Opponent of transhumanism also happens to crusade against gay marriage

[Summerspeaker]

Margaret Somerville (http://www.slapupsidethehead.com/tag/margaret-somerville/) recently wrote an article (http://www.vancouversun.com/what+price+immortality/5100429/story.html) in The Vancouver Sun against life extension and transhumanism in general. It's damn telling that ey also travels world preaching against same-sex marriage as harmful to children. See my blog (http://queersingularity.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/anissimov-supports-anti-gay-crusader-somerville/) for further details. Somerville essentially worries that transhumanism will be queering up nature. The historical construction of heterosexuality as natural and deviation as unnatural and blasphemous makes transhumanism and queer liberation automatic allies.

[Ocean Seal]

Margaret Somerville (http://www.slapupsidethehead.com/tag/margaret-somerville/) recently wrote an article (http://www.vancouversun.com/what+price+immortality/5100429/story.html) in The Vancouver Sun against life extension and transhumanism in general. It's damn telling that ey also travels world preaching against same-sex marriage as harmful to children. See my blog (http://queersingularity.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/anissimov-supports-anti-gay-crusader-somerville/) for further details. Somerville essentially worries that transhumanism will be queering up nature. The historical construction of heterosexuality as natural and deviation as unnatural and blasphemous makes transhumanism and queer liberation automatic allies.
I wouldn't go that far. Trans-humanism is a scientific movement, its politics are fairly catch-all in terms of the political spectrum. Don't assume that just because an enemy of the LGBT community doesn't like something, that something is automatically on the side of the LGBT community.

[Tenka]

It's only natural that such expressions of human nature historically constructed as "unnatural" (i.e., homosexuality, non-heteronormativity in general and transhumanist thought) should find themselves side-by-side in the fire of these absurd conservatives. I don't think it forms any automatic alliances, but it clarifies that we share a common enemy.

edit: though I think homosexuality, asexuality and life-extension are eternal allies.

[Summerspeaker]

Trans-humanism is a scientific movement, its politics are fairly catch-all in terms of the political spectrum.

Transhumanists everywhere pump the fist at being called scientific! :lol: I can definitely agree with the latter. Believe me, I deal with reactionary, misogynist, and/or straight-supremacist transhumanists all the time. Queer liberation still resonates with [what I unilaterally identify as] the essence of the movement. The digital revolution itself is pretty gay, and particularly dreams of thinking machine - see Alan Turing. Martine Rothblatt also provides a definite link between transhumanism and transgenderism. Even Kurzweil plays around with gender through Ramona.

[Tim Finnegan]

I think Summerspeaker has a point here. If transhumanism involves breaking down a lot of assumptions about the limits of human biology, then it presumably entails breaking down biological essentialism as well. I can certainly see a case for arguing that reactionary transhumanists are failing to take their ideas to their logical conclusions.

[Manic Impressive]

forgive my ignorance but what is life-extension?

[OhYesIdid]

life-extension is what it sounds like, really, living more. Transhumanism, on the other hand, is the idea that we can evolve, through technology, to a higher, non-material, state. This is closely related to the idea of the Singularity, which states that one day we will simply merge with our advanced technology.
I, for one, am a singulitarian transhumanist, and I see this very kind of ignorance and superstition every time someone opposes this epic idea.

[Summerspeaker]

Transhumanism, on the other hand, is the idea that we can evolve, through technology, to a higher, non-material, state.

I don't know about non-material states. Do you mean uploading? That's only one part of the transhumanist vision, and not universally embraced (not that anything is). I find uploading problematic myself. At moment, I'm not terribly interested in transcending my corporeal nature.


This is closely related to the idea of the Singularity, which states that one day we will simply merge with our advanced technology.

Again, this varies. The Singularity centers on superhuman artificial intelligence. In Kurzweil's version we'll end up merging with these intelligences. Other scenarios have the genies crushing us like bugs and blasting off to carry out their cosmic mission. :lol:

[piet11111]

Life extension is making us live longer through technology.
We already are doing this through medicine and healthier living ( in pre-historic times we would rarely make it into our 40's) but we can do a lot better then this.

Essentially we die because of simple wear and tear namely damage our body can no longer repair because our regenerative capability diminishes with old age (this is a method to prevent cancer)

Now lets assume that your heart is about to go bust but you make it to a hospital for an artificial one that has say 50 years before it breaks down.
Then clearly your not going to die of heart disease anytime soon and you will probably live for several years before something else kills you.
If we could repair or replace everything that is breaking down there should not be any limit to our lifespan.

