更改

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

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

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.

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.

<font color="#ff8000"> 技术奇点Technological singularity</font>——简称<font color="#ff8000"> 奇点Singularity</font>——是一个假设的时间点，在这个时间点上，技术增长变得不可控制和不可逆转，从而导致人类文明发生无法预见的变化。根据最流行的奇点假说，称为智能爆炸，一个可升级的智能体最终将进入自我完善周期的“失控反应”，每一个新的、更智能的一代出现得越来越快，在智力上引起“爆炸”，并产生一种在质量上远远超过所有人类智力的强大的超智能。

<font color="#ff8000"> 技术奇点Technological singularity</font>——简称<font color="#ff8000"> 奇点Singularity</font>是一个假设的时间点，在这个时间点上，技术增长变得不可控制和不可逆转，从而导致人类文明发生无法预见的变化。奇点假说（也被称为<font color="#ff8000">智能爆炸intelligence explosion</font>）最普遍的版本是：可升级的智能体最终将进入一个自我完善的“<font color="#32cd32">失控反应runaway reaction</font>”循环，每个新的、更智慧的一代将出现得越来越快，引起智能的“爆炸”，并产生一种性质上远超所有人类智能的强大超级智能。

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]].<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".

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".

 

 

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

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。

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

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。

这个概念和术语“奇点”是由 Vernor Vinge 在他1993年的文章《<font color="#ff8000">即将到来的技术奇点The Coming Technological Singularity</font>》中推广的，他在文中写道，这将标志着人类时代的终结，因为新的超级智能将持续自我升级，技术以一种不可思议的速度进步。他写道，如果奇点发生在2005年之前或2030年之后，他会感到惊讶。奇点的结果及其对人类的潜在利益或伤害已经引起了激烈的争论。

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.

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% 。

2012年到2013年，Nick Bostrom和Vincent c. Müller 对人工智能研究人员进行了四次调查。结果显示，2040年至2050年人工通用智能(artificial general intelligence, AGI)被成功开发的概率的估计中值为50% 。

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.

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.

==Background背景==

==Background 背景==

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>

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.

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.

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]].

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]].

如果一种超人智能是通过[[智能放大|人类智能的放大]]或由人工智能发明的，那么它将带来比现在人类所能具备的更大的解决问题和发明创造的能力。这样的人工智能被称为“种子人工智能”<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>因为如果人工智能的工程能力与人类创造者的工程能力相匹配或超越，它就有可能自主改进自己的软件和硬件，或者设计出更强大的机器。这台性能更强的机器可以继续设计一台性能更强大的机器。这些自我改进的迭代可以加速，在物理定律或理论计算设定的任何上限之前，潜在地允许巨大的质量变化。据推测，经过多次迭代，这样的人工智能[[超级智能|将远远超过人类的认知能力]]

--[[用户:嘉树|嘉树]]（[[用户讨论:嘉树|讨论]]） 本段重复

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.

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。在技术奇点实现后不久，AGI 将能够进行自我改进迭代，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。

智能爆炸是构建<font color = "#ff8000">人工通用智能artificial general intelligence</font>的可能结果。在技术奇点实现后不久，AGI 将能够进行自我迭代，导致<font color = "#ff8000">人工超级智能artificial superintelligence, ASI</font>的迅速出现，但其局限性尚不清楚。

==Intelligence explosion智能爆炸==

==Intelligence explosion智能爆炸==

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.

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. 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，通用人工智能可能会带来智能爆炸。他推测如果它们被发明出来的话，超人类机器的影响有: 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. 古德在1965年推测，通用人工智能可能会带来智能爆炸。他推测，如果它们被发明出来的话，超人类机器的影响有: 例如，相对于人类，信息处理速度将提高一百万倍，主观的一年会在物理的30秒内流逝。

{{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.}}

{{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.}}

{{让我们把超智能机器定义为一种机器，它可以远远超过无论多么聪明的任何人的所有智力活动。由于机器的设计是一种智力活动，一台超智能机器可以设计出更好的机器；那么毫无疑问会出现“智能爆炸”，人类的智能将远远落后。因此，第一台超智能机器是人类所需要的最后一项发明，只要机器足够温顺，能够告诉我们如何控制它。}}

