更改

添加119,532字节、 2020年11月16日 (一) 21:55

Moved page from wikipedia:en:Technological singularity (history)

此词条暂由彩云小译翻译，翻译字数共3450，未经人工整理和审校，带来阅读不便，请见谅。

{{Redirect|The Singularity||Singularity (disambiguation)}}

{{short description|Hypothetical point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible}}

The '''technological singularity'''—also, simply, '''the singularity'''<ref>Cadwalladr, Carole (2014). "[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…]" ''The Guardian''. Guardian News and Media Limited.</ref>—is a [[hypothetical]] point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization.<ref>{{cite web |title=Collection of sources defining "singularity" |url=http://www.singularitysymposium.com/definition-of-singularity.html |website=singularitysymposium.com |accessdate=17 April 2019}}</ref><ref name="Singularity hypotheses">{{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}}</ref> 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 "runaway reaction" of self-improvement cycles, each new and more intelligent generation appearing more and more rapidly, causing an "explosion" in intelligence and resulting in a powerful [[superintelligence]] that qualitatively far surpasses all [[human intelligence]].

The technological singularity—also, simply, the singularity—is a hypothetical point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization. According to the most popular version of the singularity hypothesis, called intelligence explosion, an upgradable intelligent agent will eventually enter a "runaway reaction" of self-improvement cycles, each new and more intelligent generation appearing more and more rapidly, causing an "explosion" in intelligence and resulting in a powerful superintelligence that qualitatively far surpasses all human intelligence.

技术奇点(简单地说，也就是奇点)是一个假设的时间点，在这个时间点上，技术增长变得无法控制和不可逆转，导致人类文明发生无法预见的变化。根据最受欢迎的奇点假说版本，即所谓的智能爆炸，一个可升级的智能代理人最终将进入一个自我改进周期的“失控反应” ，每一个新的和更智能的一代出现得越来越快，导致智能的“爆炸” ，并导致一个强大的超级智能，远远超过所有人类智能。

The first use of the concept of a "singularity" in the technological context was [[John von Neumann]].<ref>''The Technological Singularity'' by Murray Shanahan, (MIT Press, 2015), page 233</ref> [[Stanislaw Ulam]] reports a discussion with von Neumann "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".<ref name="mathematical" /> Subsequent authors have echoed this viewpoint.<ref name="Singularity hypotheses" /><ref name="chalmers">{{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=}}</ref>

The first use of the concept of a "singularity" in the technological context was John von Neumann. Stanislaw Ulam reports a discussion with von Neumann "centered on the 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".

第一次在技术环境中使用“奇点”的概念是在20世纪90年代约翰·冯·诺伊曼。据 Stanislaw Ulam 报道，他与 von Neumann 进行了一次讨论，“围绕着科技的加速发展和人类生活方式的变化，这使得人类历史上的某些本质奇点出现了，而我们所知道的人类事务是不可能继续下去的。”。

[[I. J. Good]]'s "intelligence explosion" model predicts that a future superintelligence will trigger a singularity.<ref name="vinge1993">Vinge, Vernor. [http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html "The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era"], in ''Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace'', G. A. Landis, ed., NASA Publication CP-10129, pp. 11–22, 1993.</ref>

I. J. Good's "intelligence explosion" model predicts that a future superintelligence will trigger a singularity.

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。

The concept and the term "singularity" 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.<ref name="vinge1993" />

The concept and the term "singularity" 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. The consequences of the singularity and its potential benefit or harm to the human race have been intensely debated.

这个概念和术语“奇点”是由 Vernor Vinge 在他1993年的文章《即将到来的技术奇异点》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继续自我升级，并以一种不可思议的速度在技术上进步。他写道，如果它发生在2005年之前或2030年之后，他会感到惊讶。奇点的后果及其对人类的潜在利益或伤害已经引起了激烈的争论。

Public figures such as [[Stephen Hawking]] and [[Elon Musk]] have expressed concern that full [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) could result in human extinction.<ref>{{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}}</ref><ref>{{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}}</ref> The consequences of the singularity and its potential benefit or harm to the human race have been intensely debated.

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.

2012年和2013年，尼克 · 博斯特罗姆(Nick Bostrom)和文森特 · c · 穆勒(Vincent c. Müller)对人工智能研究人员进行了四次民意调查，结果显示，到2040年至2050年，人工通用智能(AGI)开发的概率中值估计为50% 。

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.<ref name=newyorker>{{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}}</ref><ref>Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016). "Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion". In V. C. Müller (ed): ''Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence'' (pp. 555–572). Springer, Berlin. http://philpapers.org/rec/MLLFPI</ref>

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. 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.

虽然技术进步一直在加速，但是它受到人类大脑基本智能的限制，据保罗 · r · 埃利希说，几千年来人类大脑并没有发生显著的变化。然而，随着计算机和其他技术能力的增强，最终可能会造出一台比人类智能得多的机器。

==Background==

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.<ref name="Paul Ehrlich June 2008">Ehrlich, Paul. [http://www.longnow.org/seminars/02008/jun/27/dominant-animal-human-evolution-and-environment/ The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment]</ref> 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.<ref name="businessweek">[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 }}</ref>

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.

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和创造能力。这种人工智能被称为种子人工智能，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，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。这些递归自我改进的迭代可以加速，在物理定律或理论计算设置的任何上限之前，潜在地允许巨大的定性变化。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。

If a superhuman intelligence were to be invented—either through the [[Intelligence amplification|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'''<ref name="Yampolskiy, Roman V 2015">Yampolskiy, Roman V. "Analysis of types of self-improving software." Artificial General Intelligence. Springer International Publishing, 2015. 384-393.</ref><ref name="ReferenceA">[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]. General Intelligence and Seed AI-Creating Complete Minds Capable of Open-Ended Self-Improvement, 2001</ref> 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 [[Superintelligence|would far surpass human cognitive abilities]].

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 artificial superintelligence (ASI), the limits of which are unknown, shortly after technological singularity is achieved.

智能爆炸是人类构建人工通用智能的可能结果。在技术奇异点实现后不久，AGI 将能够进行递归式自我改进，从而导致人工超级智能(ASI)的迅速出现，但其局限性尚不清楚。

==Intelligence explosion==

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.