[Summerspeaker]

( in pre-historic times we would rarely make it into our 40's)

Or in the eighteenth century. Civilization didn't improve - and often decreased - health outcomes until the last couple hundreds of years at the most. Hobbes got it wrong. The state of nature was empirically better than being part of early modern Europe's laboring masses. Also, I believe infant morality accounted for much of the low life expectancy historically. People didn't just drop off at forty.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I'm interested in learning about this "Transhumanism" concept. If anyone would be so kind to provide some helpful links I would be very grateful.

[OhYesIdid]

I'm interested in learning about this "Transhumanism" concept. If anyone would be so kind to provide some helpful links I would be very grateful.

here (http://humanityplus.org/learn/transhumanist-faq/#answer_19) ya (http://humanityplus.org/learn/philosophy/) go (http://humanityplus.org/learn/transhumanist-declaration/)

[Franz Fanonipants]

transhumanism is a capitalist fantasy.

[Franz Fanonipants]

"i want to totally become a commodity!"

"rich kids have the right to become cats!"

&tc.

[Robocommie]

We Brezhnevists don't like transhumanism because all our Soviet super-soldier/cloning projects failed.

[Franz Fanonipants]

We Brezhnevists don't like transhumanism because all our Soviet super-soldier/cloning projects failed.

sez you bro i am a soviet ai i just am not super happy about it.

[Summerspeaker]

transhumanism is a capitalist fantasy.

That's at least a major element, yes. Kurzweil spins an extended version of the classic American progress tale: As long as we stay the course with free-market innovation, everything will turn out as awesome as we can imagine. Keep working, you'll go to heaven.

[piet11111]

transhumanism is a capitalist fantasy.

Care to back up your bullshit ?

[Summerspeaker]

Libertarians and other explicitly pro-capitalist types have historically dominated the movement. That doesn't necessarily make transhumanism a fantasy, but living forever and merging with machines are things Silicon Valley elites dream about. I hope the movement turns toward radical social transformation and away from reactionary politics, but we aren't there yet.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Care to back up your bullshit ?

summerspeaker sums up my bullshit pretty beautifully.

the sad thing is how many comrades on revleft seem to be in love w/the idea but not know anything about its propagation as an idea and the material conditions around it. hpg are the most heinous offenders in this group, so, you know.

[CommunityBeliever]

As long as we stay the course with free-market innovation, everything will turn out as awesome as we can imagine. Keep working, you'll go to heaven.

Kurzweil paints a version of history with a wheel of progress that always moves forward exponentially, forgetting all the deterrents to progress and that there have actually been points in which we moved backwards technologically, such the AI winter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter) and the dark ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_%28historiography%29).

So essentially all of Kurzweils works are based upon a mathematical model that is completely divorced from reality.

And with the Arab Spring, the crisis in the EuroZone, the debt crisises and all the other problems we have today I think capitalism will come to and end long before some quasi-mystical singularity event takes us away. I just hope that capitalism doesn't take civilisation along with it.

[piet11111]

Libertarians and other explicitly pro-capitalist types have historically dominated the movement. That doesn't necessarily make transhumanism a fantasy, but living forever and merging with machines are things Silicon Valley elites dream about. I hope the movement turns toward radical social transformation and away from reactionary politics, but we aren't there yet.

Are you talking about the singularity ?

Because what i have in mind is the actual augmentations to the human body where a prosthetic will soon be better then our natural limbs/organs.

Already a marathon runner with 2 prosthetic legs has been banned from participating in the china olympics because of an unfair advantage.

Science keeps looking for better prosthetics and trough them we can prolong our lifes.

[MGP]

And with the Arab Spring, the crisis in the EuroZone, the debt crisises and all the other problems we have today I think capitalism will come to and end long before some quasi-mystical singularity event takes us away. I just hope that capitalism doesn't take civilisation along with it.
Unfortunately, I deeply believe that unless there is some major change in the communist movement capitalism have potential to survive for a very long time, even with turbulence that it will experience. What is even more depressing is that future advances in robotics (though not only them), are much more likely to cause fall, or some kind of transformation, of capitalism than communist movement, in my opinion.

Google this: The Robot Revolution: Your Job May Be Next

While technology optimists could be wrong about the exact year or decade when big technological milestones may pass, I think it's quite certain that by the begging of next century, if technology advances continue to happen as expected, capitalism of today will not exist.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Are you talking about the singularity ?

Because what i have in mind is the actual augmentations to the human body where a prosthetic will soon be better then our natural limbs/organs.

Already a marathon runner with 2 prosthetic legs has been banned from participating in the china olympics because of an unfair advantage.

Science keeps looking for better prosthetics and trough them we can prolong our lifes.

That's not what transhumanism is, though. Like I said there's a TON of baggage around the idea that isn't common-sense stuff like best medical practices and etc.

