Your “narrative hook” is the only claim with even a tiny amount of real substance behind it. The essay was a minimal waste of my time only because I realized it was armchair-quality before the middle of the third paragraph.
You’re not claiming that it belongs in Discussion due to content, but merely based on your perception of its quality. I don’t think that’s what people usually mean when they say something is more appropriate for Discussion.
When you say everything else in the post has no substance, I wonder what you mean. Do you dispute that Google has large data centers? That they have a market cap of $300 billion? That they have the expertise I listed? That such expertise is relevant? That computational resources matter? What, exactly, would qualify as “substance” for a discussion of this type? Can you point to any other speculations about the timing of the Singularity that have more substance?
I think the epistemic status of the typical main post (now, standards may have been different in the past) is “believed” while the epistemic status of the original post seems to be “musing for reaction” based on your statements in this thread. I think it would be possible for it to be rewritten in such a way that fewer people would complain about it being in main without actually changing the core of the information it contains.
That is admirably precise advice, and I appreciate it. But I think Bayesians should not get into the habit of believing things. Things clear-cut enough for me to believe them are never interesting to me. In speculative matters such as the singularity, musings are more useful than provable beliefs, as they cover far more probability, and forming opinions about them will probably reduce your error by more.
You’re not claiming that it belongs in Discussion due to content
Wrong.
Your “narrative hook” is the only claim with even a tiny amount of real substance behind it.
This is a claim about its content.
I don’t think that’s what people usually mean when they say something is more appropriate for Discussion.
Even if I were arguing that it belongs in Discussion merely on the basis of quality (which I am not), this is what many actual people have actually meant.
What, exactly, would qualify as “substance” for a discussion of this type? Can you point to any other speculations about the timing of the Singularity that have more substance?
Kurzweil’s process of fitting everything to an exponential curve. Gwern’s essay on computational overhang. Fermi estimates of the processing power necessary to emulate a human brain, and possible corrections to Moore’s law in the post ~5nm world.
I believe this makes my position sufficiently clear. As the post has already been moved to Discussion, any further clarification is kind of pointless.
Why?
Your “narrative hook” is the only claim with even a tiny amount of real substance behind it. The essay was a minimal waste of my time only because I realized it was armchair-quality before the middle of the third paragraph.
(You asked.)
You’re not claiming that it belongs in Discussion due to content, but merely based on your perception of its quality. I don’t think that’s what people usually mean when they say something is more appropriate for Discussion.
When you say everything else in the post has no substance, I wonder what you mean. Do you dispute that Google has large data centers? That they have a market cap of $300 billion? That they have the expertise I listed? That such expertise is relevant? That computational resources matter? What, exactly, would qualify as “substance” for a discussion of this type? Can you point to any other speculations about the timing of the Singularity that have more substance?
I think the epistemic status of the typical main post (now, standards may have been different in the past) is “believed” while the epistemic status of the original post seems to be “musing for reaction” based on your statements in this thread. I think it would be possible for it to be rewritten in such a way that fewer people would complain about it being in main without actually changing the core of the information it contains.
That is admirably precise advice, and I appreciate it. But I think Bayesians should not get into the habit of believing things. Things clear-cut enough for me to believe them are never interesting to me. In speculative matters such as the singularity, musings are more useful than provable beliefs, as they cover far more probability, and forming opinions about them will probably reduce your error by more.
Wrong.
This is a claim about its content.
Even if I were arguing that it belongs in Discussion merely on the basis of quality (which I am not), this is what many actual people have actually meant.
Kurzweil’s process of fitting everything to an exponential curve. Gwern’s essay on computational overhang. Fermi estimates of the processing power necessary to emulate a human brain, and possible corrections to Moore’s law in the post ~5nm world.
I believe this makes my position sufficiently clear. As the post has already been moved to Discussion, any further clarification is kind of pointless.
It doesn’t directly pertain to rationality.