tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post6773434754791181143..comments2023-11-22T01:14:54.298-08:00Comments on amor mundi: io9 Publishes Another High Profile Robot CultistDale Carricohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-58040605893998586012014-02-05T12:25:57.778-08:002014-02-05T12:25:57.778-08:00> Dumb Dvorsky has been stinking up the place f...> Dumb Dvorsky has been stinking up the place for a few years. . .<br />><br />> [T]hese futurist hyperventilations always seem to me rather<br />> weirdly earnest little nothings, missed opportunities for<br />> literary worldbuilding or at least to make a good joke.<br /><br />Oh ye of little faith!<br /><br />http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2013/08/10-mindblowingly-futuristic.html<br />---------------<br />The fog is starting to clear on what we can expect to see<br />within the next twenty years. . .<br /><br />Some of you may complain that I’m being a bit conservative. . .<br /><br />Alright, here’s what we should expect by the year 2033: . . .<br />====<br />jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-70693029116762576702014-02-05T12:14:49.675-08:002014-02-05T12:14:49.675-08:00> you should sit up and pay attention if Chris ...> you should sit up and pay attention if Chris Phoenix<br />> says that distinguished but elderly scientists are making blanket<br />> pronunciations of impossibility *without doing any math*, and without<br />> paying any attention to the math, in a case where math has been done.<br /><br />The Machine Intelligence Research Institute does Math(TM):<br />https://www.causes.com/posts/813771<br /><br />(That certainly looks like Luke Muehlhauser's hair on<br />the right<br />http://b.vimeocdn.com/ts/227/101/227101035_640.jpg<br />but I don't know who the guy on the left is. ;-> )jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-37461260430977482802014-02-05T08:40:05.454-08:002014-02-05T08:40:05.454-08:00> what do these "nanotechnology" carg...> what do these "nanotechnology" cargo cultists have to show us since<br />> the 1980's, apart from unreadable books, useless computer models<br />> and a lot of hand-waving? I mean, seriously, Drexler published another<br />> book last year where he basically doubles down instead of admitting<br />> that he made a mistake 30 years ago, and apologizing for wasting<br />> the time of some bright people who might have accomplished more<br />> with their lives by trying to do real things instead of chasing<br />> the mirage Drexler imagined through his ignorance of chemistry. <br /><br />Worth a look:<br /><br />Why MNT nanomachines won’t work, but there’s still plenty of room at the bottom<br />An Interview with Dr. Richard A.L. Jones<br />http://hplusmagazine.com/2013/11/23/going-soft-on-nanotech/<br /><br />Quote without comment:<br /><br />http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2004-April/005930.html<br />-----------------<br />Science intrinsically requires individual researchers setting their<br />judgment above that of the scientific community. . .<br /><br />The overall rationality of academia is simply not good enough to handle<br />some necessary problems, as the case of Drexler illustrates. Individual<br />humans routinely do better than the academic consensus. . . .<br /><br />Yes, the Way of rationality is difficult to follow. . .<br /><br />Given the lessons of history, you should sit up and pay attention if Chris<br />Phoenix says that distinguished but elderly scientists are making blanket<br />pronunciations of impossibility *without doing any math*, and without<br />paying any attention to the math, in a case where math has been done. If<br />you advocate a blanket acceptance of consensus so blind that I cannot even<br />apply this simple filter - I'm sorry, I just can't see it. It seems I<br />must accept the sky is green, if [the late] Richard Smalley<br />[or Richard Jones] says so.<br /><br />I can do better than that, and so can you."<br />--<br />Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/<br />Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence<br />=====<br /><br />YMMV.<br />jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-53512884400290792632014-02-05T00:16:58.698-08:002014-02-05T00:16:58.698-08:00You are quite right to have rejected techno-immort...You are quite right to have rejected techno-immortalist pseudo-science. Here's hoping you manage to reject the racist pseudo-science to which you still cling. <br /><br />(Readers new to the Moot should read the pieces in the Superlative Summary devoted to Mr, er, "Plus" if they would know to what I refer when I declare this long-time Robot Cultist to be racist and, no, it isn't just the racism of his unfortunate little parting shot. I have a long memory, and for more than the serial failures and interminable cons of Robot Cultists.) Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-92221939719267477512014-02-04T21:40:11.143-08:002014-02-04T21:40:11.143-08:00This transhumanist stuff gets pretty tedious after...This transhumanist stuff gets pretty tedious after awhile, especially because so many transhumanists apparently don't understand what real engineering progress looks like. For example, aeronautical engineers developed the field of real aircraft from propeller-driven biplanes made of wood and cloth to supersonic jets made with advanced alloys in about 30 years. <br /><br />By contrast, what do these "nanotechnology" cargo cultists have to show us since the 1980's, apart from unreadable books, useless computer models and a lot of hand-waving? I mean, seriously, Drexler published another book last year where he basically doubles down instead of admitting that he made a mistake 30 years ago, and apologizing for wasting the time of some bright people who might have accomplished more with their lives by trying to do real things instead of chasing the mirage Drexler imagined through his ignorance of chemistry. <br /><br />And I keep trying to educate transhmanists on why they should stop publishing their nonsensical "immortality" predictions fixed to arbitrary years within this century which fall within current life expectancies, like their current favorite of 2045. Just do the math: Plenty of people alive in 2014 could live another 31 years through natural maturation and aging; they won't mysteriously "become immortal" by surviving to January 1, 2045.<br /><br />Besides, I thought "immortality" would last longer than 31 years. What a gyp!Mark Plushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03859046131830902921noreply@blogger.com