tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post845944600614077539..comments2023-11-22T01:14:54.298-08:00Comments on amor mundi: This Week's WFS Post Is UpDale Carricohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-983370758167288522012-03-29T16:10:58.573-07:002012-03-29T16:10:58.573-07:00I doubt science studies academics (if that is who ...I doubt science studies academics (if that is who you mean -- maybe not, since they are no more a community, really, than nineteenth century Romantic poetry scholars are, even if there are recognizable disciplinary boundaries and conferences/publications many of them will happen to gravitate to in a kinda sorta mildly community-like way) are exactly beating down the door to comment over at the World Future Society, although I would also be surprised if there weren't quite a few who do pop in occasionally and observe what goes on there online with a certain bemused interest.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-1760045349265883922012-03-29T15:30:17.199-07:002012-03-29T15:30:17.199-07:00-----------------------------
Charlie Stross
June ...-----------------------------<br />Charlie Stross<br />June 25, 2011<br />276:<br /><br />Nothing's wrong with that particular outcome.<br /><br />Where it goes wrong is when the belief system in question acquires<br />a replicator meme ("tell all your friends the good news!"),<br />a precedence meme ("all other beliefs are misguided!") and finally<br />goes on a bender and turns mean ("unbelievers are soulless scum!<br />Kill them all before they pollute our children's precious minds<br />with their filth!").<br /><br />That's why I take a negative view of religions in general.<br />It's not what the founders say or think, it's not about what<br />the mild-mannered ordinary folks who use it as a compass to<br />guide them through life's heartache think ... it's all about<br />the authoritarian power structures that latch onto them for<br />legitimization, and the authoritarian followers<br />(_pace_ Altermeyer et al) who take their insecurity out on<br />the neighbourhood.<br />-----------------------------<br />Giulio Prisco<br />June 25, 2011<br />277:<br /><br />Of course I totally agree with this, which why I also take a<br />negative view of _traditional_ religions. Yet, I keep hoping<br />that we can find ways to use the positive aspects of religion<br />(relief from life's heartache) without falling into the negative<br />aspects. . .<br />-----------------------------<br />Charlie Stross<br />June 25, 2011<br />279:<br /><br />I have a nasty cynical suspicion that the gap between an intriguing<br />speculative belief system and a traditional religion is about<br />one generation.<br /><br />(Today's Christian baptist fundamentalists are only 100 years removed<br />from their founders, who were a much more flexible and free-thinking<br />group. They went from questioning and skeptical reformists to doctrinaire<br />authoritarians in just two generations, as I understand it.)<br />-----------------------------<br />Mentifex<br />June 26, 2011<br />315:<br /><br />. . .I spend many hours every day, every year, every millennium<br />working to bring about an AI Singularity. And now, Jeez Louise,<br />[why] is there all this discussion going on at so many websites<br />trying to drag down the AI Singularity? It is something whooshing<br />past you right now!<br />-----------------------------<br /><br /><br />And here I thought that whooshing was the Starship Enterprise!<br /><br />;->jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-64529456243005595092012-03-29T15:29:46.598-07:002012-03-29T15:29:46.598-07:00Some amusing remarks from the comment thread of
&q...Some amusing remarks from the comment thread of<br />"Three arguments against the singularity"<br />by Charlie Stross<br />http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/06/reality-check-1.html<br /><br />"I periodically get email from folks who, having read "Accelerando",<br />assume I am some kind of fire-breathing extropian zealot who believes<br />in the imminence of the singularity, the uploading of the libertarians,<br />and the rapture of the nerds. I find this mildly distressing, and so<br />I think it's time to set the record straight and say what I **really** think.<br /><br />Short version: **Santa Claus doesn't exist**. . .