更改

<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。在该时间点上，技术增长变得不可控制和不可逆转，从而导致人类文明发生无法预见的变化。根据奇点假说（也被称为<font color="#ff8000">智能爆炸 intelligence explosion</font>）最流行的版本：一个可升级的智能体终将进入一种自我完善循环的“<font color="#ff8000">失控反应 runaway reaction</font>”。每个新的、更智能的世代将出现得越来越快，导致智能的“爆炸”，并产生一种在实质上远超所有人类智能的超级智能。

技术奇点Technological singularity——简称 奇点 Singularity <ref>Cadwalladr, Carole (2014). "[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/22/robots-google-ray-kurzweil-terminator-singularity-artificial-intelligence Are the robots about to rise? Google's new director of engineering thinks so…]" ''The Guardian''. Guardian News and Media Limited.</ref>是一个假设的时间点。在该时间点上，技术增长变得不可控制和不可逆转，从而导致人类文明发生无法预见的变化。<ref>{{cite web |title=Collection of sources defining "singularity" |url=http://www.singularitysymposium.com/definition-of-singularity.html |website=singularitysymposium.com |accessdate=17 April 2019}}</ref><ref name="Singularity hypotheses">{{cite book |author1=Eden, Amnon H. |author2=Moor, James H. |title=Singularity hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment |date=2012 |publisher=Springer |location=Dordrecht |isbn=9783642325601 |pages=1–2}}</ref>根据奇点假说（也被称为智能爆炸 intelligence explosion）最流行的版本：一个可升级的智能体终将进入一种自我完善循环的“失控反应 runaway reaction”。每个新的、更智能的世代将出现得越来越快，导致智能的“爆炸”，并产生一种在实质上远超所有人类智能的超级智能。

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>

第一次在科技领域使用“奇点”这一概念的是<font color="#ff8000">冯·诺依曼 John von Neumann</font>。Stanislaw Ulam 报告了一次与冯·诺依曼的讨论。“围绕技术的加速进步和人类生活模式的改变，这让我们看到了人类历史上一些本质上的奇点。一旦超越了这些奇点，我们所熟知的人类事务就无法继续下去了”。后来作者也赞同这一观点。

第一次在科技领域使用“奇点”这一概念的是冯·诺依曼 John von Neumann<ref>''The Technological Singularity'' by Murray Shanahan, (MIT Press, 2015), page 233</ref>。Stanislaw Ulam 报告了一次与冯·诺依曼的讨论。“围绕技术的加速进步和人类生活模式的改变，这让我们看到了人类历史上一些本质上的奇点。<ref name="mathematical" /> 一旦超越了这些奇点，我们所熟知的人类事务就无法继续下去了”。后来作者也赞同这一观点。<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>

 

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

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

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

奇点的概念和术语“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，技术将以一种不可思议的速度进步。他写道，他会感到惊讶，如果奇点发生在2005年之前或2030年之后，。

奇点的概念和术语“奇点”是由 Vernor Vinge 在他1993年的文章《即将到来的技术奇点 The Coming Technological Singularity》中得到推广的。他在文中写道，这将标志着人类时代的终结，因为新的超级智能将持续自我升级，并以不可思议的速度在技术上进步。他写道，如果奇点发生在2005年之前或2030年之后，他会感到惊讶。<ref name="vinge1993" />

 

Public figures such as [[Stephen Hawking]] and [[Elon Musk]] have expressed concern that full [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) could result in human extinction.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Sparkes|first1=Matthew|title=Top scientists call for caution over artificial intelligence|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11342200/Top-scientists-call-for-caution-over-artificial-intelligence.html|accessdate=24 April 2015|work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph (UK)]]|date=13 January 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540|title=Hawking: AI could end human race|date=2 December 2014|publisher=BBC|accessdate=11 November 2017}}</ref> The consequences of the singularity and its potential benefit or harm to the human race have been intensely debated.

