Not many years ago, some technical gurus began predicting a future (as early as 2045, according to Ray Kurzweil) of superintelligence, transcendence, immortality and lots of strangeness. We do have lots of strangeness in front of us, but I don’t expect to see the dramatic changes that some are predicting.
A cornerstone of most of these predictions is exponential change. Looking at things like the number of scientific papers published, the number of Internet connections, the microprocessors in use and a host of other important measures, we are climbing the hockey stick of dramatic, sudden change. Quantitative change will become qualitative change. And this will be even more dramatic since it will be happening in many areas simultaneously. A quick check on the impact of computers to create transformations and the implications of computers transforming themselves adds even more credibility to something big being just beyond the horizon.
The exponential change has impacts that are difficult to imagine has been a concept that has been part of our culture since ancient times in the form of a tale about a wager, rice and a chess board. Wayne Hodgins does a wonderful retelling in his blog. Putting one grain of rice on the first square of the chessboard, and then doubling the grains on each succeeding square, leads to a ton of rice. Actually, trillions of tons of rice.
Few people would have guessed that simple doubling would have lead to so much rice in 64 moves. That is the power of exponential growth, and it is easy to be in awe of it and to use that notion to make awe-inspiring predictions.
But I see a problem already. The simple rice experiment itself would not be possible because, according to Hodgins, every square inch of the planet (including oceans) would need to yield ten grains of rice. Twice. So Physical Resources limit exponential growth, including, perhaps some of the curves needed to create the Singularity.
Choice makes a difference as well. The soaring number of scientific papers published runs into problems when funding for research is cut. In the U.S. big corporations have all but eliminated dollars for research (but not for development). Government looks like it will cut back, as well. And even the government money is going toward what looks more like development, with less going to young researchers with high-risk ideas. Any exponential curve that has the foundation cut out from under it is going to come to a screeching stop.
Definition drift can be another problem. A research paper today is not what it was at one time. With grants, reputations and tenure at risk, academic researchers in the U.S. slice their papers into the smallest bits possible (sometimes at the risk of losing coherence). The word on campus is “Deans don’t read; they count.” What once might have been one paper may be seven today. So what looks to be exponential may not be.
Insights may slow or stop curves, too. It was once thought that building more roads could solve traffic problems, and investment in road-building exploded to meet the growing need. The need kept growing, and there was a gradual understanding that building roads encourage traffic beyond capacity. Transportation strategies evolved and road building fell off.
I could continue this list with concepts such as competing concerns, emergencies and the attention span of the populace, but the point is that there are many damping factors the keep many of those exponential curves from going too far. This is not to say that change on many fronts is not in front of us. And I am especially concerned that we do not respond (and, perhaps, do not know how to respond) appropriately. But it strikes me that hysteria and rapture about the singularity is silly.