tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post782758051435017731..comments2023-11-22T01:14:54.298-08:00Comments on amor mundi: Topsy-SuperlativityDale Carricohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-74528348451649722342007-10-05T12:15:00.000-07:002007-10-05T12:15:00.000-07:00> I wish Dale wouldn't keep encouraging unaccredit...> I wish Dale wouldn't keep encouraging unaccredited crack-pots<BR/>> like M.Anissimov. . .<BR/><BR/>Unaccredited, yes. Crackpot, maybe. Misguided, yes IMHO.<BR/>Unarguably talented, though. Incredibly energetic -- does<BR/>Anissimov ever sleep, considering the reams and reams he<BR/>churns out on his blog(s)?<BR/><BR/>> . . .by continuing to give them attention<BR/>> they don't deserve.<BR/><BR/>It's not clear to me that they don't "deserve" attention.<BR/>They don't deserve the uncritical adulation they get from<BR/>some fans (though Anissimov isn't the target for this adulation;<BR/>he's a cheerleader whipping it up and siphoning it off to<BR/>(an)other(s)).<BR/><BR/>This phenomenon certainly deserves critical attention and<BR/>analysis from **somebody**.<BR/><BR/>If SIAI gets big enough -- if somebody like Larry Ellison decides<BR/>to fund them into a Scientology- or Christian-Science-class<BR/>outfit -- then they'll probably end up on Rick Ross's Web site.<BR/><BR/>In the meantime, they deserve somewhat more jaundiced attention<BR/>than their fans are wont to provide, before it becomes legally<BR/>risky to give them such notice!<BR/><BR/>Anissimov, BTW, clearly does not enjoy being the target of<BR/>Dale's debunking. He's a sincere True Believer and proselytizer.<BR/>He responds to the heat so his employer(s) do(es)n't have to bother.<BR/><BR/>> No one is interested in hearing from the self-proclaimed<BR/>> AGI gurus of SIAI.<BR/><BR/>On the contrary. You were once interested enough to participate<BR/>enthusiastically on SL4. I was once interested enough to<BR/>participate enthusiastically on the Extropians'.<BR/><BR/>Other enthusiastic "converts" continue to appear to this<BR/>day (ask Nick Tarleton).<BR/><BR/>> I can't understand why SIAI and co don't just fuck off.<BR/><BR/>You might as well ask the same about the Ayn Rand Institute,<BR/>or the Church of Scientology.jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-59796590661744862692007-10-05T02:59:00.000-07:002007-10-05T02:59:00.000-07:00I wish Dale wouldn't keep encouraging unaccrediate...I wish Dale wouldn't keep encouraging unaccrediated crack-pots like M.Anissimov by continuing to give them attention they don't deserve.<BR/><BR/>No one is interested in hearing from the self-proclaimed AGI gurus of SIAI. I can't understand why SIAI and co don't just fuck off.ZARZUELAZENhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07742429508206464486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-87905484768201241282007-10-04T11:32:00.000-07:002007-10-04T11:32:00.000-07:00Marc Geddes wrote:> There's only a few true cultis...Marc Geddes wrote:<BR/><BR/>> There's only a few true cultists, but unortunately their egos dominate<BR/>> the transhumanist lists, and they've succeeded in bullying or driving<BR/>> their critics out.<BR/><BR/>You mean a few true **gurus**. There are plenty of True Believers<BR/>(defenders of the Faith), which is the other side of the coin.jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-20487481955648956032007-10-04T11:30:00.000-07:002007-10-04T11:30:00.000-07:00Marc Geddes wrote:> 'Singularitarianism' is most d...Marc Geddes wrote:<BR/><BR/>> 'Singularitarianism' is most definitely a cult.<BR/><BR/>Yes, as the word is defined by Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad<BR/>in _The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power_<BR/>http://www.amazon.com/Guru-Papers-Masks-Authoritarian-Power/dp/1883319005<BR/>(This is the best book I've seen about cults.)<BR/><BR/>p. 83:<BR/><BR/>"We define 'cult' as a group where the leader is unchallengeable<BR/>and considered infallible. The term 'guru' is used generically<BR/>for any such leader."jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-47129058630588374852007-10-03T22:52:00.000-07:002007-10-03T22:52:00.000-07:00I don't think 'transhumanism' is a cult, but 'Sing...I don't think 'transhumanism' is a cult, but 'Singularitarianism' is most definitely a cult. There's only a few true cultists, but unortunately their egos dominate the transhumanist lists, and they've succeeded in bullying or driving their critics out.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, it's a terrible mistake to try to take on or argue with a person with border-line psychopathology/narcissim. The Narcissist does not care about anything but his/her own ego and certainly doesn't care who gets hurt or run over in their singular quest for world domination.<BR/><BR/>I live and learn. All you do with cultists is try to ignore them as much as possible, take immediate action against bullying (ie complaints with service providers, police etc) and if all else fails, remove yourself from the situation. Don't attempt to take on psychopaths yourself.ZARZUELAZENhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07742429508206464486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-4809219147313709862007-10-01T10:41:00.000-07:002007-10-01T10:41:00.000-07:00Dale wrote:> [The] influence [of the Superlative T...Dale wrote:<BR/><BR/>> [The] influence [of the Superlative Tech "movement"],<BR/>> I say again, is almost always terrible: substituting<BR/>> oversimplifications and linearities for actual complexities,<BR/>> activating irrational passions that derange critical<BR/>> deliberation, indulging in hype to mobilize the idiotic<BR/>> energies of unsustainable and joyless consumption as<BR/>> well as terrorizing risk discourse to mobilize the<BR/>> authoritarian and acquiescent energies of militarism,<BR/>> endorsing elitist attitudes about people's ability to<BR/>> have a say in the public decisions that affect them,<BR/>> all too often offering up explicit hymns to un(der)interrogated<BR/>> and naturalized notions of progress, innovation, market order<BR/>> as an insult added to the already abundant injury of<BR/>> all these "implicit" props to corporate-militarist neoliberal<BR/>> incumbency.