# Exponential Growth of Technology and the Singularity **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 5, 2010, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exponential-growth-of-technology-and-the-singularity/545608 "2010-07-05T16:29:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exponential-growth-of-technology-and-the-singularity/545608/21 "2010-07-05T19:43:53Z")
> [@peledre](#): > > _No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer._ - Bill Gates > > I think the whole point of the singularity is that we can’t even imagine what we’ll need. First off, that quote is probably false and you didn’t even quote the fake quote right! Second off, technology is not increasing exponentially. IT is certainly not doing today, and I’m hard pressed to think of anything which is. It’s simply that we get better at, but the improvement is always a decision made at the margins. We see things improving on the surface and look 10 times better there, but often miss that the hardware underneath isn’t changing so much. The heyday of computer improvement is probably over: the era of improved user interfaces is not. Likewise, I’m hopeful about biology improving our lives, too… but Kurzweill seems to have fallen in love with his sci-fi. ---
**Author:** ![peledre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/779978/32.png) [@peledre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peledre)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exponential-growth-of-technology-and-the-singularity/545608/22 "2010-07-05T19:50:33Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > First off, that quote is probably false and you didn’t even quote the fake quote right! My bad I probably should’ve sourced it. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704039704574616401913653862.html](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704039704574616401913653862.html) ---
**Author:** ![peledre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/779978/32.png) [@peledre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peledre)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exponential-growth-of-technology-and-the-singularity/545608/23 "2010-07-05T19:55:20Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Second off, technology is not increasing exponentially. IT is certainly not doing today, and I’m hard pressed to think of anything which is. It’s simply that we get better at, but the improvement is always a decision made at the margins. We see things improving on the surface and look 10 times better there, but often miss that the hardware underneath isn’t changing so much. The heyday of computer improvement is probably over: the era of improved user interfaces is not. The hardware underneath isn’t changing? In the last 100 years we’ve gone from mechanical calculators to relays to vacuum tubes to transistors to integrated circuits. We’ve got a few more years left with the latter before moving on to the next paradigm. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exponential-growth-of-technology-and-the-singularity/545608/24 "2010-07-05T22:26:06Z")
> [@peledre](#): > > _No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer._ - Bill Gates > > I think the whole point of the singularity is that we can’t even imagine what we’ll need. I agree, new uses and new concepts are constantly coming up. However I am using the same amount of broadband I was using 11 years ago (I’ve had different providers since I’ve moved around) since I have never had any reason to increase my broadband download speeds. It seems more and more of the advances in computing is being used to make better graphics which really isn’t that important to a lot of people. I can get more than enough podcasts, videos, documents and songs on a 16GB mp3 player. I have considered a 32GB model, but don’t really need one right now. If I do need one I will get the 32GB model. But right now 16GB is fine. My first MP3 player was 128MB. That was too small. The next one was 1GB. That was ok, but still too small. My next one was 6GB. That was decent and functioned well. My current 16GB one is even better, but I don’t see why I’d need 120GB like some of the models have. The newest Ipod touch is supposed to go up to 128GB of flash drive storage. The next model might be 256GB, then 512GB. However for many of us using more than 30GB really isn’t necessary. I put 4 seasons of a TV show on someone’s MP3 player and it only took 10GB because I compressed them down. You can store a lot of data in 30GB, 1GB is 250 songs or it can be 3-4 hours of video. I don’t need a doubling of the GB in my personal storage devices each year. The point is consumer demand has to drive some of these exponential trends. And many consumers don’t need exponential storage space, processing power, broadband, etc. Lots of people get by fine with 5 year old computers and basic broadband. Until someone comes up with uses for all these exponential powers of computing, there won’t be that big of a market to keep inventing them. