Talk:Singularitarianism

Green Anarchist

The green anarchist line is identical in the lede and in the body. I've removed it from the article body but not the lede. While the lede should reference the content of the article, it should not be a verbatim copy. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Although I've restored the line to the lede and will edit it be different from the line in the body, please point me to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) guideline which explicitly states that while the lede should reference the content of the article it should not be a verbatim copy. --Loremaster (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The lede is off track. To wit, from WP:LEAD

• “Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body.” In this case, beyond the first paragraph, the lede is just excerpts from the body. That’s not greater generality.
• “The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.” The lede does not read as a broad, concise description of the article. It reads as a definition of Singularitarianism and a couple of sound bytes of criticism.
• “The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific.” The lede is exactly as specific as the article on several topics it covers, having simply lifted text directly from the article. The description in the lede is not neutral; a full half of the precious space of the lede is devoted to specific criticisms of the topic. This reflects some agenda rather than a general description of the topic. A proper lede would state the controversies in general terms, not dive into cherry-picked details.
• “The lead should define the topic,” which it does, “establish context,” which it does to some extent, “explain why the subject is interesting or notable,” which is does not, “and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies,” which it also does not. That is, it does not summarize the most important points. It goes into detail about a couple of points. It was even worse before removing etymology, which bizarrely had a whole lede paragraph devoted to, ignoring the lede length guidelines for an article of this size.

Strebe (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you. The real problem lies in the fact that the content in the body of the article is already a general overview of the subject so it is hard for the lead section to be even more general. So the current version of the lead section is fine until the body is significantly improved. Ultimately, IRWolfie and you need to let it go and move on. --Loremaster (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You are in no position to tell people what they need to let go and move on about. I suggest you use Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines as a benchmark for discussion. There is no such thing as “can’t make it more general”. I already did that; you reverted it. The lede sucks, to put it in the vernacular. I have explained why and how. You, on the other hand, are making bizarre excuses and ordering people around. That really does not bode well.

Strebe (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Your overgeneralization made the pagagraph too short but also uninformative. That being said, I will restore the disputed content but improve it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I have given several reasons founded on Wikipedia guidelines for my version of the lede edits. You, Loremaster, not only have failed to cite a single Wikipedia rationalizations for your version, but you have bossed around other editors, ignored the fact that no other editors support your position, have ignored the Wikipedia policies I brought to bear to explain why the article needs improvement, and have offered nothing but subjective opinions in an effort to coddle and preserve your own edits.

The lede paragraph is supposed to be general. Meanwhile you keep injecting into it your apparent personal favorite “Rapture of the Nerds” metaphor and details about opposition groups. They are a level of specificity appropriate only to the article body. In point of fact my proposed edits are more informative than yours because they summarize more of the article and they do it economically. Your edits fixate on details of interest to you, creating a flabby, patchy, confusing lede. Furthermore everything you keep putting into the lede duplicates at the same level of detail what is already in the body. Your arguments for this are transparent rationalizations. No professional editor would agree with this amateurish editing and manipulation of agenda, and certainly no Wikipedia guideline permits it.

Do you understand that you do not own or control this article? Do you understand that in the end, the article will conform to Wikipedia guidelines, not whatever content and arrangement happen to titillate you? Strebe (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted your unsourced sentence that is glaringly too short and uninformative. I've replaced with a sourced paragraph that is in fact a generalization of content in the body. Unlike the previous paragrah, it is neither inappropriately lengthy nor too detailed nor too verbose nor does it completely duplicate body text. I will continue tweaking it if necessary. All of this is in line with the Wikipedia guidelines you cite. --Loremaster (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

These inclusions still require third party sources to establish they are not a fringe view. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Singularitarianism itself is a fringe view... --Loremaster (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

and as a result it makes no sense to have anything other than mainstream criticism of it. (i.e mainstream criticism of it as the rapture of the nerds). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