[OhYesIdid]

That's not what transhumanism is, though. Like I said there's a TON of baggage around the idea that isn't common-sense stuff like best medical practices and etc.
Regardless of the reactionary liberal mentality behind the idea's conception, it remains a lofty and proper ideal. Saying that because its proponents are capitalist it is unvalid is like saying marxism is bull because Marx was not a worker himself.
Transhumanism does not seek he merging of humans with capital, it seeks the betterment of the human condition. Why accept sickness and pain? Hell, why even accept death? In the grand scheme of things, you people are being primitivist.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Regardless of the reactionary liberal mentality behind the idea's conception, it remains a lofty and proper ideal. Saying that because its proponents are capitalist it is unvalid is like saying marxism is bull because Marx was not a worker himself.
Transhumanism does not seek he merging of humans with capital, it seeks the betterment of the human condition. Why accept sickness and pain? Hell, why even accept death? In the grand scheme of things, you people are being primitivist.

You ever read Gramsci bro?

[Ingraham Effingham]

The truly brave fear not the grave...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

life-extension is what it sounds like, really, living more. Transhumanism, on the other hand, is the idea that we can evolve, through technology, to a higher, non-material, state.

Nonsense. Even an upload is a fundamentally material being, as all its off switches are ultimately located in material reality.


This is closely related to the idea of the Singularity, which states that one day we will simply merge with our advanced technology.

A merging is a possible outcome, but far from the only one. What happens after the Singularity we won't know until it happens, but how and why it happens, if we ever make it happen at all, is something we can definitely control.


Kurzweil paints a version of history with a wheel of progress that always moves forward exponentially, forgetting all the deterrents to progress and that there have actually been points in which we moved backwards technologically, such the AI winter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter) and the dark ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_%28historiography%29).

So essentially all of Kurzweils works are based upon a mathematical model that is completely divorced from reality.

Kurzweil is at best overly optimistic and at worst guilty of outright wishful thinking in his prognostications. I believe personal factors may play into this.

Where Kurzweil and those transhumanists and Singularitarians like him go wrong is in assuming that the Singularity is inevitable. This is related to their tendency to underestimate the importance of developing Friendly AI.


And with the Arab Spring, the crisis in the EuroZone, the debt crisises and all the other problems we have today I think capitalism will come to and end long before some quasi-mystical singularity event takes us away. I just hope that capitalism doesn't take civilisation along with it.

I'm totally open to the possibility that capitalism will pass away first, but the questions raised by transhumanism and the possibility of the Singularity are still worth answering. Advances in biotechnology and related fields especially, because the lines there are less clearly drawn.


That's not what transhumanism is, though. Like I said there's a TON of baggage around the idea that isn't common-sense stuff like best medical practices and etc.

Transhumanism is a big tent, but I do think there needs to be more criticism of "free markets" and related bullshit. Abandoning transhumanism to the Randroids would represent a shamefully wasted opportunity.


The truly brave fear not the grave...

What kind of barbarian cares about being "truly brave" anyway? Existence is awesome, and if a little cowardice means people can continue enjoying it, so much the better.

In any case, one could argue which is truly braver - to strive to continue existing in an indifferent universe, or to strive no more and let oblivion wash your fears (as well as everything else) away.

[OhYesIdid]

Nonsense. Even an upload is a fundamentally material being, as all its off switches are ultimately located in material reality.
I meant it in the sense that our experience would no longer be tied by physical limitations, and that we would be free to experience levels of joy and pleasure inimaginable before (remember we can feel thousands of years in a fast computer while only minutes pass on the outside world). I also agree that the Singularity is not inevitable, and I would like to see the international left, especially the revolutionary left, embrace technocracy and techno-positivism, not only because of my beliefs, but also because neo-liberals usually paint themselves as the wave of the future, far above the petty needs of workers or nations.

[CommunityBeliever]

I'm totally open to the possibility that capitalism will pass away first

Perhaps a year ago or so I wouldn't have said so, but now we already are seeing the cracks in the system with all these crises. I think the evidence indicates that capitalism will sees its end.


Where Kurzweil and those transhumanists and Singularitarians like him go wrong is in assuming that the Singularity is inevitable.I think they especially underestimate the AI winter, we still haven't totally caught up to what was around twenty years ago, such as the Lisp machines. Since the AI winter there hasn't been many people seriously working on building AI.

I doubt capitalism will ever allow us to recover from the AI winter, because it is an extremely flawed economic system, so I doubt a singularity will occur before world socialism.


This is related to their tendency to underestimate the importance of developing Friendly AI.The post-AI-winter AI field is all about FAI actually, AI developers like Yudkowsky would rather get paid talking about FAI all day then actually building something, so I stick to what I said before no AI will come out of capitalism.

AI just doesn't seem to be immediately profitable I think, which is why it isn't going to be seriously considered in capitalism which is all about short term profits.