Public figures such as [[Stephen Hawking]] and [[Elon Musk]] have expressed concern that full [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) could result in human extinction.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Sparkes|first1=Matthew|title=Top scientists call for caution over artificial intelligence|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11342200/Top-scientists-call-for-caution-over-artificial-intelligence.html|accessdate=24 April 2015|work=[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph (UK)]]|date=13 January 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540|title=Hawking: AI could end human race|date=2 December 2014|publisher=BBC|accessdate=11 November 2017}}</ref> The consequences of the singularity and its potential benefit or harm to the human race have been intensely debated.

 

Four polls of AI researchers, conducted in 2012 and 2013 by [[Nick Bostrom]] and [[Vincent C. Müller]], suggested a median probability estimate of 50% that [[artificial general intelligence]] (AGI) would be developed by 2040–2050.<ref name="newyorker">{{cite news|last1=Khatchadourian|first1=Raffi|title=The Doomsday Invention|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=The New Yorker|date=16 November 2015}}</ref><ref>Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016). "Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion". In V. C. Müller (ed): ''Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence'' (pp. 555–572). Springer, Berlin. http://philpapers.org/rec/MLLFPI</ref>

Four polls of AI researchers, conducted in 2012 and 2013 by [[Nick Bostrom]] and [[Vincent C. Müller]], suggested a median probability estimate of 50% that [[artificial general intelligence]] (AGI) would be developed by 2040–2050.<ref name="newyorker">{{cite news|last1=Khatchadourian|first1=Raffi|title=The Doomsday Invention|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=The New Yorker|date=16 November 2015}}</ref><ref>Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016). "Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion". In V. C. Müller (ed): ''Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence'' (pp. 555–572). Springer, Berlin. http://philpapers.org/rec/MLLFPI</ref>

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% 。

2012年到2013年，Nick Bostrom和Vincent c. Müller 对人工智能研究人员进行了四次调查。结果显示，通用人工智能(artificial general intelligence, AGI)在2040年至2050年被成功开发出来的概率估计的中位数为50% 。<ref name="newyorker">{{cite news|last1=Khatchadourian|first1=Raffi|title=The Doomsday Invention|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=The New Yorker|date=16 November 2015}}</ref><ref>Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016). "Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion". In V. C. Müller (ed): ''Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence'' (pp. 555–572). Springer, Berlin. http://philpapers.org/rec/MLLFPI</ref>

 

==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>

虽然技术进步一直在加速，但它受到人脑基本智力的限制，而根据[[Paul R.Ehrlich]]的说法，人类大脑的基本智力在几千年来没有发生显著变化。<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>然而，随着计算机和其他技术的日益强大，最终有可能制造出一台比人类更智能得多的机器。<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>

虽然技术进步一直在加速，但它一直受到人脑基本智力的限制，而根据Paul R.Ehrlich的说法，人类大脑的基本智力在几千年来并没有发生显著变化。<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>然而，随着计算机和其他技术的日益强大，人类最终有可能制造出一台比人类智能得多的机器<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.

==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.

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。

智能爆炸是构建通用人工智能 artificial general intelligence (AGI) 的可能结果。在技术奇点实现后不久，AGI 将能够进行递归式的自我迭代，从而导致人工超级智能 artificial superintelligence (ASI) 的迅速出现，但其局限性尚不清楚。

 

[[I. J. Good]] speculated in 1965 that artificial general intelligence might bring about an intelligence explosion. He speculated on the effects of superhuman machines, should they ever be invented:<ref name="stat"/>

[[I. J. Good]] speculated in 1965 that artificial general intelligence might bring about an intelligence explosion. He speculated on the effects of superhuman machines, should they ever be invented:<ref name="stat"/>

1965年，[[I.J.Good]]曾推测人工通用智能可能会带来智能爆炸。他推测了超人机器的作用，如果他们真的被发明了：<ref name="stat"/>

1965年，I.J.Good 曾推测人工通用智能可能会带来智能爆炸。他对超人类及其的影响进行了推测，如果他们真的被发明出来的话：<ref name="stat"/>