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exponential-growth-of-technology-and-the-singularity/545608/25 "2010-07-06T00:09:42Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Second off, technology is not increasing exponentially. IT is certainly not doing today, and I’m hard pressed to think of anything which is. It’s simply that we get better at, but the improvement is always a decision made at the margins. We see things improving on the surface and look 10 times better there, but often miss that the hardware underneath isn’t changing so much. The heyday of computer improvement is probably over: the era of improved user interfaces is not. Is technology increasing exponentially? It is and it isn’t. Transistor sizes and such are still on a more or less exponential curve, moderated a bit by the fact that only a few companies can afford new fabs. However, the complexity and speed of your average microprocessor core hasn’t changed much for a while, with the extra transistors you get on a die going into cache and multiple cores. All the real advances are going into things like smart phones, because we’ve gotten stuff small enough to get good functionality into a reasonably sized phone. The processors inside these phones are nothing special, since power consumption is so important. Software, which is what people see, doesn’t grow exponentially - though things like apps markets make make it seem like it does. User interfaces will mature when they disappear - unless you consider speech a user interface. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exponential-growth-of-technology-and-the-singularity/545608/26 "2010-07-06T00:41:48Z")
We will never actually reach this “singularity”. The reason is that the singularity is always from the perspective of current technological advancement. As we make new discoveries, our predictions for the future will change and it will continue to recede away from us. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exponential-growth-of-technology-and-the-singularity/545608/27 "2010-07-06T02:25:11Z")
[Earlier thread on the Singularity.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=559690) And from the [TVTropes page:](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheSingularity) > [@](#): > > _“As I see it, the main problem in designing a plausible 23rd century these days isn’t lack of grandeur, it’s the imminence of changes so fundamental and unpredictable, they’re likely to make the dramas of 2298 as unintelligible to us as the Microsoft Anti-Trust Suit would be to Joan of Arc.”_ > > — Justin B. Rye > > Singularity is the theoretical point in technological development beyond which predictions are virtually impossible, and more to the point, the nature of human life and even the concept of intellect may change completely. Maybe we become godlike: all-knowing and omnipotent. Alternately we become uncomprehending onlookers … or slip under the tread of gods. > > In mathematics and physics, a singularity is a point at which rules break down, and things become undefined. Loosely speaking, it’s a point where the rules change. Some extrapolate developments in information technology and automated manufacture accelerating toward a point where humans no longer understand the information, the technology, or even what is being manufactured, even though computation extends the power of human intelligence. Extended people use automated manufacturing to create faster, better versions of both machines and people: an accelerating virtuous circle. > > The ultimate consequences are either utopian or dystopian. Some writers are hopeful, and look to improvements: an end to death, scarcity, and the errors of ignorance and stupidity. There is the prospect of self-editing, mental and physical: people finally able to be whatever they wish to be. A singularity can be transcendent; we hack the cracked walls of reality itself and move on to better things. This is an excellent Hand Wave for writers struggling with the impossibility of plots involving entities many orders of magnitude greater than themselves or the reader. Others see no end: endless ecstatic ascent. > > The less hopeful works point out the dangers. Environmental exhaustion. Our extinction by an uncontrollable creation, intelligent or not. There is the question of who inherits the wonders of acceleration: us or our posthuman descendants? Can we coexist? Charles Stross sometimes envisages a singularity runaway as enjoyable as unchaining Cthulhu on a bad day. The Black Goat knows the answer to Fermi’s question. Agent Smith does not like you. > > Note is also taken of how hard it is to uninvent something without halting the inventing species and its descendants at all. > > The singularity is sometimes called the “rapture of the nerds”. There are inevitably spiritual overtones to a singularity. Spirituality deals with transcendence; that which lies beyond the everyday. A singularity opens a door to the transcendent, drawing in interested writers. ---
