My understanding of the singularity is when artificial intelligence becomes more intelligence than humans.This will be achieved through machine learning where an; algorithm, neural network ? Exponential betters itself. So from that point on in near future after that we should predict that there will be artificial intelligence capable of answering any question. How to travel the fastest...Blueprints for spacecrafts...Drugs for medicine...Efficiency and advancements that will change the human condition.The singularity is predicted 2040s or 2030. All be it a couple of years later down to exponential growth in knowledge.So if what I'm saying is right I should be seeing crazy hype and news coverage as well as advancements but I don't. I don't understand what is wrong with the idea that the AI will be capable of omniscience. So can it ?Is there something preventing it ?I don't see how so logically.As my philosophy has been that research in all the scientific fields are long and expensive. The prospect of a AI that could perform research at fractional cost and time is the way to go. I hope to work in a field that works at achieving singularity and so will in turn change the world. With the ideas and discoveries it will have. And where does artificial consciousness come in to play in the singularity 
The Singularity and future of civilisation
machine learning;philosophy;singularity;cognitive science
I quite like your outlook, and without getting into the details of how a singularity may be effected which is covered in numerous other questions, or how consciousness and omniscience come into play because consciousness and omniscience are not requirements, I will instead direct you to two key philosophers:Phillip K. Dick, for whom the central theme in his famous 1968 book on AI is empathy.  (If you haven't read it, I'm not posting a spoiler, but will only say the plot is driven by the concept of Evolutionary Game Theory which was formalized just 5 years later.) John Nash, and in particular, the concept of the Nash Equilibrium. (Nash could be said to have mathematically demonstrated that being a douchebag is not an optimal strategy.  His proof can be used to explain why nuclear dtente actually worked, which was counter to the expectation of Von Neumann.) So when people go nuts, focusing on the Skynet mythos under which machines rise up to destroy us, I have to wonder if they're simply not as smart as Nash or as profound as Dick, which might explain their lack of emphasis on what can be called the Electric Sheep paradigm.