The thing about Peer Review, is the assumption that Peers are upright honest and decent searchers for the truth, if there is such a thing. Then when a Philosopher of the Singularity hits the big time with his assertion that when machines outshine us people in the area of thinking we'll be coming to the end of our time at the top of the food chain, it's worth looking at the man's Peers and raising an eyebrow and asking the question why is his book selling so well. As I understand it the Singularity in this case is when man and machine become one or transcend biology.
Researchers in what they call Artificial Intelligence, or the people actively
employed in making machines think, have their own set of Peers and none of them
are remotely impressed by the Philosopher of Singularity's opinion, they become
like anthropologists and reckon he's a religious nut looking for an end time.
And there's the argument that we people are not much more than tool makers that
replicate ourselves through a process that is not only painful and in some parts
of the world incredibly expensive but often results in the civil courts. So
where does that leave us I wonder.