In order to resolve this dispute, I've removed all content based on the Green Anarchy article but I have and will continue to restore to the lead section an improved version of the specific criticisms expressed by John Horgan and David Correira since they are notable mainstream journalists and scholars while IEEE and CounterPunch are reliable sources. --Loremaster (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

is CounterPunch reliable? It doesn't appear to be: "Counterpunch.org, a conspiracy-mongering website run by Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn" [1]. Related reliable sources discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_10#CounterPunch. I don't think it should be used for grounds for inclusion, since nothing has been shown to establish David Correira as mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk)

It wouldn't be wise to judge the reliability of a source based on an opinion piece by a neo-conservative pundit who has been criticized for dishonesty. That being said, CounterPunch isn't being used to support a fact but only to report the opinion of a university professor. --Loremaster (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

An assistant professor isn't a professor. but anyway: being an academic does not make his claims mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You are correct on the professor issue. However, although Wikipedia considers mainstream scholars and journalists to be the most reliable sources, their viewpoints don't have to be “mainstream” in the sense of them being accepted and held by a majority of people. They only have to be significant and Wikipedia guidelines demand that we fairly represent all significant viewpoints. That being said, this dispute has reminded me that I've actually read articles/essays by other critics who essentially express the same opinion as Correira so I will track them down and add them to support his viewpoint. --Loremaster (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be better if they are added instead of his since his view has not been shown to be significant either. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been cited in H+ Magazine and some blogs by thinkers critical of Singularitarianism:

Counterpunch Expose: H+ “Journal” a Part of Ruling Class Conspiracy!

Sean Hannity is a cyborg

My Response to the Counterpunch Expose of Singularitarianism

However, my point is that Correira reinforced an opinion shared by other critics and therefore is “mainstream”. --Loremaster (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing in those blogs that makes his claims mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing two arguments I am making: 1) Correira's criticism of Singularitarianism is significant because it has been cited by other sources, and 2) other critics of Singularitarianism share his viewpoint so it isn't “fringe”. Dale Carrico has repeatedly expressed the same criticism of Singularitarianism in his blog Amor Mundi. --Loremaster (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

offtopic?

The paragraph beginning "In July 2009, academics and technical experts, some of whom were Singularitarians ..." appears a bit off topic, or at least a bit too much info on it not related to this Singularitarianism movement. Does anyone else agree? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It is the best example of what Singularitarians are interested in and actually do but I'm not opposed to the paragraph being shortened. --Loremaster (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I edit the first sentence of the disputed paragraph to say "In July 2009, many prominent Singularitarians..." not only to make the paragrah less offtopic but also for the sake of accuracy. --Loremaster (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

wikilinking to new religious movement

Wikilinking to new religious movement is inappropiate. Loremaster, do not revert my edits without some form of comment please. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You haven't offered a good explanation (nor pointed to a Wikipedia guideline on the subject) as to why wikilinking to new religious movement is inappropiate. Keep in mind, this neutral term is being used over the more the loaded term some critics have used: cult. --Loremaster (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Add the source that Singularitarianism as a New religious movement and that which labels it as a cult. Also please do not revert my edits without marking them as being reverted and give a justification. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Since I don't want to needlessly sow the seeds for future edit wars with users who will try to delete the word “cult” even if it is sourced, I prefer more closely summarizing Horgan's criticism. --Loremaster (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, here is a good quote from an April 2011 Religion Dispatches essay, The Cult of Kurzweil: Will Robots Save Our Souls?:

What we see is the emergence of a genuine religious tradition. Is it new? Not exactly: faith in technology to produce transcendent human conditions is centuries old. But this manifestation, whether it be under the label of transhumanism, Singularitarianism, or (as I’ve called it) Apocalyptic AI, has a cultural cachet that goes far and allows it to separate itself from other religious visions. Sacred books such as Moravec’s Mind Children (1988) and Kurzweil’s The Singularity Is Near (2005) and documentary films like Transcendent Man establish a textual tradition that forms the core of an entire belief system promising salvation, encouraging embodied practices (most of which are designed to keep an individual alive until the coming day of upload), and establishing a worldview through which all of science, religion, and politics may be judged.