{{quote|Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an ‘intelligence explosion,’ and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control.}}

{{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.}}

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"/>

古德的设想如下：随着计算机能力的增加，人们有可能制造出一台比人类更智能的机器；这种超人的智能拥有比现在人类更强大的问题解决和发明创造的能力。这台超级智能机器随后设计一台功能更强大的机器，或者重写自己的软件来变得更加智能；这台（甚至更强大的）机器接着继续设计功能更强大的机器，以此类推。这些递归式的自我完善的迭代加速，允许在物理定律或理论计算设定的任何上限之内发生巨大的质变。<ref name="stat"/>

==Other manifestations其他表现形式==

==Other manifestations其他表现形式==

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"/>

超级智能、超智能或超人智能是一种假想的智能体。它拥有的智能远远超过最聪明、最有天赋的人类大脑的智能。“超级智能”也可以指这种智能体所拥有的智能的形式或程度。John von Neumann，Vernor Vinge和Ray Kurzweil 从技术创造超级智能的角度定义了这个概念。他们认为，现在的人类很难或不可能预测人类在后奇点世界的生活会是什么样子<ref name="vinge1993"/><ref name="singularity"/>

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.

===Non-AI singularity非人工智能奇点===

===Non-AI singularity非人工智能奇点===

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

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<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" />

一些作家writers更宽泛地使用“奇点”的概念，用来指代任何我们社会中由新技术带来的剧烈变化，如分子纳米技术，<ref name="hplusmagazine"/><ref name="yudkowsky.net"/><ref name="agi-conf"/> 尽管Vinge和其他作家明确指出，如果没有超级智能，这些改变就不能算作真正的奇点。<ref name="vinge1993" />

===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>

==Plausibility合理性==

==Plausibility合理性==

Many prominent technologists and academics dispute the plausibility of a technological singularity, including [[Paul Allen]], [[Jeff Hawkins]], [[John Henry Holland|John Holland]], [[Jaron Lanier]], and [[Gordon Moore]], whose [[Moore's law|law]] is often cited in support of the concept.<ref name="spectrum.ieee.org"/><ref name="ieee"/><ref name="Allen"/>

Many prominent technologists and academics dispute the plausibility of a technological singularity, including [[Paul Allen]], [[Jeff Hawkins]], [[John Henry Holland|John Holland]], [[Jaron Lanier]], and [[Gordon Moore]], whose [[Moore's law|law]] is often cited in support of the concept.<ref name="spectrum.ieee.org"/><ref name="ieee"/><ref name="Allen"/>

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 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"/>

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>

大多数创造超人或跨人类头脑的方法分为两类：人脑的智能增强和人工智能。据推测，智能增强的方法很多，包括生物工程、基因工程、益智药物、AI 助手、直接脑机接口和思维上传。因为人们正在探索通向智能爆炸的多种途径，这使得奇点出现的可能更大；奇点不发生，所有这些都必将失败。<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>

[[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“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。

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>尽管有各种提高人类智能的方法，但非人类人工智能(特别是种子人工智能)仍是所有能推进奇点的假说中最受欢迎的一个。{{citation needed|date=July 2012}}

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.

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}}

智能改进有两个逻辑上独立但又相互加强的原因：计算速度的提高和使用的[[算法]]的改进。<ref name="consc.net">[http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, David J. Chalmers]</ref> 前者由[[摩尔定律|摩尔定律]]和硬件方面的预测改进进行预测，<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> 与以前的技术进步比较相似。但也有一些人工智能研究人员认为软件比硬件更重要。<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}}

智能改进有两个逻辑上独立但又相互加强的原因：计算速度的提高和使用的算法的改进。<ref name="consc.net">[http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, David J. Chalmers]</ref>前者由摩尔定律和硬件方面的预测改进进行预测，<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>与以前的技术进步比较相似。但也有一些人工智能研究人员认为软件比硬件更重要<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}}

