-status=dead }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/ahayes/SPSS%20programs/indirect.htm |title=SPSS and SAS Macro for Bootstrapping Specific Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediation Models |publisher=Comm.ohio-state.edu |access-date=2012-05-16}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; is becoming the most popular method of testing mediation because it does not require the normality assumption to be met, and because it can be effectively utilized with smaller sample sizes (''N''&amp;amp;nbsp;&amp;lt;&amp;amp;nbsp;25). However, mediation continues to be most frequently determined using the logic of Baron and Kenny &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm &amp;quot;Mediation&amp;quot;]. ''davidakenny.net''. Retrieved April 25, 2012.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; or the [[Sobel test]]. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to publish tests of mediation based purely on the Baron and Kenny method or tests that make distributional assumptions such as the Sobel test. Thus, it is important to consider your options when choosing which test to conduct.&amp;lt;ref name=Hayes/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;NDE = E [Y(1,M(0))  - Y(0,M(0))] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[ math &amp;gt; NDE = e [ y (1，m (0)-y (0，m (0)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(d) Natural indirect effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(d)自然间接影响&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Approaches to mediation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; NIE = E [Y(0,M(1)) - Y(0,M(0))] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[ math &amp;gt; NIE = e [ y (0，m (1))-y (0，m (0)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where E[ ] stands for expectation taken over the error terms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
其中 e []表示期望取代了错误项。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the concept of mediation as defined within psychology is theoretically appealing, the methods used to study mediation empirically have been challenged by statisticians and epidemiologists&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Robins&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Robins | first1 = J. M. | author-link = James Robins | author-link2 = Sander Greenland | last2 = Greenland | first2 = S. | year = 1992 | title = Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects |  journal = Epidemiology | volume = 3 | issue = 2| pages = 143–55 | doi = 10.1097/00001648-199203000-00013 | pmid = 1576220 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Kaufman&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal|pmc=526390|doi=10.1186/1742-5573-1-4|year=2004|last1=Kaufman|first1=J. S.|title=A further critique of the analytic strategy of adjusting for covariates to identify biologic mediation|journal=Epidemiologic Perspectives &amp;amp; Innovations |volume=1|issue=1|pages=4|last2=MacLehose|first2=R. F.|last3=Kaufman|first3=S|pmid=15507130}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Bullock&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal|pmid=20307128|url=http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~schaller/528Readings/BullockGreenHa2010.pdf|year=2010|last1=Bullock|first1=J. G.|title=Yes, but what's the mechanism? (don't expect an easy answer)|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=98|issue=4|pages=550–8|last2=Green|first2=D. P.|last3=Ha|first3=S. E.|doi=10.1037/a0018933}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and interpreted formally.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Pearl-01&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[Judea Pearl|Pearl, J.]] (2001) [http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/R273-U.pdf &amp;quot;Direct and indirect effects&amp;quot;]. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, [[Morgan Kaufmann]], 411&amp;amp;ndash;420.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These effects have the following interpretations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这些影响有以下解释:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1) Experimental-causal-chain design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An experimental-causal-chain design is used when the proposed mediator is experimentally manipulated. Such a design implies that one manipulates some controlled third variable that they have reason to believe could be the underlying mechanism of a given relationship.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) Measurement-of-mediation design&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A controlled version of the indirect effect does not&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
间接效应的受控版本则不会&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A measurement-of-mediation design can be conceptualized as a statistical approach. Such a design implies that one measures the proposed intervening variable and then uses statistical analyses to establish mediation. This approach does not involve manipulation of the hypothesized mediating variable, but only involves measurement.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|pmid=16393019|url=http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~schaller/528Readings/SpencerZannaFong2005.pdf|year=2005|last1=Spencer|first1=S. J.|title=Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=89|issue=6|pages=845–51|last2=Zanna|first2=M. P.|last3=Fong|first3=G. T.|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
exist because there is no way of disabling the &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
因为没有办法禁用&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
direct effect by fixing a variable to a constant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
把一个变量固定在一个常数上的直接效果。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Criticisms of mediation measurement==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to these definitions the total effect can be decomposed as a sum&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
根据这些定义，总效应可以分解为总和&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;TE = NDE - NIE_r &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;TE = NDE - NIE_r &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Experimental approaches to mediation must be carried out with caution. First, it is important to have strong theoretical support for the exploratory investigation of a potential mediating variable. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where NIE&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;r&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; stands for the reverse transition, from&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