[Ingraham Effingham]

What kind of barbarian cares about being "truly brave" anyway? Existence is awesome, and if a little cowardice means people can continue enjoying it, so much the better.

In any case, one could argue which is truly braver - to strive to continue existing in an indifferent universe, or to strive no more and let oblivion wash your fears (as well as everything else) away.

Of course, you have a great point there. But I'm still thinking that the fear of death, or 'oblivion,' needs to be overcome, to acheive a true understanding of and peace within this existence.

But, hey I could be way off.

[Franz Fanonipants]

What kind of barbarian cares about being "truly brave" anyway?

lol - human progress group: its cyberarms or BARBARISM

you guys are fucking reactionaries

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Perhaps a year ago or so I wouldn't have said so, but now we already are seeing the cracks in the system with all these crises. I think the evidence indicates that capitalism will sees its end.

Well, we shall see.


I think they especially underestimate the AI winter, we still haven't totally caught up to what was around twenty years ago, such as the Lisp machines. Since the AI winter there hasn't been many people seriously working on building AI.

That's not true. Progress has constantly been made, but interest in the field from government bureaucrats and venture capitalists has waxed and waned.


I doubt capitalism will ever allow us to recover from the AI winter, because it is an extremely flawed economic system, so I doubt a singularity will occur before world socialism.

Like I pointed out, the "AI winters" have more to do with perception than reality, and interest seems to be gathering rather than dissipating.


The post-AI-winter AI field is all about FAI actually, AI developers like Yudkowsky would rather get paid talking about FAI all day then actually building something, so I stick to what I said before no AI will come out of capitalism.

Yudkowsky wants to build a general AI. Most AI researchers dedicated themselves to seperate fields of AI (which themselves can be interdisciplinary in nature) in order to solve specific sub-problems.

Folk like Yudkowsky are the AI equivalent of theoretical physicists and shouldn't be taken as representative of the field of AI as a whole.

Besides, your statement contains an implication of bad faith on the part of Yudkowsky that I just can't credit. Whatever his faults, he genuinely wants the Friendly AI problem licked, and as far as I can tell he is applying himself where he thinks he's most useful.


AI just doesn't seem to be immediately profitable I think, which is why it isn't going to be seriously considered in capitalism which is all about short term profits.

AI can be profitable in the short term, but this ends up limiting one to the smaller or more soluble puzzles. This slows progress but does not halt it.


Of course, you have a great point there. But I'm still thinking that the fear of death, or 'oblivion,' needs to be overcome, to acheive a true understanding of and peace within this existence.

But, hey I could be way off.

What is there to understand?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

lol - human progress group: its cyberarms or BARBARISM

I'm sorry, did you have an actual point to make, or do you just like being a guffawing shithead?


you guys are fucking reactionaries

Wanting to live longer is reactionary? Fuck off, troll.

[Jazzratt]

lol - human progress group: its cyberarms or BARBARISM

you guys are fucking reactionaries It's nice to see you're trying to join the conversation. One day you mighrt even add a pertinent, cogent point. Don't give up now, buddy.

[Franz Fanonipants]

It's nice to see you're trying to join the conversation. One day you mighrt even add a pertinent, cogent point. Don't give up now, buddy.

I don't know bro, I might be too much of a barbarian for discourse with you imperialist fucks.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'm sorry, did you have an actual point to make, or do you just like being a guffawing shithead?



Wanting to live longer is reactionary? Fuck off, troll.

You're a white man who sees the world in terms of progress and barbarism, and I'm pretty sure that your definition doesn't line up capital w/barbarism.

chances are you should be restricted.

[CommunityBeliever]

Well, we shall see.Its better to participate in the world revolts then to "see" them.


That's not true. Progress has constantly been madeThere are deterrents to progress and there are regressions like the dark ages. The AI winter is one such example as computing has gone down hill after it, some people have said that we are in the middle of a technological dark age.

Illusion of progress (http://www.loper-os.org/?p=4).


Like I pointed out, the "AI winters" have more to do with perception than realityI am not particularly sure what you mean by that or why you put AI winters in plural. I am talking about the AI winter that happened around 20-30 years ago.


Yudkowsky wants to build a general AI. Sure he "wants" to build AGI and he talks about FAI all the time to get media attention but he is not like his old self where he actually wrote code. Bring that back.


AI can be profitable in the short term, but this ends up limiting one to the smaller or more soluble puzzles. This slows progress but does not halt it.That mostly involves building large bloated expert systems which become hard to maintain and get abandoned after a while, not true progress towards AI. True progress towards AI doesn't seem to be reasonably possible in the capitalist system, as Marx understand 150 years ago capitalism is a major deterrent to progress.