A 2017 email survey of authors with publications at the 2015 [[Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems|NeurIPS]] and [[International Conference on Machine Learning|ICML]] machine learning conferences asked  about the chance of an intelligence explosion. Of the respondents, 12% said it was "quite likely", 17% said it was "likely", 21% said it was "about even", 24% said it was "unlikely" and 26% said it was "quite unlikely".<ref>{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}</ref>

A 2017 email survey of authors with publications at the 2015 [[Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems|NeurIPS]] and [[International Conference on Machine Learning|ICML]] machine learning conferences asked  about the chance of an intelligence explosion. Of the respondents, 12% said it was "quite likely", 17% said it was "likely", 21% said it was "about even", 24% said it was "unlikely" and 26% said it was "quite unlikely".<ref>{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}</ref>

2017年对2015年[[神经信息处理系统会议| NeurIPS]]和[[International Conference on Machine Learning | ICML]]机器学习会议上发表文章的作者的电子邮件调查询问了智能爆炸的可能性。在受访者中，12% 的人认为“很有可能” ，17% 的人认为“有可能” ，21% 的人认为“可能性中等” ，24% 的人认为“不太可能” ，26% 的人认为“很不可能”。<ref>{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}</ref>

2017年，一项对2015年 NeurIPS 和 ICML 机器学习会议上发表论文的作者的电子邮件调查询问了智能爆炸的可能性。在受访者中，12% 的人认为“很有可能” ，17% 的人认为“有可能” ，21% 的人认为“可能性中等” ，24% 的人认为“不太可能” ，26% 的人认为“非常不可能”。<ref>{{cite arxiv|last1=Grace|first1=Katja|last2=Salvatier|first2=John|last3=Dafoe|first3=Allan|last4=Zhang|first4=Baobao|last5=Evans|first5=Owain|title=When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts|eprint=1705.08807|date=24 May 2017|class=cs.AI}}</ref>

=== Speed improvements速度改进 ===

=== Speed improvements速度改进 ===

Both for human and artificial intelligence, hardware improvements increase the rate of future hardware improvements. Simply put,<ref name="arstechnica">{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}</ref> [[Moore's Law]] suggests that if the first doubling of speed took 18 months, the second would take 18 subjective months; or 9 external months, whereafter, four months, two months, and so on towards a speed singularity.<ref name="singularity6">Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html "Staring into the Singularity"]</ref> An upper limit on speed may eventually be reached, although it is unclear how high this would be.  Jeff Hawkins has stated that a self-improving computer system would inevitably run into upper limits on computing power: "in the end there are limits to how big and fast computers can run. We would end up in the same place; we'd just get there a bit faster. There would be no singularity."<ref name="Hawkins">{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}</ref>

Both for human and artificial intelligence, hardware improvements increase the rate of future hardware improvements. Simply put,<ref name="arstechnica">{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}</ref> [[Moore's Law]] suggests that if the first doubling of speed took 18 months, the second would take 18 subjective months; or 9 external months, whereafter, four months, two months, and so on towards a speed singularity.<ref name="singularity6">Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html "Staring into the Singularity"]</ref> An upper limit on speed may eventually be reached, although it is unclear how high this would be.  Jeff Hawkins has stated that a self-improving computer system would inevitably run into upper limits on computing power: "in the end there are limits to how big and fast computers can run. We would end up in the same place; we'd just get there a bit faster. There would be no singularity."<ref name="Hawkins">{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}</ref>

无论对于人类智能还是人工智能，硬件改进都会提高未来硬件改进的速度。简单地说，<ref name="arstechnica">{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}</ref>[[Moore's Law]]认为，如果第一次速度翻倍需要18个月，第二次则需要18个主观月；或者9个外部月，之后，4个月、2个月，以此类推，走向速度奇点<ref name="singularity6">Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html "Staring into the Singularity"]</ref> 速度的上限最终可能会达到，尽管还不清楚这会有多高。杰夫·霍金斯（Jeff Hawkins）曾表示，一个自我完善的计算机系统不可避免地会遇到计算能力的上限：“最终，计算机的运行速度和速度都是有限的。我们最终会在同一个地方；我们只会更快到达那里。不会有奇点。”<ref name="Hawkins">{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}</ref>