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: 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.

I. j.古德在1965年推测，人工普通智能可能会带来智能爆炸。他推测超人类机器的影响，如果它们被发明出来的话: 例如，相对于人类，信息处理速度提高了100万倍，一个主观的一年就会在30秒内过去。

[[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:<ref name="stat"/>

{{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.}}

Many prominent technologists and academics dispute the plausibility of a technological singularity, including Paul Allen, Jeff Hawkins, John Holland, Jaron Lanier, and Gordon Moore, whose law is often cited in support of the concept.

包括 Paul Allen，Jeff Hawkins，John Holland，Jaron Lanier，和 Gordon Moore 在内的许多著名的技术专家和学者对技术奇异点的合理性提出了质疑，他们的定律经常被引用来支持这个概念。

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.<ref name="stat"/>

Robin Hanson expressed skepticism of human intelligence augmentation, writing that once the "low-hanging fruit" of easy methods for increasing human intelligence have been exhausted, further improvements will become increasingly difficult to find. 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.

罗宾 · 汉森(Robin Hanson)对人类智力的增强表示怀疑，他写道，一旦提高人类智力的简单方法的“唾手可得的果实”用尽，进一步的改进将越来越难找到。尽管有各种各样扩大人类智能的推测方法，但非人类人工智能(特别是种子人工智能)仍是推进奇点假说中最受欢迎的选择。

==Other manifestations==

Whether or not an intelligence explosion occurs depends on three factors. 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.

智力爆发是否发生取决于三个因素。第一个加速因素是新的智能增强，使以前的每一次改进成为可能。相反，随着智能变得越来越先进，进一步的发展将变得越来越复杂，可能会克服智能增长的优势。平均而言，每一项改进都应该至少再带来一项改进，以便继续朝着奇点的方向前进。最后，物理定律最终会阻止任何进一步的改进。

===Emergence of superintelligence===

{{Further|Superintelligence}}

There are two logically independent, but mutually reinforcing, causes of intelligence improvements: increases in the speed of computation, and improvements to the algorithms used. The former is predicted by Moore's Law and the forecasted improvements in hardware, and is comparatively similar to previous technological advances. But there are some AI researchers who believe software is more important than hardware.

智能改进有两个逻辑上相互独立但又相辅相成的原因: 计算速度的提高和所用算法的改进。前者是由摩尔定律和预测的硬件改进所预测的，并且与先前的技术进步相似。但也有一些人工智能研究人员认为软件比硬件更重要。

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. "Superintelligence" 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.<ref name="vinge1993"/><ref name="singularity"/>

A 2017 email survey of authors with publications at the 2015 NeurIPS and ICML machine learning conferences asked about the chance of an intelligence explosion. Of the respondents, 12% said it was "quite likely", 17% said it was "likely", 21% said it was "about even", 24% said it was "unlikely" and 26% said it was "quite unlikely".

2017年的一份电子邮件调查显示，在2015年的 NeurIPS 和 ICML 机器学习会议上发表文章的作者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“很有可能” ，21% 的人认为“差不多” ，24% 的人认为“不太可能” ，26% 的人认为“不太可能”。

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.

===Non-AI singularity===

Both for human and artificial intelligence, hardware improvements increase the rate of future hardware improvements. Simply put, 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. 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: "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."

无论是对于人类还是人工智能，硬件的改进都会提高未来硬件改进的速度。简单地说，摩尔定律表明，如果第一次速度翻倍需要18个月，第二次则需要18个主观的月份; 或者9个外部的月份，然后，4个月，2个月，等等，才能达到速度奇点。速度上限可能最终会达到，尽管目前还不清楚具体会有多高。杰夫•霍金斯(Jeff Hawkins)表示，一个自我改进的计算机系统将不可避免地遇到计算能力的上限: “最终，计算机的大小和运行速度都会受到限制。我们会在同一个地方结束; 我们只是会更快地到达那里。没有什么奇点。”

Some writers use "the singularity" in a broader way to refer to any radical changes in our society brought about by new technologies such as [[molecular nanotechnology]],<ref name="hplusmagazine"/><ref name="yudkowsky.net"/><ref name="agi-conf"/> although Vinge and other writers specifically state that without superintelligence, such changes would not qualify as a true singularity.<ref name="vinge1993" />

It is difficult to directly compare silicon-based hardware with neurons. But 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.

直接将基于硅的硬件与神经元进行比较是困难的。但是注意到计算机语音识别正在接近人类的能力，这种能力似乎需要0.01% 的大脑容量。这个类比表明，现代计算机硬件与人脑一样强大的数量级只有几秒钟的距离。

===Speed superintelligence===

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.<ref>{{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 }}</ref> 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.<ref name="singinst.org"/> Such a difference in information processing speed could drive the singularity.<ref>{{cite book |doi=10.1002/9781118922590.ch16 |year=2016 |publisher=John Wiley \& Sons, Inc |pages=171–224 |author=David J. Chalmers |title=Science Fiction and Philosophy |chapter=The Singularity |isbn=9781118922590 |conference=Science Fiction and Philosophy }}</ref>

Ray Kurzweil writes that, due to [[paradigm shifts, a trend of exponential growth extends Moore's law from integrated circuits to earlier transistors, vacuum tubes, relays, and 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 ("unenhanced") human brains, with superhuman artificial intelligence appearing around the same time.]]

雷 · 库兹韦尔写道，由于[范式转变，指数增长的趋势将摩尔定律从集成电路延伸到早期的晶体管、真空管、继电器和机电计算机。他预测，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(未经增强的)人类大脑，超人类人工智能将在同一时间出现。]

Kurzweil's graph). The 7 most recent data points are all NVIDIA GPUs.]]

Kurzweil's graph).最近的7个数据点都是 NVIDIA gpu。]

==Plausibility==

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.<ref name="spectrum.ieee.org"/><ref name="ieee"/><ref name="Allen"/>

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 that the exponential growth curve could be extended back through earlier computing technologies prior to the integrated circuit.

