The Singularity May Be Near
Roman V. Yampolskiy
Computer Engineering and Computer Science
Speed School of Engineering
University of Louisville
roman.yampolskiy@louisville.edu

Abstract
Toby Walsh in “The Singularity May Never Be Near” gives six arguments to support his point of
view that technological singularity may happen but that it is unlikely. In this paper, we provide
analysis of each one of his arguments and arrive at similar conclusions, but with more weight given
to the “likely to happen” probability.
Keywords: Autogenous intelligence, Bootstrap fallacy; Recursive self-improvement, selfmodifying software, Singularity;

1. Introduction
In February of 2016 Toby Walsh presented his paper “The Singularity May Never Be Near” at
AAAI16 [23], which was archived on February 20, 2016 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.06462). In it,
Walsh analyzes the concept of technological singularity. He does not argue that AI will fail to
achieve super-human intelligence; rather he is suggesting that it may not lead to the runaway
exponential growth. Walsh defends his view via six different arguments.
Almost exactly a year before, on February 23, 2015, Roman Yampolskiy archived his paper “From
Seed AI to Technological Singularity via Recursively Self-Improving Software”[28]
(http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.06512) which was subsequently published as two peer-reviewed papers
at AGI15 [26, 29]. In it, Yampolskiy makes arguments similar to those made by Walsh, but also
considers evidence in favor of intelligence explosion. Yampolskiy’s conclusion is that Singularity
may not happen but leans more toward it happening. In the next section, we present arguments
from the original paper by Yampolskiy mapped to each of the six arguments given by Walsh in
his work.
2. Contrasting Yampolskiy’s and Walsh’s Arguments
To make it easier to contrast arguments derived from On the Limits of Recursively Self-Improving
Artificially Intelligent Systems [28] we use Walsh’s naming of arguments even if our analysis
doesn’t rely on the same example (ex. No dog).
Fast Thinking Dog
Walsh argues: “… speed alone does not bring increased intelligence”, and Yampolskiy says: “In
practice performance of almost any system can be trivially improved by allocation of additional
computational resources such as more memory, higher sensor resolution, faster processor or

greater network bandwidth for access to information. This linear scaling doesn’t fit the definition
of recursive-improvement as the system doesn’t become better at improving itself. To fit the
definition the system would have to engineer a faster type of memory not just purchase more
memory units of the type it already has access to. In general hardware improvements are likely to
speed up the system, while software improvements (novel algorithms) are necessary for
achievement of meta-improvements.” It is clear from the original paper that performance in this
context is the same as intelligence and as most of our intelligence testing tools (IQ tests) are time
based, increased speed would in fact lead to higher Intelligence Quotient, at least in terms of how
we currently access intelligence.
Anthropocentric
Walsh argues: “… that human intelligence is itself nothing special”, and Yampolskiy says: “We
still don’t know the minimum intelligence necessary for commencing the RSI [Recursive SelfImprovement] process, but we can [argue] that it would be on par with human intelligence which
we associate with universal or general intelligence [13], though in principal a sub-human level
system capable of self-improvement can’t be excluded [6]. One may argue that even human level
capability is not enough because we already have programmers (people or their intellectual
equivalence formalized as functions [18] or Human Oracles [24, 25]) who have access to their own
source code (DNA), but who fail to understand how DNA (nature) works to create their
intelligence. This doesn’t even include additional complexity in trying to improve on existing
DNA code or complicating factors presented by the impact of learning environment (nurture) on
development of human intelligence. Worse yet, it is not obvious how much above human ability
an AI needs to be to begin overcoming the “complexity barrier” associated with selfunderstanding.”
Meta-intelligence
Walsh argues: “…strongest arguments against the idea of a technological singularity in my view
is that it confuses intelligence to do a task with the capability to improve your intelligence to do a
task” and cites a quote from Chalmers [6] as an example - “If we produce an AI by machine
learning, it is likely that soon after we will be able to improve the learning algorithm and extend
the learning process, leading to AI+”. Yampolskiy says: “Chalmers [6] uses logic and
mathematical induction to show that if an AI0 system is capable of producing only slightly more
capable AI1 system generalization of that process leads to superintelligent performance in AIn after
n generations. He articulates, that his proof assumes that the proportionality thesis, which states
that increases in intelligence lead to proportionate increases in the capacity to design future
generations of AIs, is true.”
Diminishing returns
Walsh argues: “There is often lots of low hanging fruit at the start, but we then run into great
difficulties to improve after this. … An AI system may be able to improve itself an infinite number
of times, but the extent to which its intelligence changes overall could be bounded.” Yampolskiy
says, “… the law of diminishing returns quickly sets in and after an initial significant improvement
phase, characterized by discovery of “low-hanging fruit”, future improvements are likely to be less
frequent and less significant, producing a Bell curve of valuable changes.”

