1998
Selekoa’s 43 records dated 1998, in date order, grouped by topic.
Selective: what the records hold, not a history of the year.
How this page is made
- Each record keeps the kind of date its source gives: an event, a publication, an announcement, an effective date, a revision, a signature, a snapshot, or the start or end of an interval. A snapshot is one dated report of a state.
- A record dated only to a month sits under that month, before the records dated to a day. A record dated only to the year sits under the year, before the months. No day or month is added.
- An announcement records what a party stated. It does not show that anything was done, built or paid for.
- Dates a party states for a year are listed apart, after the records: targets, deadlines and terms, and dates stated in passing, such as a reported start of operation. So is a record’s own date that falls after its sources were last checked, such as a law’s date of effect. A stated date given only in words, with no year, is not listed.
- Records with an unknown date are not listed. A record with an interval appears in the year it starts and in the year it ends, or once, with both dates, when both fall in one year.
- Each provision of a text is a record of its own. Provisions sharing a text and a date are shown here as one entry, with their number, and listed on the text’s page; a contested or unresolved one is listed here on its own. The counts on this page include each provision record.
- The page is generated from the records, with no selection or framing by an editor. Coverage is uneven across years and topics: a year or topic with few records may be one the records barely cover.
Ideas & lineages 43 records
Dated to 1998 only
· publication · dated to the year
“Singularity Meets Economy (Comments on Vinge’s Singularity)” (1998) credits Max More as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the year
Max More’s comment says that Vinge, like Good, expects an immediate intelligence explosion leading to a total transformation of the world, doubts both assumptions, and finds a move straight from human-level AI to drastically superintelligent thinkers doubtful. Recorded as contesting the proposition “Intelligence explosion”. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the year
Max More’s comment says that Vinge, like Good, expects an immediate intelligence explosion leading to a total transformation of the world, doubts both assumptions, and finds a move straight from human-level AI to drastically superintelligent thinkers doubtful. Recorded as contesting the proposition “Fast or hard takeoff”. Evidence ↗
June 1998
· publication · dated to the month
“Is a Singularity Just Around the Corner? What it takes to get explosive economic growth” (1998-06) credits Robin Hanson as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the month
Hanson, “Is a Singularity Just Around the Corner? What it takes to get explosive economic growth” (1998-06) bears on E01. Hanson opens his journal article by reporting the singularity as others' speculation and recasting it as a question about growth rates. Hanson's bottleneck argument against a technology-driven sudden growth explosion. Evidence ↗Hanson, Is a Singularity Just Around the Corner (1998) →Claim page →
· publication · dated to the month
Hanson, “Is a Singularity Just Around the Corner? What it takes to get explosive economic growth” (1998-06) bears on E05. Hanson closes by asking singularity advocates to state their case in economic terms. Evidence ↗Hanson, Is a Singularity Just Around the Corner (1998) →Claim page →
· publication · dated to the month
Hanson, “Is a Singularity Just Around the Corner? What it takes to get explosive economic growth” (1998-06) articulates G03. From historical trends in growth rates he infers that the economy is slowly moving towards a high-growth mode and may reach it in roughly a century and a half. Evidence ↗Hanson, Is a Singularity Just Around the Corner (1998) →Claim page →
· publication · dated to the day
den Otter’s message of 1998-06-23 argues that in the development of AI, as in any economic or arms race, people will sacrifice safety to get an extra edge. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Sandberg’s reply of 1998-06-23 asks whether an above-human-level AI with nasty goals would have a decisive advantage in a world with many human-level AIs, and says its author has seen no believable analysis showing it. Evidence ↗
September 1998
· publication · dated to the day
