Singularity University – Am I Missing Something?
Have you heard of the “Singularity University”? No? I hadn’t either, until today, when I saw that Google is funding it. I headed over to the Singularity University web-site, to have a look. Now, is it just me, or does this whole thing seem a little peculiar? I’m not clear exactly what this new “university” is going to do. The web-site, has an FAQ. Here’s a small, but key part:
Will SU (Singularity University) be conducting research?
The GSP and Executive Programs will not conduct traditional research.
That is a quite extraordinary statement. I would assert strongly that if a university does not conduct research, then it is simply not a university (at least, it’s not a very good one). For one thing, research is a core part of what a university is, or should be about; and for another, if the members of the university aren’t engaged in cutting edge research, then they won’t understand the state-of-the-art. You can’t simply learn about the cutting-edge from a book or a scientific journal, you actually have to be doing research yourself: firstly to properly understand the state-of-the-art; and secondly, to have good ideas about advancing it.
Perhaps it would have been better if they hadn’t called themselves a university. However, let’s forgive them their choice of name. If they’re not doing research, what is it exactly that they will do? Again, from the FAQ:
One could imagine, for example, that issues such as global poverty, hunger, climate crisis could be studied from an interdisciplinary standpoint where the power of artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, genomics, etc are brought to bare in a cooperate fashion…
Really? Using “AI, nanotechnology, genomics etc” co-operatively, you say? What does that mean? These words tell me almost nothing, and they rang some alarm bells when I read them.
Now, to be clear… I’m not saying that multidisciplinary research isn’t hugely important. Quite the opposite – I believe it’s massively important. Research operating at the interfaces of major scientific disciplines and technologies has the potential to yield huge benefits in tackling difficult problems. One of my companies spends much of its time engaged in just such multidisciplinary research, aimed at developing new ways of finding drugs to treat human disease. In our work, we combine physics, chemistry and biology with robotics, electronics, mechanical engineering, software and informatics. I spent years at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge in ground-breaking multidisciplinary research centres that pioneered modern, interdisciplinary research at the interface of chemistry and biology. The point is – not only do I believe multidisciplinary research is important from a theoretical “big-picture” perspective, I’ve spent a lot of time doing it. So, if what Singularity University is planning to do is unclear to me, I suspect it must be unclear to a lot of people.
I can’t put my finger on exactly on what the origins of the alarm bells were that rang when I was skimming their web-site. I think it might be something to do with the fact their explanation of what they intend to do not only isn’t clear, but also seems somewhat old-fashioned. The language they use is full of buzzwords that were hot more than a decade ago. Isn’t that a little strange for an organization that aims to be all about futurology, “exponentially advancing technologies”, and “preparing humanity for accelerating technological change”?
But enough rambling – I just don’t get what it is they’re going to be actually doing that’s of tangible value. My concern is that if they’re not deeply engaged in the kind of multidiscinplary research they’re interested in, then the ideas they come up with may be flawed and/or superficial. Have I missed something? I easily might have – I’ve only given their web-site a quick look. I’d be happy to hear that what they’re planning will actually be a major contribution to humanity…
nanotürkiye wrote:
I think what this “university” will be like an extended TED conference. People all around world will talk about their ideas and inspire students. Aim is not researching something, aim is exchanging ideas.
Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 7:59 pm ¶
Asam Bashir wrote:
Yes agree, using the term University is confusing when there is no active research, but thought the organisation is more about bringing awareness and teaching general skills like horizon scanning – there is a political element to the ’singularity’ as well as the scientific – it’s hip among the neo-cons and Kurzweil had a favorable ear in Bush administration.
They might have been better off creating a department or institute within an existing University like Oxford has done,
http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/
Future of humanity still sounds a bit cheesy, but at least it’s clear to understand it’s a philosophical consideration of the possibilities.
We do need these discussions to be happening now though, issues surrounding human augmentation and definition of it’s limits need public consultation and understanding of the issues involved.
Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 8:49 pm ¶
simon wrote:
@nanotürkiye – Yes, right now, at best, it sounds like a talking shop. To me, $25,000 for a ten week taught course at an organization with no reputation to speak of sounds expensive. I hope the students that attend think they’re getting value for money. At $25K for ten weeks, pro rata, it looks to be about twice the price of going to grad school at Harvard or MIT (which, of course, have strong international reputations).
In my opinion, the SU needs to do more work on its value proposition. I don’t find it credible at the moment. That’s not to say it can’t be credible in the future. Right now, though, the content they’ve put out looks pretty weak intellectually. IMHO, they also have some work to do, simply to overcome negative perceptions that will come from their decision to misappropriate the word “university”. Rightly or wrongly, that makes them look as though they’re trying to make people believe they’re something they’re not.
Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 9:12 pm ¶
simon wrote:
@Asam
I don’t think they’d get away with being part of any serious university if they don’t do research. For example, the guys at the FHI at Oxford have to do research:
http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/research.html
BTW – speaking of human augmentation, did you know that, already, more than 10% of US citizens are cyborgs? That is, if you count hip-replacements and implanted RFID chips as augmentation… which I don’t
I’m not sure how urgent the ethical debate is – I suspect the technology has a long way to go before the ethical issues will really hit. For example, you can’t really interface electronic components to humans in the true spirit of “augmentation” yet – and the research is still pretty early e.g.
http://www.nanoscience.cam.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68&Itemid=85
Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 9:24 pm ¶
Tim wrote:
I agree with the idea of starting a program in an existing university. You’d think if Google is involved their first choice would be Stanford. The founders went there and a huge percentage of Stanford grads work at Google.
Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 10:14 pm ¶
Asam Bashir wrote:
Sure, wearing spectacles is an augmentation so it’s nothing new, but also it’s not just about interfacing electronic components, a debate on cognitive enhancement is something we need to think about now,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7223/full/456702a.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7229/ p532-533
Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 10:20 pm ¶
simon wrote:
Yes – you’re absolutely right – issues to do with cognitive enhancement are hitting right now, and it’s a topic absolutely ripe for public debate. Ethical issues abound.. Should use of drugs with “cognitive enhancement” benefits be allowed/encouraged/banned? Should research into the discovery and development of new cognitive enhancement drugs be allowed/encouraged/banned? Etc. etc. etc…
Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 10:37 pm ¶
Prokofy Neva wrote:
It would hardly be ethical to leave the ethical debate for “later” when the technology is already in place.
This isn’t a real university; it’s not only not a place of objective science-based research; it’s a cult. There is no critical debate.
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2009/07/boycott-slcc-fight-the-singularity-bring-the-pluralarity.html
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2009/07/why-singularism-is-fascism.html
Aging men who want to be gods, with no belief in any established religion, putting their faith in expensive secular snakeoil cures for long or eternal life.
A very old story.
Posted 06 Jul 2009 at 6:17 am ¶