So I may restore the disputed term. --Loremaster (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You haven't shown that this website is in any way significant or mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Religion Dispatches is an online religion magazine based at Emory University, which has been nominated in the 15th Annual Webby Awards competition in the Religion and Spirituality category on April 18, 2011.[2] Is that significant or maintream enough for you? --Loremaster (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I confess to being too lazy to bother reading Horgan's arguments, but I infer that the guy is a lazy idiot from first principles, and hence I doubt his notability. I infer 'lazy idiocy' from his assertions, which fly in the face of experts who have made careful estimates and best possible extrapolations. To conflate (necessary) extrapolations re a potentially incredibly dangerous possibility with religious wishful thinking is egregiously shonky thinking. It is also poor thinking to deduce impossibility from lack of published techniques, given the enormous military and economic advantages that might conceivably be gained from superintelligence, and also given that the smartest people (Joy, Hawking, Gates) have advocated Relinquishment / great caution. 203.214.155.72 (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead and desirablity

I have problems with this section of the lead -

"Singularitarians are distinguished from other futurists who speculate on a technological singularity by their belief that the Singularity is not only possible, but desirable if guided prudently. Accordingly, they might sometimes dedicate their lives to acting in ways they believe will contribute to its rapid yet safe realization."

"Desirablity" is just one kind of Singularitairanism. A better definition is that a Singularitarian is a person who strongly believes in the likelihood of a technological singularity in the medium term future, and that this raises issues and attitudes which often arise in theology and extreme forms of existentialism. The belief in near term inevitability and its religious and existential aspects are what define the Singularitarian, who may not find it desireable, or who might want to guide it, but does not have faith in an ability to do so. There are also many other Singularitarian perspectives. Does anyone have any sources to correct the lead? PPdd (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You are the one with the objection; the onus is on you to find sources. Strebe (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Technological Versus Biological Singularity

Other pages covering similar topics have had this same confusion between biological and technological singularity. The reference to "The Singularity is Near", by Raymond Kurzweil seems out of place to me, since his book seems to cover biological singularity, while this article would seem to more be referencing technological singularity Dreamstohack (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead and neutral point of view

If we're going to include the claim in the lede that Singularitarian is a religion, then we should also clearly state in that same paragraph that Singularitians themselves do not agree with that claim, otherwise we are violating the "neutral point of view" rule. Either both points of view should be in that paragraph, or that paragraph should be removed completely and that comment left only in the "criticism" section. (Yosarian2 (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC))

Note that it is not a claim that Singularitarianism is a religion; it is a mention that some people claim it. The same is true of the concerns about the industrial-military applications, which you deleted. When I looked over these edits, it wasn’t obvious to me that the paragraph belonged in the lede at all, but with further thinking, •not• mentioning any counterpoints is a violation of NPV, since the lede is basically an advertisement of Singularitarianism otherwise, giving no indication there are alternative perspectives. This pattern of description followed by a summary of the con camp’s objections, is common in the ledes of articles describing controversial topics. Make sense? In any case ledes definitely are not the place to describe the intricacies of the debate.

Also, Wikipedia guidelines oppose even have a section on controversy. The “debate” is supposed to be woven into the article body. The article needs a lot of work. Strebe (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the article needs a lot of work. However, having the lead of the article about Singularitarianism dominated by an anti-Singularitarianism point of view seems to quite clearly be a violation of the rules about neutrality. I was trying to maintain neutrality by leaving in both points of view, but perhaps that paragraph should simply be removed. One of those things has to happen, though; the lede is supposed to be a quick summery of the subject, and to put a minority point of view in that summery without even mentioning that it is not the point of view of the philosophy the article is discussing is clearly not neutral. Yosarian2 (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, you lost me in your first posting with, ”should also clearly state in that same paragraph that Singularitians themselves do not agree with that claim”. The verbiage says that critics say Singularitarianism is a religion. “Critics” “very clearly” means not-Singularitarians. And now with this new posting you lose me with, “dominated by an anti-Singularitarianism point of view”. With the exception of the final paragraph, the lede is a description of what Singularitarianism is, not some pro- or anti- verbiage. And noting that there are critics does not introduce POV problems and is not anti-Singularitarianism. In fact, not noting that there are criticisms is a POV problem. Again, it is common in ledes to summarize a topic including mention of contrary views. I don’t have any problem with that part of it. Strebe (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Update

