更改

除了对奇点概念的一般性批评外，一些批评家还对库兹韦尔的标志性图表提出了质疑。一种批评是，这种性质的[[loglog plot | loglog]]图表固有地偏向于直线结果。其他人在库兹韦尔选择使用的点上识别选择偏差。例如，生物学家[[PZ Myers]]指出，许多早期的进化“事件”都是随意挑选的。<ref name="PZMyers"/>Kurzweil反驳了这一点，他绘制了15个中立来源的进化事件图，并证明它们符合一条直线[[：文件：ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|日志图表]].''[[经济学家]]'用一张图表来嘲讽这个概念：一把剃须刀上的刀片数在过去几年里从一个增加到多达五个，将以更快的速度增长到无穷大。<ref name="moreblades"/>

除了对奇点概念的一般性批评外，一些批评家还对库兹韦尔的标志性图表提出了质疑。一种批评是，这种性质的[[loglog plot | loglog]]图表固有地偏向于直线结果。其他人在库兹韦尔选择使用的点上识别选择偏差。例如，生物学家[[PZ Myers]]指出，许多早期的进化“事件”都是随意挑选的。<ref name="PZMyers"/>Kurzweil反驳了这一点，他绘制了15个中立来源的进化事件图，并证明它们符合一条直线[[：文件：ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg|日志图表]].''[[经济学家]]'用一张图表来嘲讽这个概念：一把剃须刀上的刀片数在过去几年里从一个增加到多达五个，将以更快的速度增长到无穷大。<ref name="moreblades"/>

==Potential impacts==

==Potential impacts潜在影响==

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>

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不确定性和风险===

===Uncertainty and risk===

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

{{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]].

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.}}

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" />

{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}声称人工智能对人类友好没有直接的进化动机。进化并没有产生人类所重视的结果的内在倾向，也没有理由期望一个任意的优化过程来促进人类所期望的结果，而不是无意中导致人工智能以一种非其创造者意图的方式行为。<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]]也详细阐述了这种情况，讨论了各种常见的反驳意见。<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>人工智能研究人员[[Hugo de Garis]]认为，人工智能可能会简单地消灭人类[[工具性融合|获取稀缺资源]]，<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>人类将无力阻止它们。<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>另一方面，人工智能是在进化的压力下发展起来的，以促进自身的生存，这一点可以超越人类。<ref name="nickbostrom7" />

{{Reflist

{{Reflist

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

{{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.}}

{{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.

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}}

{{Further|Sociocultural evolution}}

{{进一步{社会文化进化}}

[[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: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 (10¹⁹ bytes) in 2014.<ref name="InfoBiosphere2016" />]]

[[File:Biological vs. digital information.jpg|thumb|Amount of digital information worldwide (5{{e|21}} bytes) versus human genome information worldwide (10¹⁹ 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}}

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}}

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".

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 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]].

In biological terms, there are 7.2&nbsp;billion humans on the planet, each having a genome of 6.2&nbsp;billion nucleotides. Since one byte can encode four nucleotide pairs, the individual genomes of every human on the planet could be encoded by approximately 1{{e|19}} bytes. The digital realm stored 500 times more information than this in 2014 (see figure). The total amount of DNA contained in all of the cells on Earth is estimated to be about 5.3{{e|37}} base pairs, equivalent to 1.325{{e|37}} bytes of information.

In biological terms, there are 7.2&nbsp;billion humans on the planet, each having a genome of 6.2&nbsp;billion nucleotides. Since one byte can encode four nucleotide pairs, the individual genomes of every human on the planet could be encoded by approximately 1{{e|19}} bytes. The digital realm stored 500 times more information than this in 2014 (see figure). The total amount of DNA contained in all of the cells on Earth is estimated to be about 5.3{{e|37}} base pairs, equivalent to 1.325{{e|37}} bytes of information.

===Implications for human society===

===Implications for human society对人类社会的影响===

{{further|Artificial intelligence in fiction}}

{{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" />

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>

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>

==Hard vs. soft takeoff==

==Hard vs. soft takeoff硬起飞与软起飞==

[[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>]]

[[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>

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>

[[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>

[[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>

[[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>

== Immortality ==

 

== Immortality 永生==

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.&nbsp;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.&nbsp;216.</ref>

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.&nbsp;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.&nbsp;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]]''.

[[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>

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>

==History of the concept==

 

==History of the concept概念史==

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>

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".

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 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 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 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"/>

1983年，[[Vernor Vinge]]在许多著作中极大地普及了Good的智能爆炸，第一次在1983年1月出版的“[[Omni（magazine）| Omni]]”杂志上发表了这一主题。在这篇评论文章中，文奇似乎是第一个使用“奇点”一词的人，这种用法与智能机器的创造有着特别的联系：<ref name=“google4”/><ref name=“technology”/>

{{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.}}

{{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"/>

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" />

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 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"/>

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.

| first = 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"/>

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

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.

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

| chapter = Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine

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>

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

| pages=31–88

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>

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

| editor1 = 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?"}}

{{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==

==See also请参阅==

|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

2008年

2008年

=== Citations ===

=== Citations引用 ===

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

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