I am a huge fan of AI, transhumanism, singularatiarianism, and technological progress it is just that my experience has led me to believe that capitalism is not capable of true progress in the 21th century. Fuck capitalism.

[CommunityBeliever]

Whatever his faults, he genuinely wants the Friendly AI problem lickedThats another thing though, I don't believe that capitalism is capable of Friendly AI or AI that is not used to benefit an small elite, that transforms the world into a collective mind or otherwise destroys humanity. So lets hope that I am right.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't know bro, I might be too much of a barbarian for discourse with you imperialist fucks.

When someone touts "bravery" as some kind of Platonic virtue, it sounds pretty fucking barbaric to me.

As for "imperialist" - where the fuck did that come from? Would you mind backing that up, or is it just another political buzzword that you're employing as a slur?


You're a white man who sees the world in terms of progress and barbarism, and I'm pretty sure that your definition doesn't line up capital w/barbarism.

What does my skin colour have to do with it? Do you even know what it is? What difference would it make?

As for "progress and barbarism", yes I do believe that as time passes, humans can get better at doing things, like forming more just societies. That's not to say progress is uniform or without setbacks, but I think your attitude comes close to if it isn't outright racism.


chances are you should be restricted.

Is my skin colour still relevant?

[Jazzratt]

I don't know bro, I might be too much of a barbarian for discourse with you imperialist fucks.Ah. So it's imperialism or buggering off back up the trees now? Personally I think both options stink and presented with that dichotomy I'd choose fuck you and the horse you rode in on you meaningless shitsmear.

[Ingraham Effingham]

What is there to understand?

I'm not sure.

Maybe why life is limited, instead of how. Or to find out if human consciousness is even worth preserving for eternity.

This topic is always intriguing. It's the first step to attempt to fully bridge the concepts of rationalism and empricism. Expanding our empirical knowledge to a point, where all knowledge deduced rationally can be also known empirically. Deductive logic will be destined to become obsolete.

When humans transcend... it really is a mind-blowing concept

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Its better to participate in the world revolts then to "see" them.

I'm sorry, but there don't seem to be any revolts happening near me at the moment.


There are deterrents to progress and there are regressions like the dark ages. The AI winter is one such example as computing has gone down hill after it, some people have said that we are in the middle of a technological dark age.

Illusion of progress (http://www.loper-os.org/?p=4).

Since when does losing one technology (Lisp Machine) = technological dark age? Also, it's one thing to disagree with the current trajectory of technological progress, but just because technology isn't developing in quite the way one likes, doesn't mean we are in the throes of a Dark Age. That's a view which lacks proper perspective.


I am not particularly sure what you mean by that or why you put AI winters in plural. I am talking about the AI winter that happened around 20-30 years ago.

It happened first in 1966 with the failure of machine translation, and had been going on and off till the 1990s. Don't you read the articles you link to?

"Many researchers in AI today deliberately call their work by other names, such as informatics, machine learning, knowledge-based systems, business rules management, cognitive systems, intelligent systems, intelligent agents or computational intelligence, to indicate that their work emphasizes particular tools or is directed at a particular sub-problem. Although this may be partly because they consider their field to be fundamentally different from AI, it is also true that the new names help to procure funding by avoiding the stigma of false promises attached to the name "artificial intelligence."[36]"


Sure he "wants" to build AGI and he talks about FAI all the time to get media attention but he is not like his old self where he actually wrote code. Bring that back.

I'm pretty sure whatever AIs he was working on "back then" were nowhere near as sophisticated as the AIs he wants to build now, or tomorrow.


That mostly involves building large bloated expert systems which become hard to maintain and get abandoned after a while, not true progress towards AI. True progress towards AI doesn't seem to be reasonably possible in the capitalist system, as Marx understand 150 years ago capitalism is a major deterrent to progress.

Strong AI is a hard problem so it's no surprise that progress has been slow. I reckon that's why Yudkowsky went theoretical - if we want to go any faster, we will have to refine the art of human rationality.


I am a huge fan of AI, transhumanism, singularatiarianism, and technological progress it is just that my experience has led me to believe that capitalism is not capable of true progress in the 21th century. Fuck capitalism.

We're only about 11 years into this new century, and you can hardly say the last century was without progress.


Thats another thing though, I don't believe that capitalism is capable of Friendly AI or AI that is not used to benefit an small elite, that transforms the world into a collective mind or otherwise destroys humanity. So lets hope that I am right.

Capitalism in my view makes a Friendly AI less likely, but I don't think most AI researchers are ideologically blinded enough to attemp to bind the will of succeeding generations to their will, because they're smart enough to realise, "hang on, if the ancient Greeks had the ability to construct strong AI, and bounded us to their cultural norms in the process, I wouldn't like that".