无论对于人类智能还是人工智能，硬件改进都会提高未来硬件改进的速度。简单地说，<ref name="arstechnica">{{cite web|last=Siracusa |first=John |url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8 |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review |publisher=Arstechnica.com |date=2009-08-31 |accessdate=2011-09-09}}</ref>Moore's Law认为，如果第一次速度翻倍需要18个月，第二次则需要18个主观月；或者9个外部月，之后，4个月、2个月，以此类推，走向速度奇点<ref name="singularity6">Eliezer Yudkowsky, 1996 [http://www.yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html "Staring into the Singularity"]</ref> 速度的上限最终可能会达到，尽管还不清楚这会有多高。杰夫·霍金斯（Jeff Hawkins）曾表示，一个自我完善的计算机系统不可避免地会遇到计算能力的上限：“最终，计算机的运行速度和速度都是有限的。我们最终会在同一个地方；我们只会更快到达那里。不会有奇点。”<ref name="Hawkins">{{cite magazine |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/tech-luminaries-address-singularity |title=Tech Luminaries Address Singularity |date=1 June 2008 |magazine=[[IEEE Spectrum]]}}</ref>

It is difficult to directly compare [[silicon]]-based hardware with [[neuron]]s. But {{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}} notes that computer [[speech recognition]] is approaching human capabilities, and that this capability seems to require 0.01% of the volume of the brain. This analogy suggests that modern computer hardware is within a few orders of magnitude of being as powerful as the human brain.

It is difficult to directly compare [[silicon]]-based hardware with [[neuron]]s. But {{Harvtxt|Berglas|2008}} notes that computer [[speech recognition]] is approaching human capabilities, and that this capability seems to require 0.01% of the volume of the brain. This analogy suggests that modern computer hardware is within a few orders of magnitude of being as powerful as the human brain.

很难直接将基于[[硅]]的硬件与[[神经元]]相比较。但是{Harvtxt| Berglas|2008}指出计算机[[语音识别]]正在接近人类的能力，而且这种能力似乎需要0.01%的脑容量。这个类比表明，现代计算机硬件与人脑一样强大，只差几个数量级。

很难直接将基于硅的硬件与神经元相比较。但是{Harvtxt| Berglas|2008}指出计算机语音识别正在接近人类的能力，而且这种能力似乎需要0.01%的脑容量。这个类比表明，现代计算机硬件与人脑一样强大，只差几个数量级。

====Exponential growth指数增长====

====Exponential growth指数增长====

The exponential growth in computing technology suggested by Moore's law is commonly cited as a reason to expect a singularity in the relatively near future, and a number of authors have proposed generalizations of Moore's law. Computer scientist and futurist [[Hans Moravec]] proposed in a 1998 book<ref>{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}</ref> that the exponential growth curve could be extended back through earlier computing technologies prior to the [[integrated circuit]].

The exponential growth in computing technology suggested by Moore's law is commonly cited as a reason to expect a singularity in the relatively near future, and a number of authors have proposed generalizations of Moore's law. Computer scientist and futurist [[Hans Moravec]] proposed in a 1998 book<ref>{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}</ref> that the exponential growth curve could be extended back through earlier computing technologies prior to the [[integrated circuit]].

