Video: Deconstructing the deceptions of the Singularity University

I will attempt to deconstruct Singularity University’s name, business model, strategic context, mission statement and accomplishments, organizational structure and their global plan. Singularity University’s Business Model in 5 words: Create scarcity to sell abundance. …And charge an arm and a leg for it…

Nikolay Danaylov deconstructs the claim of SU.

Worth watching and reading the full transcript here.

The introduction reads:

“Singularity University is not about the singularity and is not even a university. It is not about abundance and is not an exponential organization.

Then what is Singularity University about?!

Those are the claims I made and the questions I asked, and tried to address, during my recent presentation at a local meetup organized by Singularity University in the Netherlands.”

But here is the radical conclusion:

“What is SU all about?!

Well, humor me with this absolutely crazy and totally outlandish hypothesis:

Singularity University is a child of silicon valley. And silicon valley is about one thing: start a business, build it up and sell it. In other words Silicon Valley is about IPO’s. It is about taking companies public. And, the strategic drift that I have been getting based on all the observable changes and what’s been happening for the past few years is that Singularity University follows that mold and is being built up and groomed with the idea to eventually be sold to someone like Google, for example.

So, ultimately, Singularity University is about selling to the highest bidder. Most likely Google.”

Watch the video here:

1 Comment

Ken austin December 8, 2015 at 11:09 pm

See also comments on Quora under SINGULARITY. The premiss offered by Nikolay does not hold up because it applies first order thinking to a second order problem. Starting in the Valley was in part convienience, in part NASA-cool (and cheap) and in part a right decision to “take the innovation culture gift”.

Money applies because it remains the mechanism for value exchange. People don’t trust things which are free. Nikolay is right in his observation that SU uses scarcity to sell abundance; again to me an example of “taking the gift”. It is an ancient sales technique. It is difficult to get brains/souls to think otherwise. Is SU accountable for changing the nature of perceived value before it acts?

To the extent that SU creates a globally connected set of open minded and resourced brains with wills to act, it creates a pool of value. By my read, SU uses the material in front of it to create connected brains fitting a future, post industrial, post capital era….it does so during the rapid decline of those eras….where is the fallacy? Where is the “no clothes” delusion and revelation?

Would i be wrong to use river stones and clay to build my home if steel and concrete were not abundant?

Is SU wrong to spread optimism and hope for a better world and also build wealth, in a world where wealth is still valued, while it also builds an amorphous self growing planetary network of unknown but assumed positive value?

Were i Google in 5-20 years, i would not need to buy SU. I would “take the gift” and let it pay to expand my influence. I’m not sure where the money is. Its more about connecting and acting.

I’m certain that real world logistics have tempered some early SU euphoria. I’m also certain that the founders have an eye on the long ball, executing SU as an ExO with intent.

I’m wondering where the failure is. I’m trying to name the presumed illusion.

1 Comment →

Ken austin December 8, 2015 at 11:09 pm
See also comments on Quora under SINGULARITY. The premiss offered by Nikolay does not hold up because it applies first order thinking to a second order problem. Starting in the Valley was in part convienience, in part NASA-cool (and cheap) and in part a right decision to “take the innovation culture gift”.
Money applies because it remains the mechanism for value exchange. People don’t trust things which are free. Nikolay is right in his observation that SU uses scarcity to sell abundance; again to me an example of “taking the gift”. It is an ancient sales technique. It is difficult to get brains/souls to think otherwise. Is SU accountable for changing the nature of perceived value before it acts?
To the extent that SU creates a globally connected set of open minded and resourced brains with wills to act, it creates a pool of value. By my read, SU uses the material in front of it to create connected brains fitting a future, post industrial, post capital era….it does so during the rapid decline of those eras….where is the fallacy? Where is the “no clothes” delusion and revelation?
Would i be wrong to use river stones and clay to build my home if steel and concrete were not abundant?
Is SU wrong to spread optimism and hope for a better world and also build wealth, in a world where wealth is still valued, while it also builds an amorphous self growing planetary network of unknown but assumed positive value?
Were i Google in 5-20 years, i would not need to buy SU. I would “take the gift” and let it pay to expand my influence. I’m not sure where the money is. Its more about connecting and acting.
I’m certain that real world logistics have tempered some early SU euphoria. I’m also certain that the founders have an eye on the long ball, executing SU as an ExO with intent.
I’m wondering where the failure is. I’m trying to name the presumed illusion.