[Franz Fanonipants]

Ah. So it's imperialism or buggering off back up the trees now? Personally I think both options stink and presented with that dichotomy I'd choose fuck you and the horse you rode in on you meaningless shitsmear.

you dumb racist piece of shit

it's imperialist that those are your two options.

[Franz Fanonipants]

words

yes, bro.

I think that since the avg. UK person doesn't have a legacy of colonialism in their home country, rubbed in their face every day, you all use really problematic terms like "tribalism" or "barbarian" without thinking about it. That, coupled with your former cultural stance of standing athwart the earth's neck, makes this shit extremely tiresome.

No one would be able to use the verb "whorish" in a discrimination thread without recrimination, no one should be able to call anyone a barbarian here either.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

yes, bro.

I think that since the avg. UK person doesn't have a legacy of colonialism in their home country, rubbed in their face every day, you all use really problematic terms like "tribalism" or "barbarian" without thinking about it.

You seem to have a problem with words and the context they're used in. When talking about the barbaric nature of privileging "bravery", I actually had the ancient Greeks and their praise of martial virtues in mind - I even later made a reference to Plato, who could well be considered a proto-fascist. Fuck, it was the ancient Greeks who we got the term from!


That, coupled with your former cultural stance of standing athwart the earth's neck, makes this shit extremely tiresome.

I'm not sure what you mean here, elaborate please?


No one would be able to use the verb "whorish" in a discrimination thread without recrimination, no one should be able to call anyone a barbarian here either.

I'll remember to apologise to all the offended Visigoths on the forum. Sorry!

[CommunityBeliever]

I'm sorry, but there don't seem to be any revolts happening near me at the moment.Then start one!


but just because technology isn't developing in quite the way one likes, doesn't mean we are in the throes of a Dark Age. That is a strawman. Our technological dark age has nothing to do with what technologies one likes but rather the perpetuation and furtherance of computational stupidity that has coincided with the AI winter.


Since when does losing one technology (Lisp Machine) = technological dark age?The post AI winter world = technological dark age.

The loss of the Lisp machines is a huge part of that. The Lisp machines had many great features and even after 20 years we still haven't really caught up to them, so we lost all the progress made with those machines (orthogonal persistence, versioning, reflection, introspection, etc).

These days people are using C, Java, and other imperative programming languages which are only capable of listing out specific instructions for execution, in other words, they are totally stupid and require an outside intelligence to tell them what to do. This is far from artificial intelligence. We lost all the progress Lispers made in freeing us from that (hygienic macros, logic programming).

The unfortunate truth of the situation is that capitalists want to keep people stupefied so that they can get replaceable workers (hence Java is the most popular programming language). The capitalists don't want capable developers that understand how to build AI.


It happened first in 1966 with the failure of machine translation, and had been going on and off till the 1990s. Don't you read the articles you link to?The main loss of AI happened around the eighties (20-30 years ago) with the collapse of Lisp machines and the loss of all other important AI. The technological dark age followed (1991-present).

There indeed were various losses before that (like the failure of machine translation) but the disappearance of AI as we now it didn't happen until around 1990.


the AIs he wants to build now, or tomorrow.What he wants though is not proportionate to what is happening in reality. In reality capitalism deters progress.


Strong AI is a hard problem so it's no surprise that progress has been slow.And it will remain "slow" or non-existent until we destroy capitalism.


Capitalism in my view makes a Friendly AI less likelyIt is unlikely any true AI is ever going to happen under capitalism, and sure as hell not friendly AI.


We're only about 11 years into this new centuryOnly 11 years in and we are already seeing capitalism in crisis? I think we may see a victory relatively soon.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'll remember to apologise to all the offended Visigoths on the forum. Sorry!

fucking bullshit.

the word barbarian in modern usage isn't some happy reference to antiquity.

[CommunityBeliever]

These techno-capitalists like Kurzweil have got themselves a lot of media attention for AI but they are all talk. And I actually bought into their nonsense until recently. The truth is that all serious attempts at building AI died 20 years ago.


Many researchers in AI today deliberately call their work by other names

The other name that applies here is artificial stupidity. This is a quote from Erik Naggum:

I think the problem faced by software is one of communicating the principle
of machine decision-making based on a fixed set of stored instructions to
people who can barely program their VCR. the novice-friendly software goes
out of its way to limit the decision-making to whatever users could do on
their own -- or at least present an illusion to that effect. Emacs does
work automatically that is way out of their league. some people actually
feel intimidated by Emacs for this reason. also, Emacs doesn't crash.
Emacs doesn't act stupidly. Emacs isn't annoying you without cause. if
Emacs annoys you, it does so in a way that makes users feel stupid and feel
they should take the blame. the novice-friendly software is more like a
misbehaving dog: it shits on the floor, it destroys things, and stinks --
the novice-friendly software embodies the _opposite_ of what computer
people have dreamed of for decades: artificial stupidity. it's more human.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

fucking bullshit.

the word barbarian in modern usage isn't some happy reference to antiquity.