其中 NIE &amp;lt; sub &amp;gt; r &amp;lt;/sub &amp;gt; 代表反向过渡，从&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A criticism of a mediation approach rests on the ability to manipulate and measure a mediating variable. Thus, one must be able to manipulate the proposed mediator in an acceptable and ethical fashion. As such, one must be able to measure the intervening process without interfering with the outcome. The mediator must also be able to establish construct validity of manipulation. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
X&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;1 to X = 0; it becomes additive in linear systems,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 to x = 0; 它成为线性系统的可加性,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most common criticisms of the measurement-of-mediation approach is that it is ultimately a correlational design. Consequently, it is possible that some other third variable, independent from the proposed mediator, could be responsible for the proposed effect. However, researchers have worked hard to provide counter-evidence to this disparagement. Specifically, the following counter-arguments have been put forward:&amp;lt;ref name=CCWA/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where reversal of transitions entails sign reversal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
转变的逆转导致了标志的逆转。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1) Temporal precedence. For example, if the independent variable precedes the dependent variable in time, this would provide evidence suggesting a directional, and potentially causal, link from the independent variable to the dependent variable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The power of these definitions lies in their generality; they are applicable to models with arbitrary nonlinear interactions, arbitrary dependencies among the disturbances, and both continuous and categorical variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这些定义的力量在于它们的普遍性，它们适用于任意非线性相互作用的模型，干扰之间的任意依赖，以及连续变量和分类变量。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) Nonspuriousness and/or no confounds. For example, should one identify other third variables and prove that they do not alter the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable he/she would have a stronger argument for their mediation effect. See other 3rd variables below.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Formulation of the indirect effect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
间接效应的表述&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mediation can be an extremely useful and powerful statistical test; however, it must be used properly. It is important that the measures used to assess the mediator and the dependent variable are theoretically distinct and that the independent variable and mediator cannot interact. Should there be an interaction between the independent variable and the mediator one would have grounds to investigate [[moderation (statistics)|moderation]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In linear analysis, all effects are determined by sums&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
在线性分析中，所有的影响都是由和决定的&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other third variables==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of products of structural coefficients, giving&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
结构系数的乘积，给出&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
《数学》&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(1) Confounding:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\begin{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
开始{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TE        &amp;amp; = C + AB \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
等于 c + AB&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Another model that is often tested is one in which competing variables in the model are alternative potential mediators or an unmeasured cause of the dependent variable. An additional variable in a [[causal model]] may obscure or confound the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Potential confounders are variables that may have a causal impact on both the independent variable and dependent variable. They include common sources of measurement error (as discussed above) as well as other influences shared by both the independent and dependent variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CDE(m) &amp;amp; = NDE = C, \text{ independent of } m\\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
CDE (m) &amp;amp; = NDE = c，文本{独立于} m&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NIE        &amp;amp; = AB.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
和 = AB。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Mediation model with two covariates.jpg|thumb|Mediation model with two covariates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\end{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
结束{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In experimental studies, there is a special concern about aspects of the experimental manipulation or setting that may account for study effects, rather than the motivating theoretical factor. Any of these problems may produce spurious relationships between the independent and dependent variables as measured. Ignoring a confounding variable may bias empirical estimates of the causal effect of the independent variable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
数学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, all effects are estimable whenever the model&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
因此，无论何时模型都可以估计所有的影响&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(2) Suppression:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
is identified.  In non-linear systems, more stringent&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
被识别出来。在非线性系统中，更为严格&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
conditions are needed for estimating the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
我们需要一些条件来估计&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:A suppressor variable increases the predictive validity of another variable when included in a regression equation. Suppression can occur when a single causal variable is related to an outcome variable through two separate mediator variables, and when one of those mediated effects is positive and one is negative. In such a case, each mediator variable suppresses or conceals the effect that is carried through the other mediator variable. For example, higher intelligence scores (a causal variable, ''A'') may cause an increase in error detection (a mediator variable, ''B'') which in turn may cause a decrease in errors made at work on an assembly line (an outcome variable, ''X''); at the same time, intelligence could also cause an increase in boredom (''C''), which in turn may cause an ''increase'' in errors (''X''). Thus, in one causal path intelligence decreases errors, and in the other it increases them. When neither mediator is included in the analysis, intelligence appears to have no effect or a weak effect on errors. However, when boredom is controlled intelligence will appear to decrease errors, and when error detection is controlled intelligence will appear to increase errors. If intelligence could be increased while only boredom was held constant, errors would decrease; if intelligence could be increased while holding only error detection constant, errors would increase.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
