Using Technology to Deepen Democracy, Using Democracy to Ensure Technology Benefits Us All

Sunday, January 04, 2009

My Unfairness to the Robot Cultists

Those who want to pout and stamp and insist that the superlative and sub(cult)ural technocentrics I sometimes critique here -- the transhumanists, the extropians, the singularitarians, the techno-immortalists, and other assorted techno-utopians -- are not Robot Cultists (at least not all of them! at least not meeeee!), you all have the misfortune of living in a world with teh Google in it.

Just tap tap tap the keyboard e-x-t-r-o-p-i-a-n s-i-n-g-u-l-a-r-t-i-t-a-r-i-a-n t-r-a-n-s-h-u-m-a-n-i-s-t i-m-m-o-r-t-a-l-i-s-m and wade around for a leisurely afternoon, and one will discover soon enough the Robot Cult scenarios, the whole surreal futurological funhouse.

The confident assertions that consciousness will be "uploaded" into cyberspace and right-thinking humans hence immortalized.

The oh so serious calculations of the Robot God odds -- will history terminating artificial superintelligent entities arrive on the scene fifteen years ago? in fifteen years? in thirty years?

The nano-cornucopiast scenarios involving desktop anything boxes or genie-in-a-bottle utility fogs of responsive co-ordinated nanoscale robots. The grim nano-apocaloid scenarios involving planet-eating nanobotic goo arms races (as if there weren't real WMD proliferation and human-caused climate catastrophes to think about).

The suave advocates of my way or the highway "enhancement" -- because "dysfuntional" morphological, cognitive, or lifeway atypicals make Science cry, what are wanted are just the sleek sexy superpowers in the name of Reason.

The would-be techno-immortalists indulging in unironic quite pharaonic and cryonic denialialism -- freeze or glassify freshly dead brain, then simply await eventual revival by benevolent Robot God with angelic nanobot host at its disposal, so simple!

The enraptured geeks pining to take the "red pill" that makes death go away for good, still pining after the techno-magickal Philosopher's Stone that delivers deathlessness and riches beyond the dreams of avarice... but now with a weirdly Ayn Raelian boys-and-their-toys twist of delusive self-congratulatory rugged-individualist entrepreneurialism.

You'll find a little Ponzi Scheming here, a little motivational speaking there, a little salesmanly handwaving to the rubes about overcoming all the limits, man! (ie, There will always be other people around to clean up your messes for you.)

And then, of course, one finds the completely predictable blaming and complaining and self-righteousness that attends the realization that their mediocrity, marginality, and mortality abide ever on whatever the ferocity of True Belief, their "Can-Do" spirit, their devotion to stainless steel scientism... the railing and wailing against the Ignorant Masses, the Undeserving Poor, the Scaredy Cats, the "Deathists," the "Luddites," the Politicians, the Relativists, and on and on and on.

It's all there, you don't have to take my word for it.

Now, those who grumble about my "unfairness" to the superlative and sub(cult)ural futurists need to think this stuff through. Or, of course, they can just continue to ignore it or deny it, you know, whatev.

But, it seems to me that --

Either you think these inanities and insanities I am pointing to are perfectly reasonable -- or perhaps you think they can be PR-smoothed into something that sounds more reasonable without draining them of any unique content worthy of our attention in the first place -- and that it is "unfair" of me to say otherwise.

(And in that case, in my view, you're probably simply exhibiting the True Belief I deride.)

Or you actually mean to deny that the techno-utopians believe these things in the first place -- contrary to their regularly re-iterated published statements on these questions -- and my "unfairness" consists of pointing to what I see as the facts of the matter.

(And in that case, I am quite content for reasonable people to assess these things on their merits.)

So unfair!

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

I would like to see an argument from you, any argument, based upon physical science and not metaphor, for why you believe nanotech and AI are impossible. I'll leave any discussions of uploading for a later date, but I'd truly like to see the basis for your handwaving.

Dale Carrico said...