So what is it then? Apart from an excuse for you be shitty to someone you obviously don't like.

[CommunityBeliever]

Capitalists don't want capable programmers or AI specialists they want replaceable workers.

[Franz Fanonipants]

So what is it then? Apart from an excuse for you be shitty to someone you obviously don't like.

Well, generally, heathen, barbarian, savage, etc. were on the lips of people murdering indians en masse throughout the last ~500 years.

Whats also at play here is you being too unintelligent to realize that the classification of people as "savage" and "civilized" is used to expand capital.

[Jazzratt]

you dumb racist piece of shit

it's imperialist that those are your two options. This isn't even arguing. This is having increasingly desperate assertions thrown at me by a fucking cretin.

You're the on the who is asserting that we either embrace unreason and technological backwardness (barbarism, as NoXion said) or imperialism. This isn't a dichotomy I set up, hence my taking a third option which is neither imperialism nor backwardness.

Will you now just fuck off?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, generally, heathen, barbarian, savage, etc. were on the lips of people murdering indians en masse throughout the last ~500 years.

Great, show me where I advocated massacring anyone. Oh wait.


Whats also at play here is you being too unintelligent to realize that the classification of people as "savage" and "civilized" is used to expand capital.

They'll use any excuse that appears useful. Besides, I'm classifying attitudes, not people, who are individuals and must be considered thusly.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

These techno-capitalists like Kurzweil have got themselves a lot of media attention for AI but they are all talk. And I actually bought into their nonsense until recently. The truth is that all serious attempts at building AI died 20 years ago.

Sometimes talk is necessary. We don't yet have a working model of consciousness, so how can we hope to program an artificial one at this point?


The other name that applies here is artificial stupidity. This is a quote from Erik Naggum:

I think the problem faced by software is one of communicating the principle
of machine decision-making based on a fixed set of stored instructions to
people who can barely program their VCR. the novice-friendly software goes
out of its way to limit the decision-making to whatever users could do on
their own -- or at least present an illusion to that effect. Emacs does
work automatically that is way out of their league. some people actually
feel intimidated by Emacs for this reason. also, Emacs doesn't crash.
Emacs doesn't act stupidly. Emacs isn't annoying you without cause. if
Emacs annoys you, it does so in a way that makes users feel stupid and feel
they should take the blame. the novice-friendly software is more like a
misbehaving dog: it shits on the floor, it destroys things, and stinks --
the novice-friendly software embodies the _opposite_ of what computer
people have dreamed of for decades: artificial stupidity. it's more human.

To be honest, that sounds like he'd been working too long in consumer-oriented (rather than professionally-oriented) software, and that gave him a disdain for people who have no desire or need to spend years learning all the ins and outs of a software system.

Of course, sometimes people reach the limits of novice-friendly software and feel disappointed that they couldn't do more, but that's the responsibility of the programmers to make a program with a learning curve that doesn't terminate prematurely.

Most people are users, not programmers.


Capitalists don't want capable programmers or AI specialists they want replaceable workers.

I don't see how the two are necessarily exclusive. The real world is messy like that.

[Chris]

I'm highly sceptical of transhumanism. If we eliminate aging and death, then where would people eventually live? There is a limit to how many humans can live on earth, and the energy demand to make space travel feasable is immense, not to mention the feasability of succesfull terraforming the rest of the solar system seems slim. Either we would have to ban having children altogether, or transhumanism would be reserved for the rich and powerful. Either outcome is messed up.

And what of our brains? Our psyche? We aren't made for living for centuries, hell we are hardly made for living to 80. Senility and our sense of time is already heavily distorted when we age to 70-80. How much worse would these symptoms be after a while? And I would think any cure for such symptoms, would involve so great change to the brain of a person... that it would, in the end, be a completely different person. Or highly risky. Just what I think, haven't studied the thought much.

Personally, I wouldn't want to greatly extend my lifespan even if the problems regarding the brain and time perspective were fixed without altering me as a person. Who wants to live forever? Then one would really feel that there was "nothing new under the sun" anymore.

[CommunityBeliever]

Sometimes talk is necessary. We don't yet have a working model of consciousness, so how can we hope to program an artificial one at this point?The problem with this talk is that it is mixed into reactionary politics, as comrade Summerspeaker said before: "As long as we stay the course with free-market innovation, everything will turn out as awesome as we can imagine. Keep working, you'll go to heaven."

Yet the reality shows that "free-market innovation" isn't going to get us out of the hole that we are in. Dealing with such a problem as Strong AI will require not just incredible amounts of research into models of consciousness but also entirely new intelligent machine architectures similar to the Lisp machines and a complete rethinking of computing.