I have added some sourced information to the article and these include key content to the Reception section, which I hope would clarify the criticism that it is more of a religion than science (from the view of critics). Please let me know if you have questions regarding the edit. Thanks! Darwin Naz (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's the issue: When you write "Science journalist John Horgan ...", how does that evade the earlier comment on this talk page; I quote: I confess to being too lazy to bother reading Horgan's arguments, but I infer that the guy is a lazy idiot from first principles, and hence I doubt his notability. I infer 'lazy idiocy' from his assertions, which fly in the face of experts who have made careful estimates and best possible extrapolations. To conflate (necessary) extrapolations re a potentially incredibly dangerous possibility with religious wishful thinking is egregiously shonky thinking. It is also poor thinking to deduce impossibility from lack of published techniques, given the enormous military and economic advantages that might conceivably be gained from superintelligence, and also given that the smartest people (Joy, Hawking, Gates) have advocated Relinquishment / great caution. 203.214.155.72 (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC) -- my conclusion is that Horgan is incapable of providing a credible opinion, and certainly, not one that is cite-worthy. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I see you did not add that. I'm thinking I should remove the Horgan quote, per above comments from 203.214.155.72 ... 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the Horgan quote. There is a meta-issue -- distinguishing "the singularity" from "singularitarianism" -- the former is indeed profoundly important and discussed by profound thinkers; the latter does indeed have lots of mindless NPC adherents who don't really know what they are talking about. In that context, does "singularitarianism" differ in any way from ecofacism, ecosocialism, alt-right, alt-left, antifa, lesswrong, QAnon, SJW or any other memetic tribe? It's a ball of beliefs that "stick together" and are appealing enough that lots of people like to believe in them. To answer my own question: the distinction is that singularitarianism is a set of beliefs about technologies that will actually transform (and possibly destroy) the world; its about existential risk. The others are a collection of beliefs about justice and meaning in society. And QAnon seems to be a paranoid-delusional, schizophrenic idea-salad. Horgan seemed to suggest that all these memetic tribes are on the same footing; I'd suggest that they're not. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion on the WP:RELIABLE reference is not WP:RELIABLE. It's clear Horgan's comment is about putting faith in (imminence/desirability/problems that will be solved by) the singularity, which is a defining trait of singularitarianism. Strebe (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Horgan's a crack-pot ... so now, we are citing crackpots? Bill Joy, Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking are "notable" critics of singularitarianism, Horgan is not. If you wish to critique it, quote them, not him.67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

And now IP editor 67.198.37.16 has accused me of edit warring, by edit warring. This is on a fast track to dispute resolution. 67.198.37.16's rationale is that the quote is not "notable". To start with, WP:NOTABLE refers to topics, not references. The question is whether the reference is WP:RELIABLE. Given that it appears in IEEE Spectrum, whereas 67.198.37.16's opinion appears as self-published on a Wikipedia Talk page, I think it's pretty clear where this is going. Calling notable people you disagree with "a crackpock" is not a path to credibility. Strebe (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I confess to being too lazy to bother reading Horgan's arguments, but I infer that the guy is a lazy idiot from first principles, and hence I doubt his notability. You imagine that is as a credible source for deleting a relevant quote from a WP:RELIABLE source? It does not work like that. You cannot sit around deciding who or what is "credible" by resorting to whatever tortured rationalizations occur to you. The onus is on you to provide WP:RELIABLE sources that demonstrate that an author published in WP:RELIABLE media is a crackpot, rather than inventing crackpot reasons yourself. I am reverting the article to its original use of the quotation, and will defend its inclusion throughout the real process for making these decisions. Strebe (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Aw, come on. Don't distort facts and truth. It's not conducive to any discussions. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Ahh. Strebe, please reconsider your actions. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your personal opinions and fringe beliefs. It is a dis-service to all readers when crackpot-content is added to an article. I removed this content twice, you restored it twice. It's not a credible reference, it's obviously nutty. So why are you defending it? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)