direct and indirect effects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
直接和间接影响&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In general, the omission of suppressors or confounders will lead to either an underestimation or an overestimation of the effect of ''A'' on ''X'', thereby either reducing or artificially inflating the magnitude of a relationship between two variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, if no confounding exists, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
例如，如果不存在混淆,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i.e.,  ε&amp;lt;sub &amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;, and ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; are mutually independent) the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(即 ε &amp;lt; sub &amp;gt; 1 &amp;lt;/sub &amp;gt; ，ε &amp;lt; sub &amp;gt; 2 &amp;lt;/sub &amp;gt; ，ε &amp;lt; sub &amp;gt; 3 &amp;lt;/sub &amp;gt; 是相互独立的)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(3) Moderators:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
following formulas can be derived:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
可以推导出以下公式:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and have become the target of estimation in many studies of mediation. They give&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
并成为许多中介研究评价的对象。他们给予&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Other important third variables are moderators. Moderators are variables that can make the relationship between two variables either stronger or weaker. Such variables further characterize interactions in regression by affecting the direction and/or strength of the relationship between ''X'' and ''Y''. A moderating relationship can be thought of as an [[interaction effect|interaction]]. It occurs when the relationship between variables A and B depends on the level of C. See [[moderation (statistics)|moderation]] for further discussion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
distribution-free expressions for direct and indirect&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
直接和间接的分布-自由表达式&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
effects and demonstrate that, despite the arbitrary nature of&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
尽管我们的研究结果具有随意性&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Moderated mediation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the error distributions and the functions f, g, and h, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
误差分布和函数 f，g，h,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mediated effects can nevertheless be estimated from data using &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
然而，我们可以通过使用数据来估计中介效应&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mediation and [[moderation (statistics)|moderation]] can co-occur in statistical models.  It is possible to mediate moderation and moderate mediation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
regression. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
回归。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The analyses of moderated mediation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
有调节的中介分析&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Moderated mediation]] is when the effect of the treatment ''A'' on the mediator and/or the partial effect ''B'' on the dependent variable depend in turn on levels of another variable (moderator). Essentially, in moderated mediation, mediation is first established, and then one investigates if the mediation effect that describes the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable is moderated by different levels of another variable (i.e., a moderator). This definition has been outlined by Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyt (2005)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Muller&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Muller | first1 = D. | last2 = Judd | first2 = C. M. | last3 = Yzerbyt | first3 = V. Y. | year = 2005 | title = When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated |  journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 89 | issue = 6| pages = 852–863 | doi = 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852 | pmid = 16393020 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Preacher&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D. &amp;amp; Hayes, A. F. (2007).  Assessing moderated mediation hypotheses: Strategies, methods, and prescriptions.  Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185&amp;amp;ndash;227.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and mediating moderators fall as special cases of the causal mediation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
和调解人作为因果调解的特殊案例下降&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
analysis, and the mediation formulas identify how various interactions coefficients contribute to the necessary and sufficient components of mediation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
分析，以及调解公式确定各种相互作用系数如何有助于调解的必要和充分的组成部分。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Models of moderated mediation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are five possible models of moderated mediation, as illustrated in the diagrams below.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Muller&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A serial mediation model with two mediator variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
一个具有两个中介变量的串行中介模型。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# In the first model the independent variable also moderates the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The second possible model of moderated mediation involves a new variable which moderates the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator (the ''A'' path).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A conceptual diagram that depicts a parallel mediation model with two mediator variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
描述具有两个中介变量的并行中介模型的概念图。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The third model of moderated mediation involves a new moderator variable which moderates the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable (the ''B'' path).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assume the model takes the form&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
假设模型采用这种形式&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# Moderated mediation can also occur when one moderating variable affects both the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator (the ''A'' path) and the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable (the  ''B'' path).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