计算机技术领域的指数增长摩尔定律被普遍认为是在不久的将来会出现奇点的理由，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学家 Hans Moravec 在1998年的一本书中提出，指数增长曲线可以通过集成电路之前的早期计算技术得到延伸。

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.<ref name="singinst.org">{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity |title=What is the Singularity? | 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 }}</ref>

Ray Kurzweil postulates a law of accelerating returns in which the speed of technological change (and more generally, all evolutionary processes 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 rather than exponential.

雷 · 库兹韦尔假定了一个加速收益定律，其中技术变革的速度(更广泛地说，所有的进化过程)。另一方面，有人认为，以21世纪奇点为参数的全球加速模式应该被描述为双曲型而不是指数型。

[[Robin Hanson]] expressed skepticism of human intelligence augmentation, writing that once the "low-hanging fruit" of easy methods for increasing human intelligence have been exhausted, further improvements will become increasingly difficult to find.<ref name="hanson">{{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}}</ref> 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}}

Kurzweil reserves the term "singularity" for a rapid increase in artificial intelligence (as opposed to other technologies), writing for example that "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". Kurzweil believes that the singularity will occur by approximately 2045. His predictions differ from Vinge's in that he predicts a gradual ascent to the singularity, rather than Vinge's rapidly self-improving superhuman intelligence.

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这些局限... ..。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年出现。他的预测与 Vinge 的不同之处在于，Vinge 预测的是一个逐渐上升到奇点的过程，而不是 Vinge 的快速自我完善的超人智慧。

Whether or not an intelligence explosion occurs depends on three factors.<ref name="david_chalmers_singularity_lecture_resources_available">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 "intelligence explosion" 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 }}.</ref> 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.

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 "Why the future doesn't need us".

经常被引用的危险包括那些通常与分子纳米技术和基因工程有关的危险。这些威胁是奇点倡导者和批评者的主要问题，也是比尔 · 乔伊在《连线》杂志上发表文章《为什么未来不需要我们》的主题。

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.<ref name="consc.net">[http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, David J. Chalmers]</ref> The former is predicted by [[Moore's law|Moore's Law]] and the forecasted improvements in hardware,<ref name="itrs">{{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 }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{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}}</ref>{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}

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 mankind uses to survive.

由递归自我改进的算法集合引起的智能爆炸存在实质性的危险。首先，人工智能的目标结构可能不会在自我完善的情况下保持不变，这可能会导致人工智能为其他目标进行优化。其次，人工智能可以竞争人类赖以生存的稀缺资源。

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 "quite likely", 17% said it was "likely", 21% said it was "about even", 24% said it was "unlikely" and 26% said it was "quite unlikely".<ref>{{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}}</ref>

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.

尽管人工智能并非主动怀有恶意，但我们没有理由认为它们会主动促进人类目标，除非它们能够被编入这样的程序，否则它们可能会利用目前用于支持人类的资源来促进其自身目标，从而导致人类灭绝。

=== Speed improvements ===

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 "computing overhang."

卡尔 · 舒尔曼和安德斯 · 桑德伯格认为，算法改进可能是奇点的限制因素; 虽然硬件效率趋向于稳步提高，但软件创新更加不可预测，可能会被连续的、累积的研究所阻碍。他们认为，在软件受限的奇点情况下，智能爆炸实际上比硬件受限的奇点更有可能发生，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，它可以在非常快速的硬件上连续运行，而大量廉价的硬件将使人工智能研究受到更少的限制。一旦软件知道如何使用，就可以释放大量积累的硬件，这被称为“计算过剩”

Both for human and artificial intelligence, hardware improvements increase the rate of future hardware improvements. Simply put,<ref name="arstechnica">{{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}}</ref> [[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.<ref name="singularity6">Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html "Staring into the Singularity"]</ref> 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: "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."<ref name="Hawkins">{{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]]}}</ref>

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.

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.}}

一些批评家，比如哲学家休伯特 · 德雷福斯，断言计算机或机器不能实现人类智能，而另一些人，比如物理学家斯蒂芬 · 霍金，则认为如果最终结果是相同的，那么智能的定义就无关紧要

====Exponential growth====

Martin Ford in The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future

马丁 · 福特在《隧道中的灯光: 自动化，加速技术和未来经济》一书中

[[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 ("unenhanced") human brains, with superhuman [[artificial intelligence]] appearing around the same time.]]

[[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]].]]

In a 2007 paper, Schmidhuber stated that the frequency of subjectively "notable events" 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.

施密德胡贝尔在2007年的一篇论文中指出，从主观上看，“重大事件”的频率似乎正在接近21世纪的奇点，但他告诫读者不要把这些主观事件的情节当真: 也许对近期和远期事件的记忆存在差异，可能会造成一种加速变化的幻觉，而这种幻觉根本不存在。

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<ref>{{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&pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}</ref> that the exponential growth curve could be extended back through earlier computing technologies prior to the [[integrated circuit]].

Paul Allen argued the opposite of accelerating returns, the complexity brake; He goes on to assert: "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."

保罗 · 艾伦认为加速回报的反面是复杂性制动器; 他继续断言: “相信人类的能动性而非技术决定论的原因在于，你可以拥有一种经济，在这种经济中，人们可以自食其力，创造自己的生活。如果你建立一个不强调个人能动性的社会，那么在操作层面上，这与否定人们的影响力、尊严和自决是一回事... ... 接受[奇点理念]将是对错误数据和错误政治的颂扬。”

[[Ray Kurzweil]] postulates a [[law of accelerating returns]] in which the speed of technological change (and more generally, all evolutionary processes<ref name="google"/>) 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.<ref name="singularity2"/> 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.<ref name="HilbertLopez2011">[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 "The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information"], Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), [[Science (journal)|Science]], 332(6025), 60–65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html</ref> 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.<ref>[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)</ref>

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 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 "events" were picked arbitrarily.

除了对奇点概念的普遍批评外，一些评论家还对库兹韦尔的标志性图表提出了质疑。有一种批评意见认为，这种性质的对数图表天生偏向于直线结果。其他人则认为库兹韦尔选择使用的观点存在选择偏差。例如，生物学家 pzmyers 指出，许多早期的进化“事件”是随意挑选的。

Kurzweil reserves the term "singularity" for a rapid increase in artificial intelligence (as opposed to other technologies), writing for example that "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".<ref name="singularity3"/> 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 "will not represent the Singularity" because they do "not yet correspond to a profound expansion of our intelligence."<ref name="transformation"/>

====Accelerating change====

The term "technological singularity" reflects the idea that such change may happen suddenly, and that it is difficult to predict how the resulting new world would operate.