“Coding a Transhuman AI” (1998-09-07) credits Eliezer S. Yudkowsky as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The mailing-list message “Singularity, Breaker of Dreams” (1998-09-07) is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The mailing-list message “Human AI to superhuman (Re: Max More)” (1998-09-07) is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The mailing-list message “SITE: Coding A Transhuman AI (temp)” (1998-09-07) is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Coding a Transhuman AI defines a seed AI by self-enhancement: smarter AIs become more capable of rewriting their own code, and the fundamental object of a seed AI is to enhance the ability to enhance abilities. Recorded as articulating the proposition “Seed AI”. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Yudkowsky’s message of 1998-09-07, quoting extracts of the author’s page on the Singularity, says that once a seed AI understands its own architecture, it can design new abilities for itself and dramatically optimise old ones. Evidence ↗Yudkowsky, Extropians message of 1998-09-07 (2209) →Claim page →
· publication · dated to the day
Yudkowsky’s announcement of 1998-09-07 gives Coding a Transhuman AI the alternative titles "Notes on the Design of Self-Enhancing Intelligences" and "The Art of Seed AIs". Evidence ↗Yudkowsky, Extropians message of 1998-09-07 (2212) →Claim page →
· publication · dated to the day
Coding a Transhuman AI defines a seed AI by self-enhancement: smarter AIs become more capable of rewriting their own code, and the fundamental object of a seed AI is to enhance the ability to enhance abilities. Recorded as articulating the proposition “Recursive self-improvement”. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Yudkowsky’s message of 1998-09-07 says that more intelligence makes it possible for a seed AI to better optimise its own code. Evidence ↗Yudkowsky, Extropians message of 1998-09-07 (2209) →Claim page →
· publication · dated to the day
Yudkowsky’s announcement of 1998-09-07 gives Coding a Transhuman AI the alternative title "Notes on the Design of Self-Enhancing Intelligences". Evidence ↗Yudkowsky, Extropians message of 1998-09-07 (2212) →Claim page →
· publication · dated to the day
Yudkowsky’s message of 1998-09-07 expects a bottleneck followed by a sharp snap upwards that passes human intelligence rapidly before halting at a level sufficient for rapid infrastructure. Evidence ↗Yudkowsky, Extropians message of 1998-09-07 (2209) →Claim page →
· publication · dated to the day
The Extropians message “Singularity, Breaker of Dreams” (1998-09-07) contests Y19. In the essay-length post 'Singularity, Breaker of Dreams', he recalls that his earlier certainty that superintelligent Powers would be ethical had meant he expected to survive and be upgraded, and says he now accepts that humans might be taken apart for their atoms without posing any threat, simply for efficiency. Evidence ↗Yudkowsky, Extropians message of 1998-09-07 (2171) →Claim page →
· publication · dated to the day
The mailing-list message “Re: Human AI to superhuman (Re: Max More)” (1998-09-08) is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The Extropians message “Re: Human AI to superhuman (Re: Max More)” (1998-09-08) contests Y11. In the September 1998 Extropians debate on the Singularity, replying to Robin Hanson's argument from historical experience, he argues that a self-enhancing seed AI follows a series of sharp breakthroughs and bottlenecks, and that positive feedback makes even smooth curves sharp. Evidence ↗Yudkowsky, Extropians message of 1998-09-08 (2235) →Claim page →
· publication · dated to the day
The mailing-list message “Singularity: Human AI to superhuman” (1998-09-10) is sent under the name Robin Hanson. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Hanson’s message of 1998-09-10 says that history suggests future increases in growth rates, but is far from supporting the sudden "AI gods in a few weeks" scenarios proposed. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The mailing-list message “Re: AI Prime Directive” (1998-09-15) is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The Extropians message “Re: AI Prime Directive” (1998-09-15) contests Y15. Rob Harris argued that an AI not programmed to want or need anything would do nothing spontaneously and so would be safe; he agrees that rebellion is an anthropomorphic stereotype but answers that such an AI would do nothing at all, since every choice requires a goal, so an AI needs at least one goal. Evidence ↗Yudkowsky, Extropians message of 1998-09-15 (2411) →Claim page →
· publication · dated to the day
The Extropians message “Singularity: Vinge responds” (1998-09-16), sent by Robin Hanson, forwards a text that it attributes to Vinge and that is signed “Vernor”. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Vinge’s text, forwarded by Robin Hanson on 1998-09-16, gives a taxonomy in which the singularity does not happen, or "We have a hard takeoff", or "We have a soft takeoff", and rates AI as having a high possibility of a hard takeoff. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The mailing-list message “Re: Singularity: The Moore's Law Argument” (1998-09-18) is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The Extropians message “Re: Singularity: The Moore's Law Argument” (1998-09-18) contests Y10. Replying to Robin Hanson's critique of the 'Moore's Law argument', he concedes that the 'Recursive Moore's Law' section of 'Staring Into the Singularity' was an illustration, not a technical argument, but maintains that technologically enhanced intelligence creates positive feedback. Evidence ↗Yudkowsky, Extropians message of 1998-09-18 (2487) →Claim page →
