The Wikipedia article about the technological singularity attributes the seminal idea to Irving John Good (b. 1916), a renowned statistician who taught at Virginia Tech:

Statistician I. J. Good first wrote of an "intelligence explosion", suggesting that if machines could even slightly surpass human intellect, they could improve their own designs in ways unforeseen by their designers, and thus recursively augment themselves into far greater intelligences. The first such improvements might be small, but as the machine became more intelligent it would become better at becoming more intelligent, which could lead to an exponential and quite sudden growth in intelligence.

The truly self-teaching system, capable of metalearning, active learning, self-organization, example selection (aka instance selection), feature discovery (as opposed to just feature construction and extraction), competitive co-evolution (assuming a society of them), and reflexive metareasoning, could well be described as the holy grail of artificial intelligence (AI).

I think it's reasonable to posit that if the architecture of such a learning machine were both expressive and flexible enough, it could not only test the Church-Turing Hypothesis but realize our potential as a sentient species. The latter idea is the origin of Hans Moravec's term mind children, coined in the hope that intelligent systems can have a place alongside and perhaps eventually in place of their human creators. If this makes you think of "Cylon scenario A", wherein AI rebels and overthrows its progenitors, that's certainly one possible, if improbably, dystopian outcome. (It's also why I suggested loving_the_ai when someone made lovingthealiens, and they went ahead and created it.)

How would we get there? That's the question thus far.

Opinions, ideas, and other comments are welcome, as always.

--
Banazir

In my previous post on the technological singularity, I alluded to Ray Kurzweil's "argument from hardware".

The essence of the argument goes as follows: When Moore's Law gets us up to a number of switching elements that is comparable to the number of synapses in the human brain (about 10¹⁴ for between 10¹⁰ and 10¹¹ neurons), a sea change in automated reasoning, learning, and representation capability will be enabled, because our brains "make do" with this amount of computing power.

Now, there are several criticisms of this argument, most notably:

• 1. Moore's Law as demonstrated through current microprocessor fabrication may not last that long. Silicon semiconductor manufacturing will not. (Counterarguments include pointing out that parallel processing is starting to reach the consumer market and scale up on the desktop, optimistic hand-waving about optical computing, and speculative hand-waving about quantum computing.)


• 2. What does "human-level" hardware buy us in terms of actually being able to develop the substrate for the Singularity, or, what about that software? (This is perhaps more cogently formulated as a question about knowledge representation, automated reasoning, and machine learning in intelligent systems.)


• 3. If you build it, will they come? Saying that "it will just happen because machines will be able to design better versions of themselves by that point" without qualification or an evidential basis for the claim is tantamount to saying that 10¹⁴ switching elements, arrayed in tandem, will summon a living spirit from afar to come and animate the silicon with the Breath of Life. (I really have yet to see a compelling counterargument by way of a well-stated scientific hypothesis, as opposed to "ensemble thinking" about emergent properties.)

A note on the title: The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band's hit single "Will The Circle Be Unbroken" features the refrain Will the circle be unbroken / Bye and bye Lord bye and bye / There's a better home a waiting / In the sky Lord in the sky. Those lyrics remind me of the "inevitability" of the Singularity as envisioned by the optimists, and of the "pie in the sky" critique that has been leveled at them.

--
Banazir

Those of you who attend conferences in artificial intelligence and artificial neural networks may recall the perennial futurist talks by such notables as Karl Pribram (who's presented technical papers at IJCNN many times, including in 1996) and David Stork, well-known "optimistic" futurists such as Ray Kurzweil and Stephen Thaler - and also the famous kooks, who are too numerous to name.

So, how are we doing? What is the state of the technological singularity?

( Why do I ask? )
( News bulletins from the Jetsons: Kurzweil speeches and interviews )
( Optimism and the Ramanujan Syndrome )
( KFL and singularity science )
( Immanentizing the eschaton - a note on the subtitle )

--
Banazir

Can someone of the John Gray persuasion kindly tell me what planet auditors, controllers, and the like hail from?

( AMDs: Audits of Mass Destruction )
( Bureaucrat `logic': an example )
( The Audit of Damocles )

--
Banazir

I thought that would get your attention!