{{让我们把超智能机器定义为一种机器，它可以进行远超无论多么聪明的一个人的所有智力活动。由于机器的设计是一种智力活动，那么一台超智能机器可以设计出更好的机器；那么毫无疑问会出现“智能爆炸”，人类的智能将远远落后。因此，第一台超智能机器是人类所需要的最后一项发明，当然，假设机器足够温顺并能够告诉我们如何控制它们的话。}}

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.

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。

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点的合理性提出了质疑，<font color = "#32cd32">他们的定律经常被引用来支持这个概念。whose law is often cited in support of the concept.</font>

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"/>

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"/>

古德的设想是这样的：随着计算机功率的增加，人们有可能制造出一台比人类更智能的机器；这种超人的智能拥有比现在人类更强大的解决问题和发明创造的能力。这台超级智能机器然后设计一台功能更强大的机器，或者重新编写自己的软件来变得更加智能；这台（甚至更强大的）机器接着又设计了一台功能更强大的机器，以此类推。这些递归自我改进的迭代加速，允许在物理定律或理论计算设定的任何上限之前发生巨大的质量变化。<ref name="stat"/>

古德的设想是这样的：随着计算机功率的增加，人们有可能制造出一台比人类更智慧的机器；这种超人的智能拥有比现在人类更强大的问题解决和发明创造的能力。这台超级智能机器随后设计一台功能更强大的机器，或者重新编写自己的软件来变得更加智能；这台（甚至更强大的）机器接着继续设计功能更强大的机器，以此类推。这些自我迭代加速允许在物理定律或理论计算设定的任何上限之内发生巨大的定性的变化。<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.

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。

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“唾手可得的”简单方法用尽，进一步的改进将越来越难。即使有各种提高人类智能的方法的推测，但对非人类人工智能(特别是种子人工智能)的推测仍是所有能推进奇点的假说中最受欢迎的一个。

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.

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.

===Emergence of superintelligence超级智能的出现===

===Emergence of superintelligence超级智能的出现===

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.

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。

智能进步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的改进比硬件更重要。

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 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"/>

超级智能、超智能或超人智能是一种假设的[[智能体|智能体]]，其拥有的智能远远超过最聪明和最有天赋的人类头脑。”“超级智能”也可以指这种代理人所拥有的智力的形式或程度。[[John von Neumann]]，[[Vernor Vinge]]和[[Ray Kurzweil]]定义了超级智能技术创造的概念。他们认为，现在的人类很难或不可能预测人类在后奇点世界的生活会是什么样子。<ref name="vinge1993"/><ref name="singularity"/>

超级智能、超智能或超人智能是一种假设的[[智能体|智能体]]，其拥有的智能远远超过最聪明和最有天赋的人类头脑。“超级智能”也可以指这种主体所拥有的智能的形式或程度。[[John von Neumann]]，[[Vernor Vinge]]和[[Ray Kurzweil]]定义了超级智能的技术创造这一概念。他们认为，现在的人类很难或不可能预测人类在后奇点世界的生活会是什么样子。<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".

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”。

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“有可能” ，21% 的人认为“可能性中等” ，24% 的人认为“不太可能” ，26% 的人认为“很不可能”。

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.

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.

技术预测者和研究人员对人类智力是否或何时可能被超越存在分歧。一些人认为，[[人工智能]]（AI）的进步可能会导致不具备人类认知局限性的一般推理系统。另一些人则认为，人类将进化或直接改变自己的生物性，从而获得更大的智力。许多[[未来研究]]的场景结合了这两种可能性的元素，表明人类很可能会[[大脑-计算机接口|与计算机的接口]]，或以一种能使大量智力放大的方式[[大脑上传|将他们的思想上传到计算机]]，。

技术预测者和研究人员对人类智力是否或何时可能被超越存在分歧。一些人认为，[[人工智能]]（AI）的进步可能会产生没有人类认知局限的一般推理系统。另一些人则认为，人类将进化或直接改变自己的生物性，从而获得更大的智力。许多[[未来研究]]的场景结合了这两种可能的元素，认为人类很可能会具有[[脑-机接口|与计算机的接口]]，或以[[思维上传|将他们的思想上传到计算机]]的方式提高智力。

===Non-AI singularity非人工智能奇点===

===Non-AI singularity非人工智能奇点===

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."