Because the Robot Cultists are really Serious Scientists, doncha know.

Robin said...

I've worked in AI theory for the last... 14? years, and even I think if such a thing is possible, it's not possible by any of the current research projects presently underway. And I've explained in detail, in publication, what a positive research project would have to look like - including full bodies, and a recognition that we still don't have MOST of the picture of how our OWN minds work, so... well, we might as well be trying to build artificial gods while we're at it. For now, at least.

However, in response to "Anonymous" - I'd like to see an argument based on serious science (and not metaphor) that says there aren't unicorns living in unexplored pockets of the South American rainforests.

Anonymous said...

Whether or not they are serious isn't the point. You yourself frequently throw around the word "impossible" in your criticism, but you don't base that statement on anything but metaphor and narrative tropes. I reality, the world cares as little for your narrative as it does for theirs. So while I will certainly concede that your so-called Robot Cultists have serious problems in their personal philosophy, and that you've done a fair job of criticizing their social arguments, I don't think that is a sufficient rebuttal for their technological arguments.

Anonymous said...

Oh noes. Its not like researchers could quite easily give these minds bodies, either real or simulated. Oh wait, many existing projects already do that.

But more than that, there are quite a few research projects working on simulating larger and larger mammal brains. There's a 1/20th human brain being simulated by one group, and I think it's IBM heading after a kitten. These are merely problems of scale, problems of "how many neurons can you simulate?" These are the sorts of things computers are quite good at.

That is, unless you are a secret dualist? Do you hold on to some hope that qualia will jump out and make your life special and unique? Are neurons magic? If they are, then you are now in the position of defending a dualist position quite as silly as those you attack.

But suppose they are magic? Well, then we'll just build brains out of, well, brains. The biochemists and neurologists aren't slouching about, and there are already plenty of interesting hybrid silicon/neuron systems.

So yeah, I think you fail to make any reasonable argument. Which is too bad, because there are serious problems with the transhumanist agenda, and I think you ill prepare the world by waving your hands and saying "don't worry, they'll never pull any of it off".

Dale Carrico said...

The Robot Cultists are not making "technological" arguments, if by this term you mean arguments drained of social, narrative, metaphorical content.

There is no way past the conceptual impasse of a would-be immortalization of a life that is ineradicably vulnerable, metabolic, finite in being a life lived. There is no way past the conceptual impasse of a would-be digitization and/or superintelligification of a consciousness that is ineradicably embodied, selective, social in being a consciousness in the world. There is no way past the conceptual impasse of a would-be supercession via superabundance (whether the techno-utopian figuration is via plastic, virtuality, or drextech) of a history that is ineradicably the ongoing history of social struggle among a diversity of peers who share the world.

Robot Cultists don't know what they are talking about, and I mean this quite literally, at a level that is actually catastrophic to the sense and force of their aspirations and descriptions.

These Robot Cultists are no more arbiters of technical and technodevelopmental fact than are theologians who would peddle their own palpable incoherencies through the conjuration of an old bearded man in a stone chair, only, you know, uh, bigger, all the better to distract or derange those who happen to notice that none of the words they are using to "argue" for their beliefs -- words like "exist" "power" "benevolence" -- actually remotely apply to the object presumably under discussion, even on their own terms. Robot Cultists don't get to set the terms of the discussion of their views, theirs are not only the actually extraordinary claims at hand, but theirs are the formulations that exhibit their distinction entirely at the level of metaphor, narrative, culture.

There are plenty of qualified scientists around (I'm a rhetorician and sociocultural critic by training and temperament!) who can tell you the problems that bedevil facile biocentric fantasies of effective room temperature presumably replicative and programmable nanoscale manufacturing, or disembodied models of machine intelligence, or dreams of immortality therapies indifferent to the holistic, emergent, combinatorial complexities of actual senescence, you know, all the sloppy real-world complexities that poor muzzy aesthetical humanists like me can't even fathom as compared to the hard-nosed he-men of scientistic (note the st, not f) reductionism who interminably get things wrong while the rest of the world has to clean up after them over and over again.