**Author:** ![Darryl\_Lict](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7cd45c/32.png) [@Darryl\_Lict](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darryl_Lict)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exponential-growth-of-technology-and-the-singularity/545608/28 "2010-07-06T03:10:56Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Watson, a computer who does a good job playing Jeopardy, got trained by trawling the web. Some personality simulators answer questions by going to the web. Thanks for bringing that up. It’s a pretty fascinating [machine](http://www.research.ibm.com/deepqa/). ---
**Author:** ![peledre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/779978/32.png) [@peledre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peledre)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exponential-growth-of-technology-and-the-singularity/545608/29 "2010-07-06T03:18:38Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > I agree, new uses and new concepts are constantly coming up. However I am using the same amount of broadband I was using 11 years ago (I’ve had different providers since I’ve moved around) since I have never had any reason to increase my broadband download speeds. It seems more and more of the advances in computing is being used to make better graphics which really isn’t that important to a lot of people. > > I can get more than enough podcasts, videos, documents and songs on a 16GB mp3 player. I have considered a 32GB model, but don’t really need one right now. If I do need one I will get the 32GB model. But right now 16GB is fine. > > My first MP3 player was 128MB. That was too small. The next one was 1GB. That was ok, but still too small. My next one was 6GB. That was decent and functioned well. My current 16GB one is even better, but I don’t see why I’d need 120GB like some of the models have. The newest Ipod touch is supposed to go up to 128GB of flash drive storage. The next model might be 256GB, then 512GB. However for many of us using more than 30GB really isn’t necessary. I put 4 seasons of a TV show on someone’s MP3 player and it only took 10GB because I compressed them down. You can store a lot of data in 30GB, 1GB is 250 songs or it can be 3-4 hours of video. I don’t need a doubling of the GB in my personal storage devices each year. > > The point is consumer demand has to drive some of these exponential trends. And many consumers don’t need exponential storage space, processing power, broadband, etc. Lots of people get by fine with 5 year old computers and basic broadband. > > Until someone comes up with uses for all these exponential powers of computing, there won’t be that big of a market to keep inventing them. I can see what you’re saying, but it’s essentially anecdotal. To give you a couple examples, higher processing power has allowed us to build more powerful sensors like fMRI, CAT scan, etc… These sensors generate huge amounts of data, and the more sensitive they get the more data they output. Astronomers are now using supercomputers to simulate supernovae and other phenomena that require huge amounts of processing power and pretty advanced algorithms. Perhaps we’ll one day be able to simulate what goes on inside the event horizon of a black hole. I think you certainly are correct that market forces are required to drive these exponential trends, but I see plenty of pressure from a variety of areas to continue to push the envelope. ---
**Author:** ![code\_grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f4b2a3/32.png) [@code\_grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/code_grey)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exponential-growth-of-technology-and-the-singularity/545608/30 "2010-07-06T04:37:14Z")
repeat after me - a machine will not reach human level of intelligence any time soon (many, many decades). When in doubt, reiterate it by way of auto-hypnosis… And even if it did reach some such point, that machine “intelligence” would quickly find out that there are 6 billion other “intelligences” running around. Lots of them very busy with solving important global problems to build a better future for, well, you know the drill. From the looks of it, the better future is not getting anywhere near through the labor of the above mentioned human intelligences, and the addition of a few machine intelligences will not change that. They don’t even have a resume let alone glowing references, so who is going to approve funding for their projects anyway? Further, note how Kurzweil et al make this wonderful leap from “human level intelligence” to “designing new generation of super machines”. There is no shortage of people capable of passing the Turing test but incapable of designing even an old generation bicycle. Chances are that Kurzweil could not teach a typical smart college kid to be the next super computer design genius if his life depended on it - how is he going to teach similar skills to machines? ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exponential-growth-of-technology-and-the-singularity/545608/31 "2010-07-06T05:16:58Z")
> [@peledre](#): > > I don’t think a lot of people even stop and think for a moment that they probably have a device in their pocket which allows them to access the sum total of all human knowledge. It’s pretty incredible really. Thinking the internet contains the sum total of all human knowledge is just jaw-droppingly ignorant, almost to the point of being offensive. ---