摩尔定律所建议的计算技术的指数增长通常被认为是在相对不远的将来出现奇点的一个理由，许多作者已经提出了摩尔定律的推广。计算机科学家和未来主义者[[Hans Moravec]]在1998年的一本书中提到<ref>{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}</ref>指数型增长可以通过[[集成电路]]之前的早期计算技术进行延伸。

摩尔定律所建议的计算技术的指数增长通常被认为是在相对不远的将来出现奇点的一个理由，许多作者已经提出了摩尔定律的推广。计算机科学家和未来主义者Hans Moravec在1998年的一本书中提到<ref>{{cite book|author=Moravec, Hans|title=Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind|year=1999|publisher=Oxford U. Press|page=61|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fduW6KHhWtQC&pg=PA61|isbn=978-0-19-513630-2}}</ref>指数型增长曲线可以沿着集成电路之前的早期计算技术进行延伸。

[[Ray Kurzweil]] postulates a [[law of accelerating returns]] in which the speed of technological change (and more generally, all evolutionary processes<ref name="google"/>) increases exponentially, generalizing Moore's law in the same manner as Moravec's proposal, and also including material technology (especially as applied to [[nanotechnology]]), [[Medical Technology|medical technology]] and others.<ref name="singularity2"/> Between 1986 and 2007, machines' application-specific capacity to compute information per capita roughly doubled every 14 months; the per capita capacity of the world's general-purpose computers has doubled every 18 months; the global telecommunication capacity per capita doubled every 34 months; and the world's storage capacity per capita doubled every 40 months.<ref name="HilbertLopez2011">[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 "The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information"], Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), [[Science (journal)|Science]], 332(6025), 60–65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html</ref> On the other hand, it has been argued that the global acceleration pattern having the 21st century singularity as its parameter should be characterized as [[Hyperbolic growth|hyperbolic]] rather than exponential.<ref>[https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8 ''The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures. A Big History Perspective''] (Springer, 2020)</ref>

[[Ray Kurzweil]] postulates a [[law of accelerating returns]] in which the speed of technological change (and more generally, all evolutionary processes<ref name="google"/>) increases exponentially, generalizing Moore's law in the same manner as Moravec's proposal, and also including material technology (especially as applied to [[nanotechnology]]), [[Medical Technology|medical technology]] and others.<ref name="singularity2"/> Between 1986 and 2007, machines' application-specific capacity to compute information per capita roughly doubled every 14 months; the per capita capacity of the world's general-purpose computers has doubled every 18 months; the global telecommunication capacity per capita doubled every 34 months; and the world's storage capacity per capita doubled every 40 months.<ref name="HilbertLopez2011">[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/60 "The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information"], Martin Hilbert and Priscila López (2011), [[Science (journal)|Science]], 332(6025), 60–65; free access to the article through here: martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html</ref> On the other hand, it has been argued that the global acceleration pattern having the 21st century singularity as its parameter should be characterized as [[Hyperbolic growth|hyperbolic]] rather than exponential.<ref>[https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-33730-8 ''The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures. A Big History Perspective''] (Springer, 2020)</ref>

ascent to the singularity, rather than Vinge's rapidly self-improving superhuman intelligence.

ascent to the singularity, rather than Vinge's rapidly self-improving superhuman intelligence.

库兹韦尔声称，技术进步遵循[[指数增长]的模式，遵循他所称的“<font color = "#ff8000">加速返回定律law of accelerating returns</font>”。库兹韦尔写道，每当一项技术遇到障碍时，新技术就会出来克服这个障碍。他预测范式转变将变得越来越普遍，导致“技术变革非常迅速和深刻，以至于它代表着人类历史结构的一个断裂”。库兹韦尔相信奇点将在2045年之前出现。他和Vinge预测的不同点在于他预测了技术渐变的上升，而Vinge预测了一个快速自我更新的超人类智能。

库兹韦尔声称，技术进步遵循[[指数增长]的模式，遵循他所称的“加速返回定律law of accelerating returns”。库兹韦尔写道，每当一项技术遇到障碍时，新技术就会出来克服这个障碍。他预测范式转变将变得越来越普遍，导致“技术变革非常迅速和深刻，以至于它代表着人类历史结构的一个断裂”。库兹韦尔相信奇点将在2045年之前出现。他和Vinge预测的不同点在于他预测的是一个逐渐上升到奇点的过程，而Vinge预测了一个快速自我更新的超人类智能。

 

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".