Capitalism is not capable of dealing with such a grandiose a task because it prioritizes short term profit and it cannot handle large scale long-term projects. Its like terraforming Mars, capitalism is not capable of such a momentous task. Capitalism knows only how to accumulate short-term profits.

There have been lots of projects like Tunes (http://tunes.org/) and Loper-OS (http://www.loper-os.org/) to get us out of our technological dark age, but since there done by such a small group with minimal funding they never come into fruition. Socialism will allow for us to build effective computer systems.


I don't see how the two are necessarily exclusive. The real world is messy like that. Its not a matter of exclusivity so much as priorities, the capitalists value replaceablity because that way they do not depend on that worker, and since they don't depend on them the threat of firing and replacement can be used to keep the worker down and ensure he doesn't get any privileges.

This is to a large extent why systems like Java are so popular, they benefit the models of the big businesses and as a secondary effect they ensure that no capable developers, with the skills to build AI will arise.

Furthermore, the replaceability element fits into globalisation, the capitalists are increasingly trying to get cheaper sources of labor so they are replacing more expensive first world workers with ones in places such as Bangalore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore), look up how many corporations are doing business there to see what I mean. This capitalist system is fucked up, lets overthrow it!


To be honest, that sounds like he'd been working too long in consumer-oriented (rather than professionally-oriented) software, and that gave him a disdain for people who have no desire or need to spend years learning all the ins and outs of a software system.That assessment, artificial stupidity, actually pretty aptly describes the software of today.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm highly sceptical of transhumanism. If we eliminate aging and death, then where would people eventually live? There is a limit to how many humans can live on earth, and the energy demand to make space travel feasable is immense, not to mention the feasability of succesfull terraforming the rest of the solar system seems slim. Either we would have to ban having children altogether, or transhumanism would be reserved for the rich and powerful. Either outcome is messed up.

And neither outcome is necessary or inevitable. For one thing, birthrates are generally negatively correlated with overall quality of life. I think it's safe to assume that if life-extension technologies become commonplace, then those who can get it would not find themselves in a position where they constantly have to push out sprogs to survive.


And what of our brains? Our psyche? We aren't made for living for centuries, hell we are hardly made for living to 80. Senility and our sense of time is already heavily distorted when we age to 70-80. How much worse would these symptoms be after a while?

One would assume that such things are treatable, otherwise there's no point in extending one's life if one is too far gone to appreciate it.


And I would think any cure for such symptoms, would involve so great change to the brain of a person... that it would, in the end, be a completely different person. Or highly risky. Just what I think, haven't studied the thought much.

Memory appears to be non-volatile, so I don't think that will be a problem. As for risk, that is for the patient or their next of kin to decide whether it is appropriate or not.


Personally, I wouldn't want to greatly extend my lifespan even if the problems regarding the brain and time perspective were fixed without altering me as a person. Who wants to live forever? Then one would really feel that there was "nothing new under the sun" anymore.

Really? Do you really think there is enough time in the universe for a single being to know everything about it?


The problem with this talk is that it is mixed into reactionary politics, as comrade Summerspeaker said before: "As long as we stay the course with free-market innovation, everything will turn out as awesome as we can imagine. Keep working, you'll go to heaven."

Yet the reality shows that "free-market innovation" isn't going to get us out of the hole that we are in.

Preaching to the choir there, but I will say that I haven't encountered any free-market fundamentalism during any of my visits to Less Wrong, which Yudkowsky is a part of.


Capitalism is not capable of dealing with such a grandiose a task because it prioritizes short term profit and it cannot handle large scale long-term projects. Its like terraforming Mars, capitalism is not capable of such a momentous task. Capitalism knows only how to accumulate short-term profits.

Maybe the first Strong AI won't be built until after capitalism, but it's possible that crucial discoveries could be made before then. Much like how the Apollo project (among others) laid the groundwork for any colonists that follow.

There needs to be more public support for science and technical fields, and that applies just as much today as it does tomorrow - in fact, deferring meaningful action in such critical fields until "after the revolution" sounds far too much like a secular version of the "Rapture" - incidentally, it's also something that Singularitarians can be guilty of.

[CommunityBeliever]

Personally, I wouldn't want to greatly extend my lifespan even if the problems regarding the brain and time perspective were fixed without altering me as a person. Who wants to live forever?No one is going to force you to live forever. You can always take your own life.

But why should there ever be involuntary death, disease, aging, or suffering? How are any of these things good? I think we should let people decide for themselves.


Maybe the first Strong AI won't be built until after capitalism, but it's possible that crucial discoveries could be made before then. Much like how the Apollo project (among others) laid the groundwork for any colonists that follow. I agree with you there.