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."

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" />

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" />

一些作家用“奇点”来指代新技术（如[[分子纳米技术]]，<ref name="hplusmagazine"/><ref name="yudkowsky.net"/><ref name="agi-conf"/>尽管文奇和其他作家明确指出，如果没有超级智能，这些改变将不是真正的奇点。<ref name="vinge1993" />

一些<font color = "32cd32">作家writers</font>更宽泛地使用“奇点”的概念，用来指代任何我们社会中由新技术带来的剧烈变化，如[[分子纳米技术]]，<ref name="hplusmagazine"/><ref name="yudkowsky.net"/><ref name="agi-conf"/>尽管Vinge和其他<font color = "32cd32">作家</font>明确指出，如果没有超级智能，这些改变将不是真正的奇点。<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.

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。

很难直接将硅构成的硬件与神经元进行比较。但是注意，计算机语音识别技术正在接近人的能力，这种能力似乎需要0.01% 的大脑容量。这个类比表明，现代计算机硬件达到与人脑一样强大只有几个数量级的距离。

===Speed superintelligence速度超智能===

===Speed superintelligence速度超智能===

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>

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.]]

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.]]

许多著名的技术专家和学者都对技术奇点的合理性提出质疑，包括[[Paul Allen]]、[[Jeff Hawkins]]、[[John Henry Holland | John Holland]]、[[Jaron Lanier]]和[[Gordon Moore]]，他的[[摩尔定律]]经常被引用来支持这一概念。<ref name="spectrum.ieee.org"/><ref name="ieee"/><ref name="Allen"/>

许多著名的技术专家和学者都对技术奇点的合理性提出质疑，包括[[Paul Allen]]、[[Jeff Hawkins]]、[[John Henry Holland | John Holland]]、[[Jaron Lanier]]和[[Gordon Moore]]，他的[[摩尔定律]]经常被引用来支持这一概念。<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.

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.

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? &#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}</ref>

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? &#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}</ref>

大多数被提议的创造超人或[[跨人类]]头脑的方法分为两类：人脑的智能放大和人工智能。据推测，产生智能增强的方法很多，包括[[生物工程]]、[[基因工程]]、[[nootropic]]药物、AI助手、直接[[大脑-计算机接口]]和[[思维上传]]。因为人们正在探索通向智能爆炸的多种途径，这使得奇点更有可能；要想不出现奇点，所有这些都必须失败。<ref name="singinst.org">{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity |title=What is the Singularity? &#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}</ref>

大多数创造超人或[[跨人类]]头脑的方法分为两类：人脑的智能增强和人工智能。据推测，智能增强的方法很多，包括[[生物工程]]、[[基因工程]]、[[nootropic]]药物、AI助手、直接[[脑-机接口]]和[[思维上传]]。因为人们正在探索通向智能爆炸的多种途径，这使得奇点更有可能；对于一个不会出现的奇点，所有这些都必将失败。<ref name="singinst.org">{{cite web|url=http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity |title=What is the Singularity? &#124; Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence |publisher=Singinst.org |accessdate=2011-09-09 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908014050/http://singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity/ |archivedate=2011-09-08 }}</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.