Limits of intelligence
Walsh argues: “There are many fundamental limits within the universe”, Yampolskiy outlines such
limits in great detail “First of all, any implemented software system relies on hardware for memory,
communication and information processing needs even if we assume that it will take a non-Von
Neumann (quantum) architecture to run such software. This creates strict theoretical limits to
computation, which despite hardware advances predicted by Moore’s law will not be overcome by
any future hardware paradigm. Bremermann [4], Bekenstein [2], Lloyd [12], Anders [16],
Aaronson [1], Shannon [19], Krauss [10], and many others have investigated ultimate limits to
computation in terms of speed, communication and energy consumption with respect to such
factors as speed of light, quantum noise, and gravitational constant.” “In addition to limitations
endemic to hardware, software-related limitations may present even bigger obstacles for RSI
systems. Intelligence is not measured as a standalone value but with respect to the problems it
allows to solve. For many problems such as playing checkers [17] it is possible to completely solve
the problem (provide an optimal solution after considering all possible options) after which no
additional performance improvement would be possible [14].”
Computational complexity
Walsh argues: “… no amount of growth in performance will make undecidable problems
decidable” and Yampolskiy says, “Other problems are known to be unsolvable regardless of level
of intelligence applied to them [22]. Assuming separation of complexity classes (such as P vs NP)
holds [27], it becomes obvious that certain classes of problems will always remain only
approximately solvable and any improvements in solutions will come from additional hardware
resources not higher intelligence.”

3. Response to Walsh’s Arguments
In this section we provide novel analysis of all six arguments presented by Walsh and, via mapping
provided in the previous section, revisit and critically analyze arguments made by Yampolskiy.
Fast Thinking Dog
The argument intuitively makes sense, since nobody ever managed to train a dog to play chess.
However, intuition is no match for a scientific experiment. Animals have successfully been trained
to understand and even use human (sign) language and do some basic math. People with mental
and learning disabilities, who have been long considered a “lost cause”, have been successfully
trained to perform very complex behaviors via alternative teaching methods and longer training
spans. It is entirely possible that if one had thousands of years to train a dog it would learn to play
a decent game of chess, after all it has a neural network very similar to the one used by humans
and deep learning AI. It may be argued, that there is considerable evidence that language and some
other capabilities are functions of specific brain structures that are largely absent from a dog. Thus,
1000s of years of training won't cut it and one would need millions of years of evolution to get a
human-level intelligent dog. However some recent research has documented that people missing
most of their brain could have near normal cognitive capacity [8] and even significant damage to
parts of the brain could be overcome due to neuroplasticity [9] suggesting that brain structures are
much more general. To transfer an analogy to another domain, Intel286 processor is not fast
enough to do life speech recognition, but if you speed it up it is. Until an actual experiment can be
performed on an accurately simulated digital dog, this argument will remain as nothing but
speculation.