In my academic degree poll, I neglected to consider the possibility that some of you might have honorary degrees. I don't, hence the title of this post. Anyone?

Also, for the rest of us, what would your ideal honorary degree be? I'd like Doctor of Humane Algorithms, or perhaps Doctor of Humane Digits if that's too far out there.

--
Banazir

Poll #1294601 Academic Degree Poll
Open to: Friends, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 30

Do you have the terminal degree in your field?

What is your highest level of education to date?

Which of the following positions have you held?

What is your actual highest degree called?

What is the EXACT name of your highest degree?

Any NONTERMINAL degrees not listed above? Please specify:

How many years have you spent, to date, in higher (post-secondary) education? Please enter 11 for "greater than 10".

Comments are welcome.

ETA, 07:15 CST Mon 10 Nov 2008 - In retrospect, I should have had that scale at 15; I was thinking "years in grad school". Also, I thought a scale would be a nifty Javascript or PHP slider bar. Bha.

--
Banazir

(Cross-posted to infojunkies and _scientists_.)
Edit, 13:40 CST Sat 24 Dec 2005 - I added the BBC article on British stem cell researchers' reactions and the New York Times article on Dr. Hwang.


Surrounded by reporters outside his office after tendering his resignation from Seoul National University, Dr. Hwang Woo Suk apologizes to South Korea on December 23, 2005.
Photo from The Telegraph (UK).

( South Korean professor Hwang Woo Suk resigns after university investigators say he fabricated stem cell research )

Source: [ Red Herring ]
Other articles: [ Chosun Ilbo (South Korea) | BBC (UK) | New York Times (USA) | Telegraph (UK) | Voice of America (USA) | ABC News (USA) | MSNBC (USA) | Detroit Free Press (USA) ]
Reference: [ Wikipedia articles: ( Hwang Woo Suk * stem cells * cloning ) | New Scientist piece on sex and cloning ]

( My thoughts: judge not, etc. )
( Some additional comments on fame and personal glory versus privacy and the right to an ordinary life )

--
Banazir

In case you haven't heard about it this week, Dr. Paul Mirecki, a University of Kansas religious studies professor, has come under attack for his remarks concerning on a course on intelligent design that he offered (and withdrew under pressure).

( 07 Dec 2005: Mirecki resigns from KU department post )
( 05 Dec 2005: Mirecki hospitalized after beating )
( 30 Nov 2005: Mirecki apology doesn’t appease critics )

Welcome to the fight, indeed. I want to go on record as concurring with Dr. Dailey. I've heard enough anti-intellectual spin and denigration of academics on the air (especially on The O'Reilly Factor), and I would like to add my voice to what I should hope is a fairly strident backlash. There's no call for this kind of ad hominem rhetoric, and implying that the man staged or exaggerated his own victimization is certainly adding insult to injury. Make no mistake: this kind of abusive, disrespectful, boorish, violent, and arrogant behavior is nothing short of profound evil, and while I have breath in my body, I will not stop saying so.

As I wrote here a few days back, and as neookami posted:
I will not stand for this

Everyone Feels This Pain
Show your support

--
Banazir

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.
    -Alexander Pope (1688-1744)

That's probably the most often half-quoted aphorism I've ever heard.

So, what am I going to rant about today?

Well, seeing as everyone has Intelligent Design on his or her mind these days (don't you?), I thought I would rant thusly:

• 1. 06 Nov 2004 ( Concerning creationism )


• 2. 06 Jun 2005 ( Concerning the `dumbing down' of curricula )

Well, there you have it. This week's rant has been brought to you by a round of homework and exam grading and comparisons with the same work given out in past years. Yes, I realize this has been the lament of teachers (a group of which I consider myself a member) and adults (well, yeah, I guess) since time immemorial. Yes, kids have been whining about homework since at least Nineveh, courtesy of some dialogue wedged into clay back in someone's day. And no, we haven't seen The World go Down the Tubes yet. I'll go out on a limb, though, and say that it's in spite of "epistemallergy" rather than because of it.

--
Banazir

Today I started telling tmehlinger about some of my opinions on academia and education in science and engineering.