**Author:** ![peledre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/779978/32.png) [@peledre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peledre)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exponential-growth-of-technology-and-the-singularity/545608/32 "2010-07-06T13:06:16Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Thinking the internet contains the sum total of all human knowledge is just jaw-droppingly ignorant, almost to the point of being offensive. What doesn’t it contain? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exponential-growth-of-technology-and-the-singularity/545608/33 "2010-07-06T15:57:24Z")
I don’t agree with several items brought by the OP, but I have to say that there is a need to comment on some counterpoints mentioned. > [@code\_grey](#): > > repeat after me - a machine will not reach human level of intelligence any time soon (many, many decades). When in doubt, reiterate it by way of auto-hypnosis… Well, IMHO this is related to the Human IQ controversy of assuming that it is the ultimate or most important reason why one is successful or not, modern researchers take into account that there are different intelligences in humans and so it is with artificial intelligence; there will be many paths to it and so different time lines to get to the machine intelligences. > [@code\_grey](#): > > And even if it did reach some such point, that machine “intelligence” would quickly find out that there are 6 billion other “intelligences” running around. Lots of them very busy with solving important global problems to build a better future for, well, you know the drill. From the looks of it, the better future is not getting anywhere near through the labor of the above mentioned human intelligences, and the addition of a few machine intelligences will not change that. IMHO this is not the case, humans can be still great at research, but tools like Google are showing results that no human made, a machine did it for you based on your input and even preferences. From here, it is clear that the next step is to have computers with AI to begin making connections that we humans have missed. > [@code\_grey](#): > > They don’t even have a resume let alone glowing references, so who is going to approve funding for their projects anyway? The reason why I do see humans creating an intelligence that is superior to a human (in some aspects and in our lifetime), is because many human organizations do want and seek a solution to many problems that are still out there. As I think intelligence comes from prediction, not behavior, the machines are bound to improve on their predictions thanks to the added capacity to learn from feedback. > [@code\_grey](#): > > Further, note how Kurzweil et al make this wonderful leap from “human level intelligence” to “designing new generation of super machines”. There is no shortage of people capable of passing the Turing test but incapable of designing even an old generation bicycle. Chances are that Kurzweil could not teach a typical smart college kid to be the next super computer design genius if his life depended on it - how is he going to teach similar skills to machines? Actually there are humans who fail the Turing test but we do not automatically declare them subhuman. 🙂 As I have read on the subject and followed the history, it is clear that many current researchers are now on the right track by not concentrating just on top down teaching of machines, but letting the machines learn on their own and at their rate. (A rate that can be as fast as lightning.) ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exponential-growth-of-technology-and-the-singularity/545608/34 "2010-07-06T16:58:29Z")
> [@peledre](#): > > What doesn’t it contain? Oh no! We aren’t falling for THAT one!😃 ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exponential-growth-of-technology-and-the-singularity/545608/35 "2010-07-06T17:07:37Z")
> [@code\_grey](#): > > repeat after me - a machine will not reach human level of intelligence any time soon (many, many decades). When in doubt, reiterate it by way of auto-hypnosis… I’m not sure about the ‘many,many decades’ time frame, but it’s not just around the corner either. But while machines need some time to catch up to human level creativity and conceptual level, they already do plenty of computational intensive work that exceeds human capability. The combination of humans and machines may already have created a higher level of intelligence, in some respects. To the OP though, I’m not sure what is being predicted. An incomprehensible level of complexity? There are plenty of simple things most people can’t comprehend, and incredibly complex things people already comprehend. So far, if a machine is doing it, we can comprehend it. The ‘singularity’ concept sounds like BS. Not for its falsity, but just trying to stick a label on something to make it sound like an important concept. As an example, IMHO, nobody actually understands macro-economics enough to make consistent predictions, but even with a world-widish economic crisis, we are still managing to get by. I’m sure we will one day reach the point where machines are as intelligent, or more intelligent than humans, if we can get humans to act according to the level of intelligence they should have, before they destroy the planet. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exponential-growth-of-technology-and-the-singularity/545608/36 "2010-07-06T17:21:53Z")