<br /><br />-----------------------------<br />TK<br />June 23, 2011<br />175:<br /><br />. . .I agree with Charlie that I don't hold high hopes (or fears)<br />for most of the set dressing of the hard-takeoff Singularity. . .<br />[T]he whole concept, at least from it's ardent supporters,<br />has always had this uncomfortable disconnect from the rest of<br />science and enterprise.<br /><br />I'm always reminded of a couple of awkward undergrads I stumbled<br />upon trying to optimize their dating prospects with extensive<br />attention to a spreadsheet of the dorm's women -- while I agree that<br />there is nothing in principle against using analysis to improve<br />your love life, they nevertheless were no closer to getting laid<br />than when they began. When the likes of Kurzweil point at the<br />field equations with one hand and Moore's Law with the other,<br />and sagely declare, "computability and accelerating returns,<br />therefore Matrioshka brains and maximal wish fulfillment,"<br />I can't help but feel a resonance between the two. Have they<br />never heard of exponential processes not running to completion,<br />or is all the Earth's carbon locked up in duplicating E. coli<br />and I just missed it? Did they not notice that people<br />expected HAL for fifty years, and we got Google instead?<br />For that matter, have they not read any of the fiction<br />that dealt with AI and longevity and nanotech and found<br />more nuance than fusion with the orbital server farm godhead?<br />-----------------------------<br />Giulio Prisco<br />June 25, 2011<br />274:<br /><br />Charlie, I am more optimist than you on the feasibility of<br />and timeline for strong AI and mind uploading, but I am probably<br />closer to your cautious assessment than to the wild optimism of,<br />say, Kurzweil. I think both technologies will be developed<br />someday because they are compatible with our scientific<br />understanding of reality, but not very soon.<br /><br />In reply to: "I can't disprove [the Simulation Argument], either.<br />And it has a deeper-than-superficial appeal, insofar as it offers<br />a deity-free afterlife... it would make a good free-form framework<br />for a postmodern high-tech religion. Unfortunately it seems<br />to be unfalsifiable, at least by the inmates (us)."<br /><br />My question is, what is wrong with this. Some persons function better<br />_in this life_ if they can persuade themselves to contemplate the<br />possibility of an afterlife compatible with the scientific worldview.<br />They become happier and better persons, help others, and try to make<br />the world a better place.<br /><br />In other words, the pursuit of personal happiness without harming<br />others. Charlie, what the fuck is wrong with this?<br />-----------------------------jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-42426834820356496752012-03-29T14:31:24.479-07:002012-03-29T14:31:24.479-07:00More cracks in the plaster (I hadn't really be...More cracks in the plaster (I hadn't really been<br />paying attention to this guy):<br /><br />http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/06/25/towards-a-new-vision-of-the-singularity/<br />---------------------<br />The nerd echo chamber is reverberating this week with the furious debate<br />over Charlie Stross’ doubts about the possibility of an artificial<br />“human-level intelligence” explosion – also known as the Singularity. . .<br /><br />it’s always fun to see what fantastic fulminations are being<br />exchanged over our future AI overlords. Sparking the flames this time<br />around is Charlie Stross. . . [who] argues in a post entitled<br />“Three arguments against the singularity” that “In short:<br />Santa Claus doesn’t exist.” . . .<br /><br />I am thankful that many of the fine readers of Science Not Fiction<br />are avowed skeptics and raise a wary eyebrow to discussions of the<br />Singularity. Given his stature in the science fiction and speculative<br />science community, Stross’ comments elicited quite an uproar.