“技术奇异点”一词反映了这种变化可能会突然发生的想法，而且很难预测由此产生的新世界将如何运作。

{{Main|Accelerating change}}

[[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]]

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. Anders Sandberg has also elaborated on this scenario, addressing various common counter-arguments. AI researcher Hugo de Garis suggests that artificial intelligences may simply eliminate the human race for access to scarce resources, and humans would be powerless to stop them. Alternatively, AIs developed under evolutionary pressure to promote their own survival could outcompete humanity. proposes an AI design that avoids several dangers including self-delusion, unintended instrumental actions, and corruption of the reward generator. 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.

声称人工智能对人类友好并没有直接的进化动机。进化没有产生被人类重视的结果的内在趋势，也没有理由期待一个任意的优化过程来促进人类所期望的结果，而不是不经意地导致人工智能的行为方式不是它的创造者所希望的。安德斯 · 桑德伯格也详细阐述了这个场景，解决了各种常见的反论点。人工智能研究者雨果 · 德 · 加里斯认为，人工智能可能仅仅是为了获取稀缺资源而消灭人类，而人类无力阻止它们。或者，在进化压力下发展起来的人工智能，为了提高自身的生存能力，可能会在竞争中胜过人类。提出了一种人工智能设计，避免了一些危险，包括自欺欺人，无意识的工具行为，以及奖励发生器的腐败。测试人工智能。他在2001年出版的《超级智能机器》一书中主张，有必要开展有关人工智能和人工智能公共控制的公共教育。它还提出了一个简单的设计，容易受到腐败的奖励生成器。

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 "singularity" in the context of technological progress, [[Stanislaw Ulam]] tells of a conversation with [[John von Neumann]] about accelerating change: {{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.<ref name=mathematical/>}}

Kurzweil claims that technological progress follows a pattern of [[exponential growth]], following what he calls the "[[law of accelerating returns]]". Whenever technology approaches a barrier, Kurzweil writes, new technologies will surmount it. He predicts [[paradigm shift]]s will become increasingly common, leading to "technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history".<ref name="Kurzweil 2001">{{Citation

| first=Raymond

major evolutionary transitions" in information processing.

信息处理中的”主要进化转变”。

| last=Kurzweil

| authorlink=Raymond Kurzweil

| title=The Law of Accelerating Returns

| year=2001

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.

2009年2月，在美国美国人工智能协会协会(AAAI)的主持下，Eric Horvitz 在加利福尼亚州太平洋格罗夫的 Asilomar 主持了一次由顶尖计算机科学家、人工智能研究人员和机器人专家参加的会议。其目的是讨论机器人能够自给自足并能够自己做决定这一假设可能性的潜在影响。他们讨论了计算机和机器人可以获得自主性的程度，以及他们可以在多大程度上使用这些能力来构成威胁或危险。

| publisher=Lifeboat Foundation

| url=http://lifeboat.com/ex/law.of.accelerating.returns

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. 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.

弗兰克 · s · 罗宾逊预言，一旦人类实现了一台具有人类智能的机器，科学和技术问题将会用远远超过人类智能的智力来解决和解决。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超级智能的全球网络，这将使人类的能力相形见绌。罗宾逊还讨论了这种智力爆发后的未来可能会有多么巨大的不同。这方面的一个例子是太阳能，地球获得的太阳能远远超过人类所获得的，因此获取更多的太阳能将为文明的发展带来巨大的希望。

| accessdate=2007-08-07

| bibcode=2008NatPh...4..507B

| volume=4

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).

在这个递归自我改进的样例场景中，人类修改人工智能的体系结构将能够使其性能每三年翻一番，例如，在用尽所有可行的改进之前，通过30代(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，将在6年内完成所有30代人的可行性(对)。

| page=507

| journal=Nature Physics

In a hard takeoff scenario, an AGI rapidly self-improves, "taking control" 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.

在艰难起飞的场景中，AGI 会迅速自我提高，“控制”世界(可能在几个小时内) ，速度太快，无法进行重大的人为错误纠正，也无法逐步调整 AGI 的目标。在软起飞的场景中，AGI 仍然比人类要强大得多，但是在一个持续的人类互动和修正可以有效地引导 AGI 的发展的时间尺度上，它的速度与人类相似(可能在几十年左右)。

| doi=10.1038/nphys1010

| issue=7

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 "the collective brainpower of tens of thousands of humans and probably millions of CPU cores to... design better CPUs!" 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 "creating a mind of intelligence 2 is probably more than twice as hard as creating a mind of intelligence 1."

拉米兹•纳姆(Ramez Naam)反对强力起飞。他指出，我们已经看到了通过超智能(比如公司)进行的递归自我提升。例如，英特尔拥有“数以万计的人类和可能数以百万计的 CPU 核心的集体智慧... 设计更好的 CPU! ”然而，这并没有导致经济的硬性起飞，相反，它导致了摩尔定律形式的软性起飞。Naam 进一步指出，高级智能的计算复杂性可能远远大于线性，比如“创造智能大脑的难度可能是创造智能大脑的两倍多。”

}}</ref> Kurzweil believes that the singularity will occur by approximately [[Predictions made by Raymond Kurzweil#2045: The Singularity|2045]].<ref>''The Singularity Is Near''</ref> His predictions differ from Vinge's in that he predicts a gradual ascent to the singularity, rather than Vinge's rapidly self-improving superhuman intelligence.

J. Storrs Hall believes that "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" 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.

J. Storrs Hall 认为，“很多常见的一夜之间硬起飞的场景都是循环的——它们似乎是在自我提升过程的起点上假设了超人类的能力” ，以便人工智能能够进行起飞所需的戏剧性的、领域一般性的改进。霍尔认为，一个初出茅庐的人工智能最好专注于它最有效的一个领域，然后在市场上购买剩余的部件，而不是自己不断地自我改进硬件、软件和基础设施，因为市场上的产品质量不断提高，人工智能很难跟上世界其他地方使用的尖端技术。

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)|Wired]]'' magazine article "[[Why the future doesn't need us]]".<ref name=chalmers /><ref name="JoyFuture"/>

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 "semihard takeoff".