Anthropocentric
The reason some experts believe ([3] - page 339; [11] - chapter 3) that human level of intelligence
is special is not because of anthropocentric bias, but because of the Church-Turing Thesis (CTT).
CTT states that a function over natural numbers is computable by a prototypical human being if
and only if it is computable by some Turing Machine (TM), assuming such theoretical human has
infinite computational resources similar to an infinite tape available to a TM. This creates
equivalence between human level intelligence and a Universal Turing Machine, which is a very
special machine in terms of its capabilities. However, it is important to note that the debate
regarding provability of the CTT remains open [20, 5].
Meta-intelligence
If the system is superior to human performance in all domains, as required by definition of
superintelligence, it would also be superior in the domain of engineering/computer science/AI
research. Potentially, it would be capable of improving intelligence of its successor up to any
theoretical/physical limits which might represent an upper bound on optimization power. In other
words, if it is possible to improve intelligence a superintelligent system will do so, but as such
possibility remains a speculation, this is probably the strongest of all presented objections to
intelligence explosion.
Diminishing returns
It is a mathematical fact that many functions, while providing diminishing returns, continue
diverging. For example, harmonic series: 1+ 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5 + … = ∞, which is a highly
counterintuitive result, yet is a proven mathematical fact. Additionally, as the system itself would
be improving it is possible that the discoveries it will make with respect to future improvements
will also improve in terms of their impact on the overall intelligence of the system. So while it is
possible that diminishing returns will be encountered it is just as possible that returns will not be
diminished.
Limits of intelligence
While physical and theoretical limits to intelligence definitely exist they may be far beyond our
capacity to get to them in practice and so will have no impact on our perception of machine
intelligence appearing to be undergoing intelligence explosion. It is also possible that physical
constants are not permanently set, but dynamically changing which has been demonstrated for
some such physical “constants”. It is also possible that the speed of improvement in intelligence
will be below the speed with which some such constants will change. To bring an example from
another domain, our universe can be said to be expending faster than the speed of light, with respect
to distance between some selected regions, so even with travel at maximum theoretical speed (of
light), we will never hit a limit/edge. So, again this is another open questions and limit may or may
not be encountered in the process of self-improvement.
Computational complexity
While it is certainly true that undecidable problems will remain undecidable, it is not a limitation
on intelligence explosion as not a requirement to qualify as superintelligent and plenty of solvable
problems exists at all levels of difficulty. Walsh correctly points out that most limitations
associated with computational complexity are only problems with our current models of

computation and are avoided by switching to different paradigms of computation such as quantum
computing and some, perhaps not yet discovered, implementations of hupercomputation.

4. Conclusions
Careful side-by-side analysis of papers by Walsh and Yampolskiy shows an almost identical set
of arguments against possibility of technological singularity. This level of successful replication
in analysis is an encouraging fact in science and gives additional weight to shared conclusions, but
in this paper we provide novel analysis of Walsh’s/Yampolskiy’s arguments which shows that they
may not be as strong as initially appears. Future productive directions of analysis may concentrate
on a number of inherent advantages, which may permit AI to recursively self-improve [21] and
possibly succeed in this challenging domain: ability to work uninterrupted (no breaks, sleep,
vocation, etc.), omniscience (complete and cross disciplinary knowledge), greater speed and
precision (brain vs processor, human memory vs computer memory), intersystem communication
speed (chemical vs electrical), duplicability (intelligent software can be copied), editability (source
code unlike DNA can be quickly modified), near-optimal rationality (if not relying on heuristics)
[15], advanced communication (ability to share cognitive representations complex concepts), new
cognitive modalities (sensors for source code), ability to analyze low level hardware, ex. individual
registers, addition of hardware (ability to add new memory, processors, etc.) [30]. The debate
regarding possibility of technological singularity will continue. Interested readers are advised to
read the full paper by Yampolskiy [28] as well as a number of excellent relevant chapters in
Singularity Hypothesis [7] which address many arguments not considered in this paper.

Acknowledgements
Author wishes to thank Toby Walsh for encouraging and supporting work on this paper as well as
reviewers who provided feedback on an early draft and by doing so made the arguments presented
in the paper much stronger.

References
[1]