<br />Those who are believers (and it is a kind of faith, regardless of<br />how much Bayesian analysis one does) in the Rapture of the Nerds<br />have two holy grails which Stross unceremoniously dismissed: the<br />rise of super-intelligent AI and mind uploading. As a result, a<br />few commentators on emerging technologies squared off for another<br />round of speculative slap fights. In one corner, we have Singularitarians<br />Michael Anissimov of the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence<br />and AI researcher Ben Goertzel. In the other, we have the excellent<br />Alex Knapp of Forbes’ Robot Overlords and the brutally rational [ ;-> ]<br />George Mason University (my alma mater) economist and Oxford Future of<br />Humanity Institute contributor Robin Hanson. I’ll spare you all the<br />back and forth (and all of Goertzel’s infuriating emoticons) and<br />cut to the point. . .<br /><br />The. . . reason I believe the Cybernetic Singularity is more probable<br />than the AI Singularity is simply that it makes more sense. AI’s designed<br />to do very specific tasks that are labor and data intensive make economic<br />sense and are of obvious value. . . Humans have augmented our memory,<br />our ability to calculate, and our ability to process data reliably<br />throughout history. . .<br /><br />In sum, [it] is the logical extension of a process humans have been<br />pursuing throughout history: the augmentation of our brain. . .<br /><br />The result is a human future that we can reasonably, incrementally,<br />and ethically pursue.<br />---------------------<br /><br />Of course, as Dale has repeatedly said, you don't need<br />to join a Robot Cult for any of that.jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-40860830851200758532012-03-29T14:05:18.015-07:002012-03-29T14:05:18.015-07:00> Dale Carrico has been largely disregarded as ...> Dale Carrico has been largely disregarded as a petulant non-entity. . .<br />><br />> -- Kyle Munkittrick<br /><br />In<br />http://www.popbioethics.com/2010/03/a-lesson-in-rhetoric/<br />Munkittrick also wrote:<br /><br />"Carrico’s utter wrongness in his assertions about my<br />beliefs is indicative of his laziness in researching<br />or attempting to understand a specific opponent."<br /><br />Well, here's a bit of research -- a tidbit posted shortly<br />after the above:<br /><br />http://www.popbioethics.com/2010/04/my-dumbpiphany-on-cosmism/<br />----------------------<br />My Dumbpiphany on Cosmism<br />[Dumpiphany: The realization that the reason the<br />entire conversation has been difficult to follow<br />is that you're talking to an idiot.]<br /><br />. . .<br /><br />Ben Goertzel and Giulio Prisco, both Fellows at the Institute for<br />Ethics and Emerging Technology, articulate a “philosophy” known<br />as Cosmism. . .<br /><br />Cosmism is a philosophy that has more in common with _The Secret_<br />and _The Purpose Driven Life_ than it does with _Critique of Pure Reason_.<br />The arguments and examples used are so artfully facile,<br />so empty and baseless that they actually unhinge the reader,<br />causing an intellectual crisis where a reasonably smart person<br />comes to doubt anyone could articulate something so preposterous.<br />Ben Goertzel is the Sarah Palin of the futurist and philosophy<br />community. There is nothing to engage, nothing to grasp onto,<br />no warranted arguments or justified statements, just New Age<br />gibberish, mysticism derived from cherry-picked pragmatism<br />and idealism, and a moving target core that prevents any real<br />criticism from occurring.<br />----------------------<br /><br />Are those rumblings of discontent in the futurist community?<br />Seismic borborygmi threatening to craze the plaster?<br /><br />Or just signs of distress in the lower tract.jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-56453019493197082172012-03-29T13:42:59.102-07:002012-03-29T13:42:59.102-07:00> I must admit that so far I can't say whet...> I must admit that so far I can't say whether these posts<br />> are any kind of success. They have not attracted much in the<br />> way of comment, and so I don't know if the futurologists<br />> there are interested, indifferent, indignant, insulted<br />> by my interventions or what.<br /><br />". . .Dale Carrico has been largely disregarded as a petulant non-entity<br />by those within bioethics and science studies communities. . ."<br /><br />-- Kyle Munkittrick<br />http://www.popbioethics.com/2010/03/a-lesson-in-rhetoric/<br /><br /><br />On the other hand, maybe the shriekers in the "science studies<br />communities" who might otherwise be falling over themselves<br />to comment at WFS have had to be moderated (just as they<br />mostly are around here, these days).jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.com