Quoth **msmith537** : > [@](#): > > We will never actually reach this “singularity”. The reason is that the singularity is always from the perspective of current technological advancement. As we make new discoveries, our predictions for the future will change and it will continue to recede away from us. Exactly: It’s a horizon, not a singularity. Technology (as a whole) really is growing exponentially, and that’s precisely why there _isn’t_ a singularity: From _every_ point on an exponential growth, it looks like every point on the graph longer ago than a couple of timescales is effectively zero, and within a few timescales in the future things will be mind-bogglingly greater. We think we’re living in an exciting time because we’re only 30 years away from the singularity, but someone living in any other time in history would have thought exactly the same way. It’s like saying that I’m living in a special spot on Earth because the horizon is the same distance away in every direction. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exponential-growth-of-technology-and-the-singularity/545608/37 "2010-07-06T17:38:52Z")
> [@peledre](#): > > What doesn’t it contain? The feel of the wind in your face when you climb to the top of your first mountain. The smell of the ocean. The beautiful desolation of the boardwalk in winter. How it feels when my fiancee smiles at me. You know, the stuff that makes us human. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exponential-growth-of-technology-and-the-singularity/545608/38 "2010-07-06T17:43:15Z")
We aren’t going to see exponential growth in computer technology. It’s true that we’re currently in the exponential phase, but the likelihood is that we’ll eventually transition into a sigmoid curve. Look at what has happened with processors–the processor wars where faster CPUs appeared every month is over. Nowadays the computer ads barely bother to mention the processor speed. This means a lot less churn, because now the desktop you bought 5 years ago is pretty much just as good as one you can buy today. It used to be that more RAM was a big deal, but nowadays due to architecture limitations you can’t use more than 4 GB, so that’s topped out. Hard drives are getting smaller with more capacity, so that’s still improving tremendously. But how many GBs of memory do you need? If you’re storing tons and tons of video you can eat through TBs, but most people aren’t doing video editing. But all this doesn’t mean the age of computer improvement is over. It means that now people can concentrate on how to make all this stuff work better. We’ve finally reached the Model-T Ford era of computing, where all the parts of the package are in place, and now we just have to make them work better. There’s still a lot of work making computing cheaper, simpler, more bulletproof, smaller, and easier to use. In a couple of years a typical computer will be a phone that has a small display and simple input, but can easily communicate with any nearby display or input device. You’ll carry your phone around in your pocket, and sit down at a workstation that is just a monitor and keyboard and mouse, and your phone will communicate with them. But note that what you do on your phone won’t be that different–you’ll websurf, read, and send/receive text, voice, or video communications. It’ll be the same experience, just less annoying, like switching from a Model-T that blows a tire every few hundred miles and has a top speed of 45 mph, to a modern Honda Accord. Sure, some people will have the equivalent of sportscars, but the real benefit of the Honda Accord over the Model T isn’t that it goes faster or holds more cargo, it’s that it’s an order of magnitude more reliable, an order of magnitude safer, and an order of magnitude more comfortable. But it still exists just to haul your body from point A to point B. As for machine intelligence, well, there aren’t any prospects for strong AI any time soon, and we have no reason to hope we’ll make any progress. If we do get a strong AI, it will come as a shock. So we could get something tomorrow, but we have no reason to suspect anything tomorrow. But the improvements in weak AI are not to be sneered at. Just Google itself is a huge achievement. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exponential-growth-of-technology-and-the-singularity/545608/39 "2010-07-06T19:09:06Z")
> [@enigmatic](#): > > (have you checked the new brain implant research stuff :eek:). Which new brain implant research stuff are you talking about? ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2010, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exponential-growth-of-technology-and-the-singularity/545608/40 "2010-07-06T19:12:08Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I’m sure we will one day reach the point where machines are as intelligent, or more intelligent than humans . “Both a person and and a computer can win a game of chess… But only the person will enjoy it.” (wisdom printed on a cheap paper placemat at a Chinese restaurant) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exponential-growth-of-technology-and-the-singularity/545608.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/exponential-growth-of-technology-and-the-singularity/545608.md?page=3)