The Singularity Doesn’t Sound So Great

Via Instapundit, The Speculist has some thoughts about “Watson”- the latest computer to be humans at their own game. In this case, the game is Jeopardy. In the course of doing so, Mr. Gordon writes:

A key feature of the Singularity will be our inability, as normal humans with normal human intelligence, to foresee the future. Why? Because after that point the goals and desires of more intelligent entities will be calling the shots. They will be doing all the inventing, and making judgements as to what goals to pursue. Normal people will be on the sidelines.

If this is what the Singularity entails, we’re in deep doo-doo. First of all, we’re not so good at predicting the future as it is. Will there be a Super Bowl next year? Who will Instapundit link in his next post? What’s tomorrow’s high temperature going to be at my house? Ask the Obama administration how easy it was to predict events in Egypt. Since predictions aren’t our forte, I fail to see how a “singularity” makes much of a difference here.

But if some “more intelligent entities” will be calling all the shots, then why so confident that “normal people” will just be on the sidelines? Isn’t that just a PC way of saying “extinct”? Or are Singularity enthusiasts, despite their current lack of ability to predict the future, confident in predicting that these “more intelligent entities” will have a completely different view regarding “survival of the species”? What’s to keep “normal” people from becoming slaves to these new entities?

I’m not a Singularity expert by any means and I doubt I’m the first to ask these sorts of questions. Also, Googling the term “singularity” brings up a number of different possible definitions. So, as with everything it seems, it depends on the definitions in play. That said, generally I see references to a “singularity” that imply great, benevolent outcomes as a result. But looking at Mr. Gordon’s paragraph above, I’m more skeptical now about such an event.