《数学》&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# The fifth and final possible model of moderated mediation involves two new moderator variables, one moderating the ''A'' path and the other moderating the ''B'' path.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\begin{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
开始{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
X &amp;amp; = \varepsilon_1 \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
M &amp;amp; = b_0 + b_1X + \varepsilon_2 \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
0 + b 1x + varepsilon 2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Y &amp;amp; = c_0 + c_1X + c_2M + c_3XM + \varepsilon_3 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Y &amp;amp; = c _ 0 + c _ 1x + c _ 2m + c _ 3xm + varepsilon _ 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| [[File:Mediated moderation model 1.png|centre|thumb|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\end{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
结束{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First option: independent variable moderates the ''B'' path.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
数学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| [[File:Mediated moderation model 2.png|centre|thumb|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where the parameter &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;c_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; quantifies the degree to which M modifies the effect of X on Y. Even when all parameters are estimated from data, it is still not obvious what combinations of parameters measure the direct and indirect effect of X on Y, or, more practically, how to assess the fraction of the total effect &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;TE&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that is explained by mediation and the fraction of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;TE&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that is owed to mediation.  In linear analysis, the former fraction is captured by the product &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_1 c_2 / TE&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the latter by the difference &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(TE - c_1)/TE&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the two quantities coincide.  In the presence of interaction, however, each fraction demands a separate analysis, as dictated by the Mediation Formula, which yields:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
其中参数 c _ 3 &amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; 量化了 m 修改 x 对 y 影响的程度。即使所有的参数都是从数据中估计出来的，仍然不清楚哪些参数组合可以衡量 x 对 y 的直接和间接影响，或者更实际地说，如何评估调解和归因于调解的“数学”“数学”“数学”所占总影响的比例。在线性分析中，前者由乘积 &amp;lt; math &amp;gt; b1c2/TE &amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; 获得，后者由差 &amp;lt; math &amp;gt; (TE-c1)/TE &amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; 获得，两个量重合。然而，在存在相互作用的情况下，每个部分都需要按照调解公式进行单独分析，分析结果如下:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second option: fourth variable moderates the ''A'' path.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
《数学》&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| [[File:Mediated moderation model 3.png|centre|thumb|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\begin{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
开始{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Third option: fourth variable moderates the ''B'' path.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NDE &amp;amp; = c_1 + b_0 c_3 \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NDE &amp;amp; = c 1 + b 0 c 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| [[File:Mediated moderation model 4.png|centre|thumb|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NIE &amp;amp; = b_1 c_2 \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 c 2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fourth option: fourth variable moderates both the ''A'' path and the ''B'' path.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TE  &amp;amp; = c_1 + b_0 c_3 + b_1(c_2 + c_3) \\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TE &amp;amp; = c1 + b0 c3 + b1(c2 + c3) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| [[File:Mediated moderation model 5.png|centre|thumb|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;amp; = NDE + NIE + b_1 c_3.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;amp; = NDE + NIE + b 1 c 3.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fifth option: fourth variable moderates the ''A'' path and a fifth variable moderates the ''B'' path.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
\end{align}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
结束{ align }&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
数学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mediated moderation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus, the fraction of output response for which mediation would be sufficient is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
因此，输出响应中中介足够的部分是&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mediated moderation is a variant of both moderation and mediation. This is where there is initially overall moderation and the direct effect of the moderator variable on the outcome is mediated. The main difference between mediated moderation and moderated mediation is that for the former there is initial (overall) moderation and this effect is mediated and for the latter there is no moderation but the effect of either the treatment on the mediator (path ''A'') is moderated or the effect of the mediator on the outcome (path ''B'') is moderated.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Muller&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{NIE}{TE} = \frac{b_1 c_2}{c_1 + b_0 c_3 + b_1 (c_2 + c_3)}, &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1 + b _ 0 c _ 3 + b _ 1(c _ 2 + c _ 3) ，&amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order to establish mediated moderation, one must first establish [[Moderation (statistics)|moderation]], meaning that the direction and/or the strength of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables (path ''C'') differs depending on the level of a third variable (the moderator variable). Researchers next look for the presence of mediated moderation when they have a theoretical reason to believe that there is a fourth variable that acts as the mechanism or process that causes the relationship between the independent variable and the moderator (path ''A'') or between the moderator and the dependent variable (path ''C'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
while the fraction for which mediation would be necessary is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