Ben Goertzel 同意 Hall 的建议，即一个新的人类级别的人工智能将会很好地利用它的智能来积累财富。人工智能的天赋可能会激励公司和政府将其软件推广到整个社会。戈特泽尔对五分钟的起飞持怀疑态度，但他推测五年从人类到超人级别的起飞是合理的。Goerzel 将这种情况称为“半硬起飞”。

=== Algorithm improvements ===

Some intelligence technologies, like "seed AI",<ref name="Yampolskiy, Roman V 2015"/><ref name="ReferenceA"/> 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.

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. "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."

马克斯 · 莫尔不同意这种观点，他认为，如果只有少数几个超快的人工智能，它们不会从根本上改变世界，因为它们仍然依赖于其他人来完成事情，仍然会受到人类认知的约束。即使所有超快的人工智能都在增强智力，也不清楚为什么它们会以不连续的方式比现有的人类认知科学家在产生超人类智力方面做得更好，尽管进步的速度会加快。更进一步认为，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、速度缓慢的人类系统接触，以完成对世界的物理影响。“合作、组织以及将想法转化为实际变化的需要，将确保所有旧规则不会在一夜之间甚至几年之内被抛弃。”

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]].

In his 2005 book, The Singularity is Near, Kurzweil suggests that medical advances would allow people to protect their bodies from the effects of aging, making the 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. 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.

在他2005年出版的《奇点迫近书中，Kurzweil 提出，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，从而使人的寿命无限。库兹韦尔认为，医学技术的进步将使我们能够不断地修复和替换身体中有缺陷的组件，从而延长寿命，直到不确定的年龄。库兹韦尔通过讨论当前生物工程的进展进一步支持他的论点。库兹韦尔建议进行体细胞基因治疗; 在合成具有特定基因信息的病毒之后，下一步将把这项技术应用于基因治疗，用合成基因取代人类 DNA。

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.<ref name="yudkowsky">{{cite web|author=Eliezer S. Yudkowsky |url=http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/power |title=Power of Intelligence |publisher=Yudkowsky |accessdate=2011-09-09}}</ref>

K. Eric Drexler, one of the founders of nanotechnology, postulated cell repair devices, including ones operating within cells and utilizing as yet hypothetical biological machines, in his 1986 book Engines of Creation.

纳米技术的创始人之一，在他1986年出版的《创造的引擎》一书中提出了假设的细胞修复装置，包括在细胞内运作并利用假设的生物机器的装置。

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.<ref name="selfawaresystems">[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., "The Basic AI Drives." Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008 ]</ref><ref name="kurzweilai">{{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}}</ref> Secondly, AIs could compete for the same scarce resources mankind uses to survive.<ref name="selfawaresystems.com">[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/10/05/paper-on-the-nature-of-self-improving-artificial-intelligence/ Omohundro, Stephen M., "The Nature of Self-Improving Artificial Intelligence." Self-Aware Systems. 21 Jan. 2008. Web. 07 Jan. 2010.]</ref><ref>{{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, "Four Basic Drives"|title-link=Our Final Invention}}</ref>

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) "swallow the doctor". The idea was incorporated into Feynman's 1959 essay There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom.

据理查德 · 费曼说，正是他以前的研究生兼合作者阿尔伯特 · 希布斯(Albert Hibbs)最初(大约在1959年)向他提出了费曼理论微型机器的医学用途的想法。希布斯建议，某些维修机器可能有一天会缩小到理论上可以(如费曼所说)“吞下医生”的程度。这个想法被纳入了费曼1959年的文章有足够的空间在底部。

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.<ref name="kurzweilai.net">{{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}}</ref><ref name="ReferenceB">{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/riskintro/index.html |title=Concise Summary | Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09}}</ref><ref name="nickbostrom7">[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.]</ref>

Beyond merely extending the operational life of the physical body, Jaron Lanier argues for a form of immortality called "Digital Ascension" that involves "people dying in the flesh and being uploaded into a computer and remaining conscious".

除了延长肉体的运作寿命，Jaron Lanier 还主张一种称为“数字提升”的永生形式，即“人们死于肉体，被上传到计算机中并保持清醒”。

[[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.<ref name=ShulmanSandberg2010>{{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}}</ref> An abundance of accumulated hardware that can be unleashed once the software figures out how to use it has been called "computing overhang."<ref name=MuehlhauserSalamon2012>{{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}}</ref>

===Criticisms===

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.

发表在《人工智能杂志》上的一篇论文声称，18世纪的数学家马奎斯·孔多塞是第一个假设和数学模拟智能爆炸及其对人类影响的人。

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.<ref name="dreyfus"/>

An early description of the idea was made in John Wood Campbell Jr.'s 1932 short story "The last evolution".

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。

Psychologist [[Steven Pinker]] stated in 2008:

{{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. ...<ref name="spectrum.ieee.org"/>}}

In his 1958 obituary for John von Neumann, Ulam recalled a conversation with von Neumann about 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." 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.

在他1958年为《约翰·冯·诺伊曼志撰写的讣告中，Ulam 回忆了他与 von Neumann 的一次对话，内容是关于“科技的不断加速进步和人类生活方式的变化，这使得人类历史上出现了一些本质奇点，而我们所知道的人类事务是不可能继续下去的。”例如，库兹韦尔推断当前的技术轨迹超越了自我完善的人工智能或超人类智能的出现，尤德科夫斯基认为这代表了与 i. j。古德提出智力的间断性提升和文奇关于不可预测性的论点。

[[University of California, Berkeley]], [[philosophy]] professor [[John Searle]] writes:

Former President of the United States Barack Obama spoke about singularity in his interview to Wired in 2016:

美国前总统巴拉克 · 奥巴马在2016年接受《连线》杂志采访时谈到了奇点:

{{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.<ref>[[John R. Searle]], “What Your Computer Can’t Know”, ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', 9 October 2014, p. 54.</ref>}}

[[Martin Ford (author)|Martin Ford]] in ''The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future''<ref name="thelightsinthetunnel"/> postulates a "technology paradox" 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 "routine."<ref name="nytimes"/>

