A Scientist Says Humans Will Reach the Singularity Within 20 Years
Here's what you'll learn when you read this story:
Futurists have long debated the arrival of the singularity, when human and artificial intelligence will merge, a concept borrowed from the world of quantum physics.
American computer scientist and futurist Ray Kurzweil has long argued that the singularity would likely occur around the middle of the 21st century, and with the rise of AI, his predictions are gaining more credence.
In his book, The Singularity is Nearer, Kurzweil doubles down on those predictions and details how humanity's intelligence will increase a millionfold via nanobots (among other things).
You don't exactly become a world-renowned futurist by making safe predictions. And while some of these past predictions haven't exactly come to pass (Back to the Future Part II, specifically), these ideas help expand our thoughts on what exactly the future might look like.
And no one makes futuristic predictions quite like Ray Kurzweil.
An American computer scientist-turned-futurist, Kurzweil has long believed that humanity is headed toward what's known as 'the singularity,' when man and machine merge. In 1999, Kurzweil theorized that artificial general intelligence would be achieved once humanity could achieve a technology capable of a trillion calculations per second, which he pegged to occur in 2029.
Experts at the time scoffed at the idea, figuring it'd be at least a century or more, but with Kurzweil's timeline only a few years off—and talk of AGI spreading—that decades-old prediction is beginning to loom large.
Get the Issue
Get the Issue
Get the Issue
Get the Issue
Get the Issue
Get the Issue
Get the IssueGet the Issue
Get the Issue
In his 2024 book, The Singularity is Nearer (a play on his 2005 book of the same name minus an 'er'), Kurzweil doubles down on these ideas in the modern era of artificial intelligence. Not only is he "sticking with [his] five years' prediction, as he said in a TED Talk, Kurzweil also believes that humans will achieve a millionfold intelligence by 2045, aided by brain interfaces formed with nanobots non-invasively inserted into our capillaries.
'We're going to be a combination of our natural intelligence and our cybernetic intelligence,' Kurzweil said in an interview with The Guardian, 'and it's all going to be rolled into one. We are going to expand intelligence a millionfold by 2045, and it is going to deepen our awareness and consciousness.'$13.99 at amazon.com
While this idea subscribes to a merger more akin to physical intervention to bridge the gap between man and machine, other philosophers and AI experts agree that some form of merger is likely inevitable, and in some ways, is already beginning. In July 2024, Oxford's Marcus du Sautoy and Nick Bostrom both expounded on the hopeful and harrowing possibilities of our AI future, and for both of them, a kind of synthesis appeared inevitable.
'I think that we are headed toward a hybrid future,' Sautoy told Popular Mechanics. 'We still believe that we are the only beings with a high level of consciousness. This is part of the whole Copernican journey that we are not unique. We're not at the center.'
Of course, this 'Brave New World' of a hybrid AI-human existence brings with it a plethora of issues both political and personal. What will humans do for jobs? Could we possibly live forever? Would that change the very idea of what it means to be human?
Kurzweil, like many other futurists, is relatively optimistic on this front. In that same interview with The Guardian, Kurzweil highlights the idea of a Universal Basic Income as a necessity rather than a fringe idea currently supported in more progressive circles, and AI will bring unprecedented advancements in medicine, meaning the very idea of immortality isn't out of the realm of possibility.
'In the early 2030s we can expect to reach longevity escape velocity where every year of life we lose through aging we get back from scientific progress,' Kurzweil told The Guardian. 'And as we move past that, we'll actually get back more years. It isn't a solid guarantee of living forever—there are still accidents—but your probability of dying won't increase year to year.'
Just like Back to the Future Part II predicted flying cars, so too could these technology-fueled utopias crumble to dust as these dates inch closer and closer. But 25 years ago, Kurzweil predicted we'd be rapidly approaching a major moment in humanity's technological history at the tail end of this decade.
Currently, no evidence suggests the contrary.
Get the Guide
Get the Guide
Get the Guide
Get the Guide
Get the Guide
You Might Also Like
The Do's and Don'ts of Using Painter's Tape
The Best Portable BBQ Grills for Cooking Anywhere
Can a Smart Watch Prolong Your Life?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TechCrunch
28 minutes ago
- TechCrunch
Could Google's Veo 3 be the start of playable world models?
Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google's AI research organization DeepMind, appeared to suggest Tuesday evening that Veo 3, Google's latest video-generating model, could potentially be used for video games. In response to a post on X beseeching Google to 'let me play a video game of my veo 3 videos already,' and asking, 'playable world models wen?' Hassabis responded, 'now wouldn't that be something.' On Wednesday morning, Logan Kilpatrick, lead product for Google's AI Studio and Gemini API, chimed in with a reply: '🤐🤐🤐🤐' Both posts from the Google executives are little more than playful suggestions, and a Google spokesperson told TechCrunch the company had nothing to share at the moment. But building playable world models isn't outside the realm of possibilities for the tech giant. now wouldn't that be something… — Demis Hassabis (@demishassabis) July 2, 2025 World models are different from video generation models. The former simulates the dynamics of a real-world environment, which lets agents predict how the world will evolve in response to their actions. Video gen models synthesize realistic video sequences. Google has plans to turn its multimodal foundation model, Gemini 2.5 Pro, into a world model that simulates aspects of the human brain. In December, DeepMind unveiled Genie 2, a model that can generate an 'endless' variety of playable worlds. The following month, we reported that Google was forming a new team to work on AI models that can simulate the real world. Others are working on building world models — most notably, AI pioneer Fei-Fei Li. Li came out of stealth last year with World Labs, a startup that has built its own AI system that generates video game-like, 3D scenes from a single image. Techcrunch event Save $450 on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | REGISTER NOW Veo 3, which is still in public preview, can create video as well as audio to go along with clips — anything from speech to soundtracks. While Veo 3 creates realistic movements by simulating real-world physics, it isn't quite a world model yet. Instead, it could be used for cinematic storytelling in games, like cutscenes, trailers, and narrative prototyping The model is also still a 'passive output' generative model, and it (or a future Veo generation) would need to shift to a simulator that's more active, interactive, and predictive. But the real challenge with video game production isn't just impressive visuals; it's real-time, consistent, and controllable simulation. That's why it might make sense to see Google take a hybrid approach that leverages Veo and Genie in the future, should it pursue video game or playable world development. Google could find itself competing with Microsoft, Scenario, Runway, Pika and, eventually, OpenAI's video-generating model Sora. Given Google's planned moves in the world models space and its reputation for using its deep pockets and distribution muscle to steamroll rivals, competitors in this space would be wise to keep a close watch.
Android Authority
40 minutes ago
- Android Authority
Last Chance: Get a new phone for $1,000 off on any Verizon myPlan account, no trade-in
Edgar Cervantes / Android Authority TL;DR Verizon is offering $1,000 off any device on a myPlan account — including entry-level plans — without a trade-in, but you must add a new BYOD line and claim the offer in-store. The new line is free for 36 months, but you'll still pay around $7–$10 a month in taxes and fees. The deal is a great fit for those who need both a device upgrade and a new line that can be used with their old device, but may not make sense if you have no use for an extra line. T-Mobile has been stealing Big Red's thunder for a while now, but a recent, independently backed report claims that the Uncarrier has officially dethroned Verizon as the best network in the US. For its part, Verizon has been working hard to retain existing customers and attract new ones through a variety of customer service improvements, free swag like concert tickets and gift cards, and some impressive promotions — including a free line for 36 months for select customers. Another standout promo is the ability to get $1,000 off a new phone on any Verizon myPlan account, including the entry-level Welcome tier, all with no trade-in required. Considering how rare this kind of offer is for lower-tier plans, it's a heck of a deal. That said, this deal is about to expire. Of course, there are a few small catches. While the new device can be applied to any myPlan account, you'll need to add a new BYOD line. The new line is actually free for the next 36 months, though you will still need to pay taxes and fees, which typically come out to around $7–$10 a month. The other catch is that this offer is only available in-store, so you'll have to visit your nearest Verizon retail location. Is this deal really worth it? Let's be honest, Verizon isn't doing this out of kindness. With T-Mobile on its heels, it is losing subscribers, and a healthy influx of line activations is something it can use to bolster its numbers for its investors. Still, if you need to upgrade a device and want a secondary line for a family member—like a child or grandparent—this could be a great deal. You could use the $1,000 credit for your own upgrade and then give your old phone to the new BYOD line. But what if you just want the $1,000 credit and have no need for a secondary line? Even if the line fees and taxes are only $7 a month, you'd still be paying $252 over 36 months for a line you might not use. Still, you'd be saving about $748 in total, which could be worth it for some. I'll admit, my household considered this promo, but for us, it made more sense to finish paying off our current phones and leave Verizon before any further price hikes. Ultimately, whether you should consider this promotion comes down to whether or not you want to further tie yourself to Verizon. Got a tip? Talk to us! Email our staff at Email our staff at news@ . You can stay anonymous or get credit for the info, it's your choice.
Medscape
42 minutes ago
- Medscape
Chelation Therapy for Heart Disease? The Hype Doesn't Hold
This transcript has been edited for clarity. If you're like me, you use social media to follow dog accounts because the dogs are all very good boys. If you surf the dark corners of the internet where people with no medical training dole out medical advice without any qualifications, then you may have heard someone talk about heavy metals — and no, I don't mean the music. Heavy metals — things like mercury, lead, arsenic, and iron — supposedly cause everything from heart disease to autism. Now, you might be saying to yourself, 'Wait a second, lead poisoning isn't good for you. I learned that in medical school.' You are right, but the problem here is that people are using this factoid to push chelation therapy on an unsuspecting public. Now, if you don't know, chelation therapy is a medical procedure where you remove heavy metals from the body. This is obviously useful in cases of acute lead poisoning, for example. It isn't going to cure autism, and it's certainly not going to reduce your cardiovascular risk. However, about a decade ago, the TACT trial suggested that it there were problems with this study, such as a high dropout rate, maybe blinding failed, and numerous interim analysis. To make a long story short, even with all these caveats, the benefit was mainly limited to people with diabetes. A confirmatory follow-up study was planned. TACT2 was supposed to settle this issue definitively, and it was negative. If someone tries to sell you chelation therapy, don't buy it. It doesn't prevent heart disease, it doesn't treat autism, and it's potentially dangerous. It took over a decade and how many millions of dollars for us to figure it out, but at least it's done now. For Medscape, I'm Dr Christopher Labos.
