Talk:Superintelligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Speculations or facts

The article as it now stands does not adequately distinguish between verifiable, published facts and the author's own speculations. Statements about the hypothetical capabilities of some future entity, if they cannot be supported by reliable sources, should be deleted. --Russ (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added references - chief among these are several articles by Oxford Based Philospher N.Bostrom. Ray Kurzweil and others. Pictures are my own - fully based on others work.

Note - I'm happy for many things to be deleted - my aim is for this article to serve as a 'base' for others to develop. There's nothing in article that has not been speculated on in the public domain...Kind Regards Wjwillia (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It just does not hold. OK, there was a publicated work that stated "SI may be able to X", and an expert understands that in this field pretty much everything is some kind of speculation. HOWEVER, in Wikipedia most cited sources are NOT speculations. Hence Wikipedia article cannot just keep such tone and repeat "SI may be able to X" after the source, when few links away you've got another article that says "32-bit CPU may be able to address 4 GiB of RAM". This is plainly inappropriate. Any speculations, now being 95% of the article, should be very clearly marked as such, and still sourced as a widely recognized point of view.

Another remark. Too many of the citations are from the primary sources. This is against Wikipedia guideline WP:RS. --Kubanczyk (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a great deal of speculation in this article, which, though supported by references, does not interpret those sources accurately. There is a great deal of uncertainty regarding what the capabilities of a superintelligence may be. Any claims, even cited, should be expressed as "person x has made the claim that SI may be capable of y" which is not the same as "SI may be capable of y". Many speculations on the page also make assumptions, such as that an SI would have massive storage capabilities. An SI would be software. Storage capacity and processing capabilities are likely to be dependant on the hardware which is a separate issue. A non-SI, but massive worldwide computing network would have many of the capabilities ascribed here to an SI. The article assumes a certain implementation of an SI. For the most part it strikes me as being akin to 1920s expectations of "the future". 216.36.186.2 (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

... What the hell is this? All the naming and classification systems (in the graphs) seem arbitrarily constructed and are effectively semantics. This article does not at all present a two-sided analysis of ANY issue. --Alex Rohde April 28th 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.71.84 (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This article seems to have a strong techno-utopian bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.206.244 (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Embarrassing Article

This article is a little embarrassing to read. Where did all the article text come from, and who decided this was a good place to put it? I was going to try to hit the article with a {fact} hammer, but I gave up a third of the way through. The article may need all but a total rewrite. FFLaguna (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother adding templates, most of the content is surely unsalvageable. I've trimmed the most egregious parts already, and when I have a bit more time intend to go at the parts that look like they might contain a few worthwhile sentences or sources. ~~ N (t/c) 01:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, this page is in need of serious cleanup. It is an interesting topic but a lot of what is here is original research and there is significant overlap with other pages such as technological singularity. 216.36.188.184 (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)