[[Theodore Modis]]<ref name="google13"/><ref name="Singularity Myth"/> and [[Jonathan Huebner]]<ref name="technological14"/> 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.<ref name="cnet"/> While Kurzweil used Modis' resources, and Modis' work was around accelerating change, Modis distanced himself from Kurzweil's thesis of a "technological singularity", claiming that it lacks scientific rigor.<ref name="Singularity Myth"/>

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.<ref>{{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}}</ref>

In a 2007 paper, Schmidhuber stated that the frequency of subjectively "notable events" 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.<ref>Schmidhuber, Jürgen. "New millennium AI and the convergence of history." Challenges for computational intelligence. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007. 15–35.</ref>

[[Paul Allen]] argued the opposite of accelerating returns, the complexity brake;<ref name="Allen"/> 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'',<ref name="university"/> a law of [[diminishing returns]]. The number of patents per thousand peaked in the period from 1850 to 1900, and has been declining since.<ref name="technological14"/> The growth of complexity eventually becomes self-limiting, and leads to a widespread "general systems collapse".

[[Jaron Lanier]] refutes the idea that the Singularity is inevitable. He states: "I do not think the technology is creating itself. It's not an autonomous process."<ref name="lanier">{{cite web |author=Jaron Lanier |title=Who Owns the Future? |work=New York: Simon & Schuster |date=2013 |url=http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=JCB8D9LA&tocp=59}}</ref> He goes on to assert: "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."<ref name="lanier" />

[[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]].<ref>[[William D. Nordhaus]], "Why Growth Will Fall" (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.</ref>

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 "events" were picked arbitrarily.<ref name="PZMyers"/> 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.<ref name="moreblades"/>

==Potential impacts==

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.<ref name="Hanson">{{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 }} & [http://hanson.gmu.edu/longgrow.pdf Long-Term Growth As A Sequence of Exponential Modes]</ref>

===Uncertainty and risk===

{{Further|Existential risk from artificial general intelligence}}

The term "technological singularity" reflects the idea that such change may happen suddenly, and that it is difficult to predict how the resulting new world would operate.<ref name="positive-and-negative">{{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 }}</ref><ref name="theuncertainfuture"/> It is unclear whether an intelligence explosion resulting in a singularity would be beneficial or harmful, or even an [[Existential risk|existential threat]].<ref name="catastrophic"/><ref name="nickbostrom"/> 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]],<ref name="positive-and-negative"/> the [[Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence]], and the [[Future of Life Institute]].

Physicist [[Stephen Hawking]] said in 2014 that "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."<ref name=hawking_2014/> Hawking believed that in the coming decades, AI could offer "incalculable benefits and risks" such as "technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand."<ref name=hawking_2014/> Hawking suggested that artificial intelligence should be taken more seriously and that more should be done to prepare for the singularity:<ref name=hawking_2014>{{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 }}</ref>{{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, "We'll arrive in a few decades," would we just reply, "OK, call us when you get here – we'll leave the lights on"? Probably not – but this is more or less what is happening with AI.}}

{{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.<ref name="nickbostrom8">Nick Bostrom, [http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html "Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence"], 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</ref><ref name="singinst">[[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)</ref><ref name="singinst9">[http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/06/11/the-stamp-collecting-device/ The Stamp Collecting Device, Nick Hay]</ref> [[Anders Sandberg]] has also elaborated on this scenario, addressing various common counter-arguments.<ref name="aleph">[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'</ref> AI researcher [[Hugo de Garis]] suggests that artificial intelligences may simply eliminate the human race [[instrumental convergence|for access to scarce resources]],<ref name="selfawaresystems.com" /><ref name="selfawaresystems10">[http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/ Omohundro, Stephen M., "The Basic AI Drives." Artificial General Intelligence, 2008 proceedings of the First AGI Conference, eds. Pei Wang, Ben Goertzel, and Stan Franklin. Vol. 171. Amsterdam: IOS, 2008.]</ref> and humans would be powerless to stop them.<ref name="forbes">de Garis, Hugo. [https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/cosmist-terran-cyborgist-opinions-contributors-artificial-intelligence-09-hugo-de-garis.html "The Coming Artilect War"], Forbes.com, 22 June 2009.</ref> Alternatively, AIs developed under evolutionary pressure to promote their own survival could outcompete humanity.<ref name="nickbostrom7" />

{{Reflist

{通货再膨胀

|refs =

2012年10月15日

{{Harvtxt|Bostrom|2002}} discusses human extinction scenarios, and lists superintelligence as a possible cause:

{{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.}}

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.<ref name="singinst12">[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 }}</ref> {{harvtxt|Bill Hibbard|2014}} proposes an AI design that avoids several dangers including self-delusion,<ref name="JAGI2012">{{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}}</ref> unintended instrumental actions,<ref name="selfawaresystems"/><ref name="AGI-12a">[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].</ref> and corruption of the reward generator.<ref name="AGI-12a"/> He also discusses social impacts of AI<ref name="JET2008">{{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=.}}</ref> and testing AI.<ref name="AGI-12b">[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.</ref> 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.

===Next step of sociobiological evolution===

{{Further|Sociocultural evolution}}

[[File:Major Evolutionary Transitions digital.jpg|thumb|upright=1.6|Schematic Timeline of Information and Replicators in the Biosphere: Gillings et al.'s "[[The Major Transitions in Evolution|major evolutionary transitions]]" in information processing.<ref name="InfoBiosphere2016" />]]

[[File:Biological vs. digital information.jpg|thumb|Amount of digital information worldwide (5{{e|21}} bytes) versus human genome information worldwide (10<sup>19</sup> bytes) in 2014.<ref name="InfoBiosphere2016" />]]

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}}

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.

A 2016 article in ''[[Trends in Ecology & Evolution]]'' argues that "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".

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]].

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}}

In biological terms, there are 7.2 billion humans on the planet, each having a genome of 6.2 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.

If growth in digital storage continues at its current rate of 30–38% compound annual growth per year,<ref name="HilbertLopez2011" /> 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".<ref name="InfoBiosphere2016">{{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 & Evolution|volume=31|issue=3|pages=180–189|year=2016|last1=Kemp|first1=D. J.|last2=Hilbert|first2=M.|last3=Gillings|first3=M. R.}}</ref>

===Implications for human society===

{{further|Artificial intelligence in fiction}}

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.<ref name="nytimes july09" />

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 "cockroach" 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.<ref name="nytimes july09">[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man] By JOHN MARKOFF, NY Times, July 26, 2009.</ref>

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.<ref name=":0">{{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}}</ref> 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.