Look, to be as clear as I can here, in my view superlativity has nothing to distinguish it but its narrative, figurative, rhetorical, and ethnographic content. That stuff is its substance in my account. My training in rhetoric actually suits me perfectly to criticize superlativity to the extent that I am right in this view. To deny the substance and pretend instead that Robot Cultists are proposing serious research programs is to completely miss the point as far as I'm concerned (although it isn't exactly difficult to see why the True Believers would much prefer that conversational gambit).

I certainly have no quarrel with technical scientists who enjoy exposing the particular misconceptions and aporiae that bedevil the Robot Cultists -- I truly enjoy such exposes, hell, I can usually even follow them well enough -- but these are hardly the only critiques of superlativity that are in point, and indeed I disagree that they are directed at the heart of the matter, contenting themselves instead with perfectly edifying but finally inessential nibbling around the edges of superlativity in my view.

Clearly, ymmv. That, too, is fine with me.

Dale Carrico said...

bodies, either real or simulated

And I'm the "hand-waver." Mm-hm.

[T]here are serious problems with the transhumanist agenda, and I think you ill prepare the world by waving your hands and saying "don't worry, they'll never pull any of it off."

There are indeed serious problems with "liberal" eugenic formulations that undermine consent in non-normativizing medical practices, there are serious problems with budgetary priorities that foreground futurological existential risks and propose corporate-militarist geoengineering solutions over proximate risks, local policing, and p2p formations, there are serious problems with elitists who deploy "accelerating change" rhetoric to justify circumventions of democratic deliberation and elites-know-best policy in favor of incumbent interests, and since I do think transhumanists function as an extreme rhetorical frontier-space for trying out the frames, figures, and formulations on the basis of which these seriously problematic eventually get disseminated into mainstream discourse I agree that one should take them seriously. And of course I do. By focusing precisely where they do their mischief -- at the level of rhetoric.

If, as I fear, what you mean to imply instead when you speak of the "serious problems with the trasnhumanist agenda" is that a few Robot Cultists are really and for true gonna code a superintelligent history-ending Robot God or clone a designer sooper-baby army, and we need to "prepare the world" for this sort of thing before it's too late, well, then, you'll forgive me, but I think it is you who needs to get serious and not me, babycakes.

Robin said...

Oh noes. Its not like researchers could quite easily give these minds bodies, either real or simulated. Oh wait, many existing projects already do that.

I'm trying not to laugh at this. I drew a picture of a fire in crayon. Does that mean I have simulated fire? HAY FOLKS, I HAVE A SERIOUS RESEARCH PROJECT THAT WILL CHANGE THE NATURE OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN MY NEW SIMULATED FIRE.

The dualist argument you're attacking is the position you HOLD if you believe thought can be recreated in the void - if it's pure computation, then what the hell do we even NEED bodies for?

I see why Dale just points and laughs and calls names when these are the sorts of understandings (for lack of a better word) that you people have of science. The human body doesn't HAPPEN to have a mind. The body is the fundamental piece of hardware that makes OUR SORTS of minds at all possible. If you can't see that computation in the void that just HAPPENS to be instantiated on some machine or other is the same thing as dualism of mind and body, then you really should probably go back to Philosophy 101, Biology 101, and throw in a Critical Thinking course while you're at it.

It's hard to engage anyone in serious discussions of logical and physical possibility when they live in a fundamentally different world than I do. It's like trying to explain why I have absolutely no reason to believe there's a white guy with a long beard sitting on a cloud judging my every move right now. You jump into physiology and philosophy as though you've read a few popular science books and now you're ready to take over the world.

I don't keep up on all the comments here as much as I used to, but damn. If Dale doesn't drink heavily after reading this stuff, it's a miracle.

Dale Carrico said...

Excuse to drink heavily -- just one more reason to blog more.