· publication · dated to the day
The mailing-list message “AI big wins (was: Punctuated Equilibrium Theory)” (1998-09-24) is sent under the name Robin Hanson. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Hanson’s reply of 1998-09-24 to Yudkowsky says there has long been positive feedback, and that neither feedback nor the ability to redesign AI architectures obviously suggests a break with history. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
Hanson’s reply of 1998-09-24 says positive feedback and the ability to redesign AI architectures are long-standing and do not obviously suggest a break with history. Evidence ↗
October 1998
· publication · dated to the month
“Some Skepticism (comment in "A Critical Discussion of Vinge's Singularity Concept")” (1998-10) credits Robin Hanson as its author. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the month
Hanson, “Some Skepticism (comment in "A Critical Discussion of Vinge's Singularity Concept")” (1998-10) bears on E01. Hanson tests a growth-rate reading of Vinge against growth economics: a one-time intelligence gain gives a one-time jump in output, not faster growth. Evidence ↗Hanson, Some Skepticism (comment in "A Critical Discussion of Vinge's Singularity Concept") (1998) →Claim page →
· publication · dated to the month
Hanson, “Some Skepticism (comment in "A Critical Discussion of Vinge's Singularity Concept")” (1998-10) contests E01. Hanson's main objection to an intelligence explosion: diminishing returns to self-improvement, illustrated by schooling and factory learning curves. Evidence ↗Hanson, Some Skepticism (comment in "A Critical Discussion of Vinge's Singularity Concept") (1998) →Claim page →
· publication · dated to the month
Hanson, “Some Skepticism (comment in "A Critical Discussion of Vinge's Singularity Concept")” (1998-10) bears on G01. In a comment that is otherwise sceptical of Vinge's singularity, Hanson accepts that uploads could bring bursts of growth by removing biological limits on reproducing "human" capital. Evidence ↗Hanson, Some Skepticism (comment in "A Critical Discussion of Vinge's Singularity Concept") (1998) →Claim page →
· publication · dated to the month
Hanson, “Some Skepticism (comment in "A Critical Discussion of Vinge's Singularity Concept")” (1998-10) contests G02. Answers the claim that smarter entities produce even smarter entities faster: improvement gets harder as easy gains are used up, as with schooling, factory learning and the Flynn effect. Argues that greater intelligence or speed changes the level of world product once, not its later growth rate. The next sentences grant that growth may rise with the size of the economy, as it has for millennia. Evidence ↗Hanson, Some Skepticism (comment in "A Critical Discussion of Vinge's Singularity Concept") (1998) →Claim page →
· publication · dated to the month
Hanson, “Some Skepticism (comment in "A Critical Discussion of Vinge's Singularity Concept")” (1998-10) bears on G03. Grants that growth rates may rise with the size of the world economy, but treats that as the long-standing accelerating trend, not a reason to expect a sudden break. Evidence ↗Hanson, Some Skepticism (comment in "A Critical Discussion of Vinge's Singularity Concept") (1998) →Claim page →
December 1998
· publication · dated to the day
The mailing-list message “Singularity: AI Morality” (1998-12-06) is sent under the name Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. Evidence ↗· publication · dated to the day
The Extropians message “Singularity: AI Morality” (1998-12-06) contests Y04. Replying to Nick Bostrom, who proposed building a moral system with particular values into an AI, he argues that a simple built-in value such as human survival, with a rigid definition, can have unforeseen and horrific consequences (the passage goes on to describe endless confinement). Evidence ↗Yudkowsky, Extropians message of 1998-12-06 (2153) →Claim page →
· publication · dated to the day
The Extropians message “Singularity: AI Morality” (1998-12-06) contests Y17. In the same reply to Nick Bostrom, who urged taking as many precautions as time allows before a Singularity, he says the forces driving toward it are too large to divert, so trying to slow it would only get us run over. Evidence ↗Yudkowsky, Extropians message of 1998-12-06 (2153) →Claim page →