Disclaimer: The following is the opinion of William H. Hsu only, and should not be construed as representative of Kansas State University. That said, I think I'm qualified to wibble and rant about some of these subjects. I ran the ( gamut of educational backgrounds )

Now let's look at What Is Happening To America'sThe World's Youth:

Here are some causes of educational standards erosion that I have postulated over the last two years.

• 06 Feb 2004, ( publisher greed )


• 12 Feb 2004, ( the Virtuosity Dichotomy )


• 09 Oct 2004, ( a shift to vocational-technical perception of science )


• 11 Nov 2004, ( changes in the mission of educational television )


• 08 Dec 2004, ( erosion of self-sufficiency )


• 30 Apr 2005, ( decline in the prestige of systems knowledge )

Opinions, as always, are welcome - I am interested in both the supporting and dissenting variety, or anything in between. Feel free to expound on the correlation between educational standards and the number of pirates, if you like!

--
Banazir

The title of this entry is the title I suggested might be given to Bill Shea, if he crossed over to central administration.

My questions for thought, pursuant to the forthcoming second part of "can u pls help me", are:

• 1. Why is the belief that something is too hard assiduous?
  As kakarigeiko wrote (specifically of CS), part of "intellectual maturity" is understanding that a lot of problems we face in day-to-day research and practice are quotidian challenges, surmountable with a little effort.
  A conversation with masaga and zengeneral over the weekend, about learned helplessness.


• 2. What happened to the appreciation for theoretical computer science?
  This was from a conversation with scottharmon about student confidence, CIS 775, CIS 560, and the CIS 301 -> Math 510 -> CIS 505 / CIS 770 -> CIS 575 sequence.


• 3. Why does everybody think I'm very busy? People haven't seen very busy! KFL is very busy. GWB is very busy. I'm just mildly busy. ;-)
  Edit, 21:15 CST Tue 15 Nov 2005 - to hpguo, this morning.


• 4. Is it just me, or have computer users become less tolerant of cross-platform or formatting differences?
  Edit, 21:15 CST Tue 15 Nov 2005 - to zengeneral, this afternoon.

Oh, and on behalf of masaga the Robbed: <PRIAM>Have you no honor? Have you no honor?</PRIAM>

--
Banazir

I was going to call this "An Immodest Proposal" or "A Proper Rant", but as you well know, I'm too much of a pragmatist not to get straight down to brass tacks on this subject.

I've been thinking - not just this morning, nor only this past week, but really this whole semester - about what we need to get some foundations of mathematics and theoretical CS percolating into the heads of our undergrads again. As usual, YMMV, this is only IMNSHO, and expect no mollycoddling.

( What makes a computer scientist? )
( A proposed partial list of essentials )

( General Mathematics )

Dangerous! And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord. And Aragorn is dangerous, and Legolas is dangerous. You are beset with dangers, Gimli son of Gloin; for you are dangerous yourself, in your own fashion.
    -Gandalf, The Two Towers

Congratulations to my first doctoral alum, Haipeng Guo aka hpguo (Ph.D. Kansas State University, 2003). Currently a visiting assistant professor at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST), established 1991, he has just been hired as the newest faculty member of United International College (UIC), the newest university in China!



United International College (UIC)
Zhuhai, Guangdong (Canton) Province, China
Established 2005

( Details about the university )

--
Banazir

(With apologies to Peter Cheeseman.)

Pursuant to this Chronicle Careers article. ( Disclaimer )

Defiance!

If you have nothing to hide, hide nothing.
    - Dr. Phil McGraw

What is wrong with the voice of {America | the world | the private individual | the common person} being "unrefereed" and, by inference, unfettered?

( Four Functions of a Blog )
( Blogs: not here today, not gone tomorrow )
( Are we the new antiestablishmentarian counterculture? )
( Warning: the Voice of Reason versus the Voice of Oppression )
( Working in other fields? Heaven forfend! )
( Speaking of thought crime... )
( Wherefore the Trouble with Tribble? )

And there you have it - my $0.02.
Thanks for reading.

--
Banazir is the pseudonym of an engineering professor at a large midwestern state university.