S. Aaronson, Guest column: NP-complete problems and physical reality, ACM Sigact News, 36
(2005), pp. 30-52.
[2] J. D. Bekenstein, Information in the holographic universe, Scientific American, 289 (2003), pp. 5865.
[3] N. Bostrom, Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies, Oxford University Press, 2014.
[4] H. J. Bremermann, Quantum noise and information, Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium
on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 1967, pp. 15-22.
[5] S. Bringsjord and K. Arkoudas, On the Provability, Veracity, and Al-Relevance of the Church—
Turing Thesis, Church's Thesis After 70 Years, 1 (2006), pp. 66.
[6] D. Chalmers, The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 17
(2010), pp. 7-65.
[7] A. H. Eden, J. H. Moor, J. H. Soraker and E. Steinhart, Singularity hypotheses: A scientific and
philosophical assessment, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
[8] L. Feuillet, H. Dufour and J. Pelletier, Brain of a white-collar worker, Lancet (London, England),
370 (2007), pp. 262.
[9] B. B. Johansson, Brain plasticity and stroke rehabilitation The Willis lecture, Stroke, 31 (2000), pp.
223-230.
[10] L. M. Krauss and G. D. Starkman, Universal limits on computation, arXiv preprint astro-ph/0404510
(2004).

[11] R. Kurzweil, M. L. Schneider and M. L. Schneider, The age of intelligent machines, MIT press
Cambridge, 1990.
[12] S. Lloyd, Ultimate Physical Limits to Computation, Nature, 406 (2000), pp. 1047-1054.
[13] R. Loosemore and B. Goertzel, Why an intelligence explosion is probable, Singularity Hypotheses,
Springer, 2012, pp. 83-98.
[14] M.
Mahoney,
Is
there
a
model
for
RSI?,
SL4,
Available
at:
http://www.sl4.org/archive/0806/19028.html, June 20, 2008.
[15] L. Muehlhauser and A. Salamon, Intelligence explosion: Evidence and import, Singularity
Hypotheses, Springer, 2012, pp. 15-42.
[16] A. Sandberg, The physics of information processing superobjects: daily life among the Jupiter brains,
Journal of Evolution and Technology, 5 (1999), pp. 1-34.
[17] J. Schaeffer, N. Burch, Y. Bjornsson, A. Kishimoto, M. Muller, R. Lake, P. Lu and S. Sutphen,
Checkers is Solved, Science, 317(5844) (September 2007), pp. 1518-1522.
[18] D. Shahaf and E. Amir, Towards a theory of AI completeness, 8th International Symposium on
Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning (Commonsense 2007), California, March 26-28,
2007.
[19] C. E. Shannon, A Mathematical Theory of Communication, Bell Systems Technical Journal, 27(3)
(July 1948), pp. 379-423.
[20] P. Smith, An introduction to Gödel's theorems, Cambridge University Press, 2013.
[21] K. Sotala, Advantages of artificial intelligences, uploads, and digital minds, International Journal of
Machine Consciousness, 4 (2012), pp. 275-291.
[22] A. Turing, On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem, Proceedings
of the London Mathematical Society, 2(42) (1936), pp. 230-265.
[23] T. Walsh, The Singularity May Never be Near, 2nd International Workshop on AI, Ethics and Society
(AIEthicsSociety2016). 30th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2016), Phoenix,
Arizona, USA, February 12-13th, 2016.
[24] R. Yampolskiy, Turing Test as a Defining Feature of AI-Completeness, in X.-S. Yang, ed., Artificial
Intelligence, Evolutionary Computing and Metaheuristics, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 317.
[25] R. V. Yampolskiy, AI-Complete, AI-Hard, or AI-Easy–Classification of Problems in AI, The 23rd
Midwest Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science Conference, Cincinnati, OH, USA (2012).
[26] R. V. Yampolskiy, Analysis of Types of Self-Improving Software, Artificial General Intelligence: 8th
International Conference, AGI 2015, AGI 2015, Berlin, Germany, July 22-25, 2015, Proceedings,
9205 (2015), pp. 384.
[27] R. V. Yampolskiy, Construction of an NP Problem with an Exponential Lower Bound, Arxiv preprint
arXiv:1111.0305 (2011).
[28] R. V. Yampolskiy, From Seed AI to Technological Singularity via Recursively Self-Improving
Software, arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.06512 (2015).
[29] R. V. Yampolskiy, On the Limits of Recursively Self-Improving AGI, Artificial General Intelligence:
8th International Conference, AGI 2015, AGI 2015, Berlin, Germany, July 22-25, 2015, Proceedings,
9205 (2015), pp. 394.
[30] E. Yudkowsky, Levels of organization in general intelligence, Artificial general intelligence,
Springer, 2007, pp. 389-501.