==Hard vs. soft takeoff==

[[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).<ref name="yudkowsky-global-risk">[[Eliezer Yudkowsky]]. "Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk." Global catastrophic risks (2008).</ref>]]

In a hard takeoff scenario, an AGI rapidly self-improves, "taking control" 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.<ref>Bugaj, Stephan Vladimir, and Ben Goertzel. "Five ethical imperatives and their implications for human-AGI interaction." Dynamical Psychology (2007).</ref><ref>Sotala, Kaj, and Roman V. Yampolskiy. "Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a survey." Physica Scripta 90.1 (2014): 018001.</ref>

[[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 "the collective brainpower of tens of thousands of humans and probably millions of CPU cores to... design better CPUs!" However, this has not led to a hard takeoff; rather, it has led to a soft takeoff in the form of [[Moore's law]].<ref name=Naam2014Further>{{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}}</ref> Naam further points out that the computational complexity of higher intelligence may be much greater than linear, such that "creating a mind of intelligence 2 is probably ''more'' than twice as hard as creating a mind of intelligence 1."<ref name=Naam2014Ascend>{{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}}</ref>

[[J. Storrs Hall]] believes that "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" 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.<ref name=Hall2008>{{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}}</ref>

[[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 "semihard takeoff".<ref name="Goertzel2014">{{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}}</ref>

[[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. "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."<ref name=More>{{cite web|last1=More|first1=Max|title=Singularity Meets Economy|url=http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#more|accessdate=10 November 2014}}</ref>

== Immortality ==

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.<ref>''The Singularity Is Near'', p. 215.</ref> 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.<ref>''The Singularity is Near'', p. 216.</ref>

[[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]]''.

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) "[[Molecular machine#Biological|swallow the doctor]]". The idea was incorporated into Feynman's 1959 essay ''[[There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom]].''<ref>{{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}}</ref>

Beyond merely extending the operational life of the physical body, [[Jaron Lanier]] argues for a form of immortality called "Digital Ascension" that involves "people dying in the flesh and being uploaded into a computer and remaining conscious".<ref>{{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 }}</ref>

==History of the concept==

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.<ref>{{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}}</ref>

An early description of the idea was made in [[John Wood Campbell Jr.]]'s 1932 short story "The last evolution".

In his 1958 obituary for [[John von Neumann]], Ulam recalled a conversation with von Neumann about 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."<ref name=mathematical/>

In 1965, Good wrote his essay postulating an "intelligence explosion" of recursive self-improvement of a machine intelligence.

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.

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 "singularity" in a way that was specifically tied to the creation of intelligent machines:<ref name="google4"/><ref name="technological"/>

{{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.}}

}}

}}

In 1985, in "The Time Scale of Artificial Intelligence", artificial intelligence researcher [[Ray Solomonoff]] articulated mathematically the related notion of what he called an "infinity point": 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.<ref name=chalmers /><ref name="std"/>

Vinge's 1993 article "The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era",<ref name="vinge1993" /> spread widely on the internet and helped to popularize the idea.<ref name="google5"/> This article contains the statement, "Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended." 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.<ref name="vinge1993" />

In 2000, [[Bill Joy]], a prominent technologist and a co-founder of [[Sun Microsystems]], voiced concern over the potential dangers of the singularity.<ref name="JoyFuture"/>

In 2005, Kurzweil published ''[[The Singularity is Near]]''. Kurzweil's publicity campaign included an appearance on ''[[The Daily Show with Jon Stewart]]''.<ref name="episode"/>

| first = I. J.

第一个 = i. j。

In 2007, [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]] suggested that many of the varied definitions that have been assigned to "singularity" are mutually incompatible rather than mutually supporting.<ref name="yudkowsky.net"/><ref>Sandberg, Anders. "An overview of models of technological singularity." Roadmaps to AGI and the Future of AGI Workshop, Lugano, Switzerland, March. Vol. 8. 2010.</ref> 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.<ref name="yudkowsky.net"/>

| last = Good

| last = Good

| author-link = I. J. Good

| 作者链接 = i. j。很好

In 2009, Kurzweil and [[X-Prize]] founder [[Peter Diamandis]] announced the establishment of [[Singularity University]], a nonaccredited private institute whose stated mission is "to educate, inspire and empower leaders to apply exponential technologies to address humanity's grand challenges."<ref name="singularityu"/> 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.

| chapter = Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine

关于第一台超智能机器的推测

| year = 1965

1965年

==In politics==

| volume=6

6

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.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vyp1AwAAQBAJ&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}}</ref><ref>{{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}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2007/03/congress_and_th.html|title=Congress and the Singularity}}</ref>

| pages=31–88

| 页数 = 31-88

| publisher = Academic Press

| publisher = Academic Press

Former President of the United States [[Barack Obama]] spoke about singularity in his interview to ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' in 2016:<ref>{{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}}</ref>

| editor1 = Franz L. Alt |editor2=Morris Rubinoff

1 = Franz l. Alt | editor2 = Morris Rubinoff

{{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 "Well, is my job going to be replaced by a machine?"}}

| chapter-url = http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Authors/Computing/Good-IJ/SCtFUM.html

| chapter-url = http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/authors/computing/good-ij/sctfum.html

| access-date=2007-08-07

| access-date = 2007-08-07

==See also==

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20010527181244/http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/Authors/Computing/Good-IJ/SCtFUM.html |archive-date = 2001-05-27

| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20010527181244/http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/authors/computing/good-ij/sctfum.html | archive-date = 2001-05-27