<BR/>> <BR/>> This, of course, is where I work to lodge my primary critique<BR/>> of Superlativity. . .<BR/><BR/>You know, the larger issues here for me (larger than mere "technical"<BR/>issues such as whether or in what form artifical intelligence<BR/>will ever come to pass, interesting as those are) are themselves,<BR/>ironically enough, an outgrowth of the transformation in human interaction<BR/>brought about by the Internet (and the Web). This undoubted social<BR/>revolution -- technologically facilitated by computers but little<BR/>dreamed of when Arthur C. Clarke was imagining HAL 40 years ago<BR/>(but adumbrated almost a century ago by an author who isn't<BR/>generally remembered for his science fiction:<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Machine_Stops) -- has rubbed<BR/>my face in facts about the human social milieu that I might<BR/>otherwise have spent my entire life only distantly aware of.<BR/><BR/>#1 The undoubted existence and breathtaking influence of people<BR/>with what the psychiatrists' Diagnostic and Statistical Manual<BR/>calls Narcissistic Personality Disorder. See, e.g.,<BR/>http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/index.html .<BR/><BR/>Of course such people have always been all around us, in Washington<BR/>and Hollywood particularly (in this country), but distantly compared to the<BR/>unmoderated access to the world's eyes and ears that the Web gives them.<BR/><BR/>The sheer force of personality, the self-confidence (warranted<BR/>or not), the "reality-distortion field" generated by these people is stronger<BR/>than I had previously imagined. "Innocent bystanders" need to be aware<BR/>of the symptoms and effects of this syndrome more than ever in these<BR/>days of the Web.<BR/><BR/>#2 The ease with which a group of like-minded people can be swayed<BR/>by somebody with a huge ego and the gift of gab (somebody from <BR/>behind curtain #1 above) into accreting into a "bubble universe":<BR/>a cult or proto-cult.<BR/><BR/>I never would have imagined that I could ever feel the gravitational<BR/>pull of a cult until I got sucked into the orbit of the on-line<BR/>transhumanists. Again, I knew that such things existed, but<BR/>distantly, and with content that held no interest for me --<BR/>the Scientologists, Bhagwan Rajneesh, Objectivism, Werner Erhard,<BR/>and so on. On-line transhumanism, on the other hand (which I found<BR/>one weekend while Alta Vista'ing -- this was pre-Google ;-> --<BR/>for stuff about Iain Banks' "Culture" novels)<BR/>was right up my alley, and it took me a few years (and a bit<BR/>of painful disillusionment) to perform the research and pattern-recognition<BR/>necessary for me to conclude: yes, this is a cult. The social patterns,<BR/>the dynamics are there; the content is secondary.<BR/><BR/>I came away from this experience with a new humility (and<BR/>even fear) toward the force of True Belief -- the impenetrable<BR/>blindness and hermetically-sealed groupthink of a cozy club<BR/>of fanatics or proto-fanatics (who all the while congratulate<BR/>themselves on being more "rational" than the rest of us).<BR/>It's made me realize just how delicate and elusive genuine rationality<BR/>is.<BR/><BR/>Don't bother quoting Bertrand Russell to such people, though --<BR/>it does no good. ;->jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-907134576216291952007-10-01T09:14:00.000-07:002007-10-01T09:14:00.000-07:00However there are people who call themselves trans...<I>However there are people who call themselves transhumanists (Dr. James Hughes for starters) who are concerned in the here and now and the future and seem to be interested in nitty gritty ethical questions.</I><BR/><BR/>James is a good friend of mine, and my critiques of Superlativity should not be read as criticisms of his work. I don't agree with everything he says, certainly, but James and I have talked through many of these issues together, and I'm much the better for it.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-57579089979412240402007-10-01T07:30:00.000-07:002007-10-01T07:30:00.000-07:00Predictions about the timeline and nature of futur...Predictions about the timeline and nature of future technological developments with respect to AI have a very bad track record. Some very smart people have been very, very wrong about what computing would be like at the turn of the century. This alone should give people pause to be skeptical and open minded about engaging in similar predictions. Interestingly enough most Science Fiction writers themselves (and I've interviewed dozens) are very skeptical of the Singularity, even though they may have a lot of fun writing about them.<BR/><BR/>There's a lot of ethical questions about technology and society that arising right now. The fact that most Singularitarians aren't interested in them is very telling. <BR/><BR/>However there are people who call themselves transhumanists (Dr. James Hughes for starters) who are concerned in the here and now and the future and seem to be interested in nitty gritty ethical questions.<BR/><BR/>I interviewed Dr Hughes for a podcast once and he put a lot of the Singularitarian exuberance down to affluent white guys in their early twenties. It's easy to think you know everything worth knowing when you're 21 but it gets trickier (but not impossible) as you turn 40.jollyspaniardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10999141103840765243noreply@blogger.com