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技术变革的速度(更广泛地说，所有的进化过程)的加速收益定律。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。

<font color = "32cd32">雷 · 库兹韦尔假定了一个技术变革(更广泛地说，所有的进化过程)的速度的加速回报定律Ray Kurzweil postulates a law of accelerating returns in which the speed of technological change (and more generally, all evolutionary processes</font>。另一方面，有人认为，对具有奇点的21世纪，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}}

[[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}}

[[Robin Hanson]]对人类智能增强表示怀疑，他写道，一旦提高人类智力的简单方法的“低挂果实”用尽，进一步的改进将变得越来越难找到。<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>尽管有各种增强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）是最受欢迎的选择，这些假设将促进奇异性。{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}

[[Robin Hanson]]对人类智能增强表示怀疑，他写道，一旦提高人类智力的“唾手可得的”简单方法用尽，进一步的改进将变得越来越难。<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>即使有各种提高人类智能的方法的推测，但对非人类人工智能(特别是种子人工智能)的推测仍是所有能推进奇点的假说中最受欢迎的一个。

 

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.

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。

库兹韦尔将“奇点”一词用于描述人工智能(相对于其他技术)的快速增长，例如他写道: “奇点将允许我们超越生物体和大脑的局限……后奇点时代，人类与机器之间将不再有区别”。库兹韦尔相信奇点将在大约2045年之前出现。他的预测与Vinge 的不同之处在于，他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.

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".

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。

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Wired》杂志上发表文章《为什么未来不需要我们Why the future doesn't need us》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 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}}

[[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"/><!--[Previous comment: is this from 'Collapse of Complex Societies' or some other source? Perhaps this refers to Jonathan Huebner's patent analysis mentioned in the earlier paragraph? If so, would be better to integrate this part with that paragraph, since the earlier paragraph mentions that Huebner's analysis has been criticized whereas this paragraph just seems to present it as fact --> The growth of complexity eventually becomes self-limiting, and leads to a widespread "general systems collapse".

[[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"/><!--[Previous comment: is this from 'Collapse of Complex Societies' or some other source? Perhaps this refers to Jonathan Huebner's patent analysis mentioned in the earlier paragraph? If so, would be better to integrate this part with that paragraph, since the earlier paragraph mentions that Huebner's analysis has been criticized whereas this paragraph just seems to present it as fact --> The growth of complexity eventually becomes self-limiting, and leads to a widespread "general systems collapse".

[[Paul Allen]]认为，与加速回报相反的是复杂性制动器；<ref name=“Allen”/>科学在理解智力方面取得的进展越多，取得额外进展就越困难。一项对专利数量的研究表明，人类的创造力并没有表现出加速的回报，但事实上，正如[[Joseph Tainter]]在他的《复杂社会的崩溃》中所指出的那样，<ref name="university"/>[[收益递减]定律。每千件专利的数量在1850年至1900年期间达到顶峰，此后一直在下降。<ref name="technological14"/><!--[之前的评论：这是“复杂社会的崩溃”还是其他原因？也许这是指前一段提到的jonathanhuebner的专利分析？如果是这样的话，最好将这一部分与那一段结合起来，因为前一段提到休伯纳的分析受到了批评，而这一段似乎只是把它当作事实——复杂性的增长最终变得自我限制，并导致广泛的“一般系统崩溃”。

[[Paul Allen]]认为，与加速回报相反的是复杂性制动器；<ref name=“Allen”/>科学在理解智力方面取得的进展越多，取得额外进展就越困难。一项对专利数量的研究表明，人类的创造力并没有表现出加速的回报，但事实上，正如[[Joseph Tainter]]在他的《复杂社会的崩溃》中所指出的那样，<ref name="university"/>[[收益递减]定律。每千件专利的数量在1850年至1900年期间达到顶峰，此后一直在下降。<ref name="technological14"/><!--[之前的评论：这是“复杂社会的崩溃”还是其他原因？也许这是指前一段提到的jonathanhuebner的专利分析？如果是这样的话，最好将这一部分与那一段结合起来，因为前一段提到休伯纳的分析受到了批评，而这一段似乎只是把它当作事实——复杂性的增长最终变得自我限制，并导致广泛的“一般系统崩溃”。-->

[[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" />

[[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" />

| access-date = 2007-08-07

| access-date = 2007-08-07

==See also请参阅==

==See also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引用 ===

=== Citations引用 ===