{{Portal| Technology}}

| doi = 10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0

| doi = 10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0

* {{annotated link|Accelerating change}}

| series = Advances in Computers

系列 = 计算机的进步

* {{annotated link|Artificial consciousness}}

| isbn = 9780120121069| title = Advances in Computers Volume 6

9780120121069

* {{annotated link|Artificial intelligence arms race}}

| hdl = 10919/89424

| hdl = 10919/89424

* {{annotated link|Artificial intelligence in fiction}}

| hdl-access = free

| hdl-access = free

* {{annotated link|Brain simulation}}

}}

}}

* {{annotated link|Brain–computer interface}}

* {{annotated link|Emerging technologies}}

|url = http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#hanson

Http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html#hanson

* {{annotated link|Fermi paradox}}

| title = Some Skepticism

一些怀疑论者

* {{annotated link|Flynn effect}}

| first = Robin

第一名: 罗宾

* {{annotated link|Futures studies}}

| last = Hanson

| last = Hanson

* {{annotated link|Global brain}}

| author-link = Robin Hanson

| author-link = Robin Hanson

* {{sectionlink|Human intelligence|Improving intelligence}}

| year = 1998

1998年

* {{annotated link|Mind uploading}}

| publisher = Robin Hanson

| publisher = Robin Hanson

* {{annotated link|Neuroenhancement}}

| accessdate = 2009-06-19

2009-06-19

* {{annotated link|Outline of transhumanism}}

| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20090828023928/http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html

2012年3月24日 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20090828023928/http://hanson.gmu.edu/vc.html

* {{annotated link|Robot learning}}

| archivedate = 2009-08-28

| archivedate = 2009-08-28

* {{annotated link|Singularitarianism}}

}}

}}

* {{annotated link|Technological determinism}}

* {{annotated link|Technological revolution}}

| first=Anthony

第一名: 安东尼

* {{annotated link|Technological unemployment}}

| last=Berglas

| last = Berglas

| title=Artificial Intelligence will Kill our Grandchildren

人工智能会杀死我们的孙子

== References ==

| year=2008

2008年

=== Citations ===

|url = http://berglas.org/Articles/AIKillGrandchildren/AIKillGrandchildren.html

Http://berglas.org/articles/aikillgrandchildren/aikillgrandchildren.html

{{Reflist

| access-date = 2008-06-13

| access-date = 2008-06-13

|refs =

}}

}}

<ref name="Allen">{{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 }}</ref>

| first = Nick

第一 = 尼克

<ref name="JoyFuture">{{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 }}</ref>

| last = Bostrom

博斯特罗姆

| author-link = Nick Bostrom

作者: 尼克 · 博斯特罗姆

<ref name="PZMyers">{{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 }}</ref>

| title=Existential Risks

存在风险

| journal=Journal of Evolution and Technology

进化与技术杂志

<ref name="Singularity Myth">[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 }}</ref>

| year=2002

2002年

| volume=9

| volume = 9

<ref name="agi-conf">[[Anders Sandberg|Sandberg, Anders]]. [http://agi-conf.org/2010/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/agi10singmodels2.pdf An overview of models of technological singularity]</ref>

|url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html

Http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html

| access-date=2007-08-07

| access-date = 2007-08-07

<ref name="catastrophic">{{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}}</ref>

}}

}}

<ref name="cnet">Krazit, Tom. [http://news.cnet.com/2100-1006_3-6119618.html Intel pledges 80 cores in five years], ''CNET News'', 26 September 2006.</ref>

| last = Hibbard

| last = Hibbard

| first = Bill

| 第一 = 比尔

<ref name="dreyfus">{{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 "thinking machines" 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.'</ref>

| author-link = Bill Hibbard

| 作者链接 = Bill Hibbard

| title = Ethical Artificial Intelligence

| title = Ethical Artificial Intelligence

<ref name="episode">{{IMDb title|847969|Episode dated 23 August 2006}}</ref>

| date = 5 November 2014

| 日期 = 2014年11月5日

| eprint=1411.1373

1411.1373

<ref name="google">Ray Kurzweil, ''[[The Age of Spiritual Machines]]'', Viking; 1999, {{ISBN|978-0-14-028202-3}}. pp. [https://books.google.com/books?id=ldAGcyh0bkUC&pg=PA630 30, 32]</ref>

| class = cs.AI

2012年10月12日 | class = cs.AI

| ref=harv

= harv

<ref name="google13">Theodore Modis, [http://www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/TedWEB.htm Forecasting the Growth of Complexity and Change], ''Technological Forecasting & 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 }}</ref>

}}

}}

<ref name="google4">Dooling, Richard. ''[[Rapture for the Geeks|Rapture for the Geeks: When AI Outsmarts IQ]]'' (2008), [https://books.google.com/books?id=VbBRsv1lxsUC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA88 p. 88]</ref>

<ref name="google5">Dooling, Richard. ''[[Rapture for the Geeks|Rapture for the Geeks: When AI Outsmarts IQ]]'' (2008), [https://books.google.com/books?id=VbBRsv1lxsUC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA89 p. 89]</ref>

<ref name="hplusmagazine">{{cite web|url=http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/nano/singularity-nanotech-or-ai |title=h+ Magazine | Covering technological, scientific, and cultural trends that are changing human beings in fundamental ways |publisher=Hplusmagazine.com |accessdate=2011-09-09}}</ref>

<ref name="ieee">{{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}}</ref>

<ref name="mathematical">{{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}}</ref>

<ref name="moreblades">{{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 }}</ref>

<ref name="nickbostrom">{{cite web |url = http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html |title=Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards |website=nickbostrom.com }}</ref>

<ref name="nytimes">{{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}}</ref>

<ref name="singularity">Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near, pp. 135–136. Penguin Group, 2005.</ref>

<ref name="singularity2">Ray Kurzweil, ''The Singularity is Near'', Penguin Group, 2005</ref>

<ref name="singularity3">Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near, p. 9. Penguin Group, 2005</ref>

Category:Eschatology

类别: 末世论

Category:Futures studies

类别: 未来研究

<ref name="singularityu">[http://singularityu.org/ Singularity University] at its official website</ref>

Category:Philosophy of artificial intelligence

范畴: 人工智能哲学

Category:Existential risk from artificial general intelligence

类别: 来自人工一般智能的世界末日

<noinclude>

<small>This page was moved from [[wikipedia:en:Technological singularity]]. Its edit history can be viewed at [[技术奇点/edithistory]]</small></noinclude>

[[Category:待整理页面]]

Moonscar

管理员

1,592

个编辑

更改

技术奇点 (查看源代码)

2020年11月16日 (一) 21:55的版本