而调解的必要部分是&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Example'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; 1- \frac{NDE}{TE} = \frac{b_1 (c_2 +c_3)}{c_1 + b_0c_3 + b_1 (c_2 + c_3)}. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1-frac { NDE }{ TE } = frac { b _ 1(c _ 2 + c _ 3)}{ c _ 1 + b _ 0c _ 3 + b _ 1(c _ 2 + c _ 3)}.数学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following is a published example of mediated moderation in psychological research.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal | last1 = Smeesters | first1 = D. | last2 = Warlop | first2 = L. | last3 = Avermaet | first3 = E. V. | last4 = Corneille | first4 = O. | last5 = Yzerbyt | first5 = V. | year = 2003 | title = Do not prime hawks with doves: The interplay of construct activation and consistency of social value orientation on cooperative behavior |  journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 84 | issue = 5| pages = 972–987 | doi = 10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.972 | pmid = 12757142 }}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Participants were presented with an initial stimulus (a prime) that made them think of morality or made them think of might. They then participated in the [[Prisoner's dilemma|Prisoner's Dilemma Game]] (PDG), in which participants pretend that they and their partner in crime have been arrested, and they must decide whether to remain loyal to their partner or to compete with their partner and cooperate with the authorities. The researchers found that prosocial individuals were affected by the morality and might primes, whereas proself individuals were not. Thus, [[Social value orientations|social value orientation]] (proself vs. prosocial) moderated the relationship between the prime (independent variable: morality vs. might) and the behaviour chosen in the PDG (dependent variable: competitive vs. cooperative).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These fractions involve non-obvious combinations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
这些分数包含不明显的组合&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of the model's parameters, and can be constructed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
模型的参数，可以构造出&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The researchers next looked for the presence of a mediated moderation effect. Regression analyses revealed that the type of prime (morality vs. might) mediated the moderating relationship of participants’ [[Social value orientations|social value orientation]] on PDG behaviour. Prosocial participants who experienced the morality prime expected their partner to cooperate with them, so they chose to cooperate themselves. Prosocial participants who experienced the might prime expected their partner to compete with them, which made them more likely to compete with their partner and cooperate with the authorities. In contrast, participants with a pro-self social value orientation always acted competitively.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mechanically with the help of the Mediation Formula. Significantly, due to interaction, a direct effect can be sustained even when the parameter &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;c_1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; vanishes and, moreover, a total effect can be sustained even when both the direct and indirect effects vanish.  This illustrates that estimating parameters in isolation tells us little about the effect of mediation and, more generally, mediation and moderation are intertwined and cannot be assessed separately.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
借助调解公式机械地进行调解。值得注意的是，由于相互作用，即使参数 c _ 1 &amp;lt;/math &amp;gt; 消失，直接影响也可以持续，而且，即使直接和间接影响消失，总体影响也可以持续。这表明，孤立地估计参数并不能告诉我们有关调解效果的信息，更普遍地说，调解和调节是相互交织的，不能单独进行评估。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Regression equations for moderated mediation and mediated moderation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyt (2005)&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Muller&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; outline three fundamental models that underlie both moderated mediation and mediated moderation. ''Mo'' represents the moderator variable(s), ''Me'' represents the mediator variable(s), and ''ε&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;i&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;'' represents the measurement error of each regression equation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Notes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
注释&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Mediation.jpg|434px|right|A simple statistical mediation model.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bibliography&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
参考书目&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 1''': Moderation of the relationship between the independent variable (X) and the dependent variable (Y), also called the overall treatment effect (path ''C'' in the diagram).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Y=\beta_{40} +\beta_{41}X +\beta_{42}Mo +\beta_{43}XMo + \varepsilon_4&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* To establish overall moderation, the ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;43&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; regression weight must be significant (first step for establishing mediated moderation).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first = Kristopher J.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一，克里斯托弗 j。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Establishing moderated mediation requires that there be no moderation effect, so the ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;43&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; regression weight must not be significant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last2 = Hayes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = Hayes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first2 = Andrew F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = Andrew f.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 2''': Moderation of the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator (path ''A'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | title = SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = 用于估计简单调解模型中的间接影响的 SPSS 和 SAS 程序&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Me=\beta_{50} +\beta_{51}X +\beta_{52}Mo +\beta_{53}XMo + \varepsilon_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | journal = Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
行为研究方法，仪器和计算机&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If the ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;53&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; regression weight is significant, the moderator affects the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | volume = 36&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
