4: The Technological Singularity Approaches
I
Ray Kurzweil is a prominent singularitarian, believing that the singularity could lead to a kind of utopia.
n
recent years, prominent futurists like Ray Kurzweil have argued that
we are approaching the singularity, perhaps as soon as 2030. There
are many different conceptions of just what exactly the singularity
is or will be. Some say it's a true
artificial intelligence
that can rival
humans in independent thinking and creativity. In other words,
machines will surpass
humans in intelligence and as the planet's dominant species, capable
of creating their own new, smarter machines. Others contend that it
will involve such an explosion in computing power that somehow humans
and machines will merge to create something new, such as by uploading
our minds onto a shared neural network.
Critics of the singularity, such as writer and academic Douglas Hofstadter, claim that these are "science-fiction scenarios" that are essentially speculative. Hofstadter calls them vague (туманный) and useless in contemporary discussions of what makes a human being and our relationships with technology. There is also little evidence that the sort of "tidal wave" (водяная стена) of technological innovation predicted by Kurzweil and other futurists is imminent. (надвигающийся)
Computer scientist Jeff Hawkins contends that while we may create highly intelligent machines -- far greater than anything we have now -- true intelligence relies on "experience and training," rather than just advanced programming and advanced processing power.
Doubters point to the numerous sci-fi fantasies and predictions of the past that still have not come true as evidence that the singularity is just another pie-in-the-sky dream -- for example, we don't have moon bases or artificial gravity yet. They also argue that understanding the nature of consciousness is impossible, much less creating this capability within machines. Finally, the impending coming of the singularity depends in large part on the continuation of Moore's Law, which, as we discuss on the next page, may be in jeopardy. (It should also be noted that Gordon Moore himself is not a believer in the singularity.)
3: Moore's Law Will Always Hold True
Moore's Law is generally taken to mean that the number of transistors on a chip -- and by extension, processing power -- doubles every two years. In reality, Gordon Moore, the computer scientist who originated Moore's Law in 1965, was talking about the economic costs of chip production and not the scientific achievements behind advances in chip design.
Moore believed that the costs of chip production would halve annually for the next 10 years but may not be sustainable (устойчива) afterwards. The limit to Moore's Law may then be reached economically instead of scientifically.
Several prominent computer experts have contended that Moore's Law cannot last more than two decades. Why is Moore's Law doomed (осуждать/роковой конец)? Because chips have become much more expensive to produce as transistors have become smaller.
O
The
real cause of the end of Moore's Law may be economic rather than
scientific.
The factories that produce these chips cost billions of dollars. Globalfoundries' Fab 2 factory, set to begin production in New York in 2012, will cost $4.2 billion to build. Few companies have those kinds of resources, and Intel has said that a company must have $9 billion in yearly revenue to compete in the cutting-edge chip market.
That same aforementioned analyst believes that companies will attempt to make the most out of current technologies before investing in new, more expensive, smaller chip designs. So while the end of Moore's Law may limit the rate at which we add transistors to chips, that does not necessarily mean that other innovations will prevent the creation of faster, more advanced computers.