36&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | issue = 4&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第四期&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Step 3''': Moderation of both the relationship between the independent and dependent variables (path ''A'') and the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable (path ''B'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | pages = 717–731&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 页数 = 717-731&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Y=\beta_{60} +\beta_{61}X +\beta_{62}Mo +\beta_{63}XMo +\beta_{64}Me +\beta_{65}MeMo  + \varepsilon_6&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | url = http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If both ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;53&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; in step 2 and ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;63&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; in step 3 are significant, the moderator affects the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator (path ''A'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | year = 2004&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2004年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* If both ''β''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;53&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; in step 2 and ''β&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;65&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;'' in step 3 are significant, the moderator affects the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable (path ''B'').&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | doi = 10.3758/BF03206553&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.3758/BF03206553&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Either or both of the conditions above may be true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
      | pmid = 15641418&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
15641418&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 | doi-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
免费访问&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Causal mediation analysis==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Fixing versus conditioning===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first = Kristopher J.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第一，克里斯托弗 j。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mediation analysis quantifies the &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last2 = Hayes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = Hayes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
extent to which a variable participates in the transmittance&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first2 = Andrew F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = Andrew f.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of change from a cause to its effect. It is inherently a causal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | title = Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = 评估和比较多重介质模型中间接影响的渐近和重采样策略&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
notion, hence it cannot be defined in statistical terms.  Traditionally,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | journal = Behavior Research Methods&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
行为研究方法&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
however, the bulk of mediation analysis has been conducted&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | volume = 40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
40&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
within the confines of linear regression, with statistical &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | issue = 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第三期&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
terminology masking the causal character of the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | pages = 879–891&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
879-891&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
relationships involved. This led to difficulties,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | url = http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
biases, and limitations that have been alleviated by&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | year = 2008&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2008年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
modern methods of causal analysis, based on causal diagrams&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | doi = 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.3758/BRM. 40.3.879&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and counterfactual logic.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | pmid = 18697684&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
18697684&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
      | doi-access = free&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
免费访问&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The source of these difficulties lies in defining mediation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in terms of changes induced by adding a third variables into &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
a regression equation. Such statistical changes are&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| last = Preacher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
epiphenomena which sometimes accompany mediation but, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first = K. J.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| 第一 = k. j。&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in general, fail to capture the causal relationships that&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last2 = Zyphur&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = Zyphur&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
mediation analysis aims to quantify.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first2 = M. J.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2 = m. j.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | last3 = Zhang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3 = Zhang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The basic premise of the causal approach is that it is&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | first3 = Z.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3 = z.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
not always appropriate to &amp;quot;control&amp;quot; for the mediator ''M''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | title = A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| title = 用于评估多层次调解的通用多层次结构方程模型框架&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
when we seek to estimate the direct effect of ''X'' on ''Y''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | journal = Psychological Methods&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
心理学方法&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(see the Figure above).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | volume = 15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
15&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The classical rationale for &amp;quot;controlling&amp;quot; for ''M''&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | issue = 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
第三期&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
is that, if we succeed in preventing ''M'' from changing, then &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | pages = 209–233&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| pages = 209-233&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
whatever changes we measure in Y are attributable solely &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | year = 2010&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2010年&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to variations in ''X'' and we are justified then in proclaiming the &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | doi = 10.1037/a0020141&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
| doi = 10.1037/a0020141&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
effect observed as &amp;quot;direct effect of ''X'' on ''Y''.&amp;quot; Unfortunately,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | pmid = 20822249&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
20822249&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;controlling for ''M''&amp;quot; does not physically prevent ''M'' from changing;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
  | citeseerx = 10.1.1.570.7747&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
10.1.1.570.7747&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
it merely narrows the analyst's attention to cases&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 }}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of equal ''M'' values.  Moreover, the language of probability &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
theory does not possess the notation to express the idea &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
of &amp;quot;preventing ''M'' from changing&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;physically holding ''M'' constant&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The only operator probability provides is &amp;quot;Conditioning&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which is what we do when we &amp;quot;control&amp;quot; for ''M'', &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
or add ''M'' as a regressor in the equation for ''Y''. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The result is that, instead of physically holding ''M&amp;quot; constant &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(say at ''M'' = ''m'') and comparing ''Y'' for units under ''X''&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;1' to those under &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''X'' = 0, we allow ''M'' to vary but ignore all units except those in &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which ''M'' achieves the value ''M''&amp;amp;nbsp;=&amp;amp;nbsp;''m''. These two operations are &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
fundamentally different, and yield different results,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|last1=Robins|first1=J.M.|last2=Greenland|first2=S.|title=Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects|journal=Epidemiology|date=1992|volume=3|issue=2|pages=143–155|doi=10.1097/00001648-199203000-00013|pmid=1576220}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;pearl1994&amp;quot; &amp;gt;{{cite journal|last1=Pearl|first1=Judea|editor1-last=Lopez de Mantaras|editor1-first=R.|editor2-last=Poole|editor2-first=D.|title=A probabilistic calculus of actions|journal=Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 10|volume=1302|date=1994|pages=454–462|publisher=[[Morgan Kaufmann]]|location=San Mateo, CA|bibcode=2013arXiv1302.6835P|arxiv=1302.6835}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; except in the case of no omitted variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To illustrate, assume that the error terms of ''M'' and ''Y''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
are correlated. Under such conditions, the&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
structural coefficient ''B'' and ''A'' (between ''M'' and ''Y'' and between ''Y'' and ''X'')&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
can no longer be estimated by regressing ''Y'' on ''X'' and ''M''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, the regression slopes may both be nonzero&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
even when ''C'' is zero.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal|pmid=24885338|year=2014|last1=Pearl|first1=J|title=Interpretation and identification of causal mediation|journal=Psychological Methods|volume=19|issue=4|pages=459–81|doi=10.1037/a0036434|url=ftp://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/r389-imai-etal-commentary-r421-reprint.pdf}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  This has two &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
consequences. First, new strategies must be devised for &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
estimating the structural coefficients ''A,B'' and ''C''. Second, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
the basic definitions of direct and indirect effects &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
must go beyond regression analysis, and should&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
invoke an operation that mimics &amp;quot;fixing ''M''&amp;quot;, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
rather than &amp;quot;conditioning on ''M''.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Statistical models&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 统计模型&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Independence (probability theory)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 独立概率论&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Definitions===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Category:Psychometrics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
类别: 心理测量学&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;This page was moved from [[wikipedia:en:Mediation (statistics)]]. Its edit history can be viewed at [[中介变量/edithistory]]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/noinclude&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:待整理页面]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Alchemist</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>