The Coming Authoritarianism.

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
speaking again only for myself I don't think tech bros are more inherently evil or good than any other group

Google doing away with "don't be evil" was the most fitting piece of symbolism possible

the morality of tech is don't be evil unless it cuts into profit margin in which case, try to mitigate the evil I guess, unless that cuts into profit margin...

you can see how that winds up

tech bro culture is a symptom, not the system
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
Vimothy, who makes over a million (£) a year as a programmer says there is no way AI is happening. It's sci-fi fantasy.
Artificial general intelligence, perhaps. a largely semantic issue, but AI has been in use for... maybe a decade now? Total guess, don't know. But the way (what few) experts (I've heard) talk about it, is as if AI is a quotidian factor in their industry. Not mystified at all. Depends on how you define these things.

If "intelligence" denotes what is characteristically human, then yeah, it won't touch us. But if we are talking about the complexity physical machines, biological or not, it very likely could touch us - only a matter of time. Might be more time then we'll have, but I don't believe that.

Then theres the matter of actually building at that scale, which I cannot foresee, but near infinite growth in a finite amount of time is where I think we are heading. When that uptake starts, I don't know.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
I do acknowledge the inevitability of technological "progress" in some form

you cannot reseal Pandora's Box come what may

every attempt in human history has been an abject failure, sometimes it just takes longer to recognize

the famous case of Japan successfully banning guns for 250 years...until the moment Perry's fleet showed up

if you're not doing it, someone else will
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
Well what if you are trying to calibrate your position to objectivity? Do you even think thats possible? As some vast process of "screening" ideologies/positions and dialectically grouping them and synthesizing them? I think its possible to move toward, infinitesimally, the "objective" position. As @luka brought up regarding Robert Anton Wilsons usage of "objective", its a descriptor that is only applied from the position from which infinity is tucked under the horizon, a position from which the round registers as linear.

So your ideological argument is valid, because I've hardly gotten far enough, but I believe there is a far enough, a sort of superposition you could hold (schizo plurality of positions) which increasingly approximates the cosmos itself.

That is, moving from thinking about "what should happen" to "what will happen". I believe its possible, and I do think it is ultimately a matter of belief, beyond science, because I do think science is the rearguard, at this scope.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
@suspendedreason you really do have to stop attributing positions to people they don't hold, it's a terrible habit

again you'd think someone with a fancy education would know not to keep setting up strawmen
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
So if I am defending a particular position, which I may unknowingly be (bad faith?), it is only a plateau along the kind of incline I'm trying to climb. That is, if I am pushing some ideology, that is only because I haven't yet advanced past that point.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
Which I am quite often guilty of, but it seems I am working in a different framework, with different terms, than a traditionally ideological framework. I tried to get at this with second-order pragmatism.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
believing you can "know" what will happen is an ideological position
Which is perhaps the central one, the one propelling the increasing complexity of the cosmos. If we were to impose a psyche onto such developments.

It is getting impossible to work around this, I admit, which very well could be some ideological hangup I haven't uprooted yet.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
but don't berate yourself for failing to solve cosmology

no one else has either and no one ever will. there is no answer. it's turtles all the way down for everyone.

artificial general intelligence won't solve it either
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
The moment I totally roll with what appears true, the moment the ephexis/skepticism dies, is the moment the messiah complex is kicked into hyperdrive, so, believe me, I'm not keen on the idea of slipping up. And it seems there is yet a while to go.

I'd rather take a psychic development like that too seriously, rather than not take it seriously enough.

there is nothing "propelling" increasing complexity. there is no psyche, no will.

there's not even indifference, which would imply a conscious mind capable of indifference.
I don't necessarily disagree, but rather we impose that sort of thing onto it, which may be an incidental habit of cognition, or it may be indicative of the essence of our cognition (imposing causation). Everything you say here, in this post, can be perfectly compatible with what I'm saying, it seems.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
if I were to sum up the dystopic future in one line it would be

"imagine an algorithm stamping on a human face - forever"

obvious, succinct

more benevolent than a boot, no doubt
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
there is nothing "propelling" increasing complexity. there is no psyche, no will.

there's not even indifference, which would imply a conscious mind capable of indifference.
That's Padraig's take. It's not for everyone, albeit it's the default position of modern secular society.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
The "oneness" of the target/aim of our cognition seems to almost necessarily preclude us from ultimate experience - but not quite necessarily. This "oneness" also lets us establish how one thing is distinct from another thing - it enables difference, no?
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
From that all of subjective meaning - meaning that is locally substantiated, dependent on position - springs forth.
edit: much in the manner of a big bang.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
That's Padraig's take
the qualifier is "and if there is, neither you nor I nor anyone are capable of comprehending it or whether it exists"

so I don't say definitively there is not, rather that either way it's unknowable

we just went over this in the atheist thread and I feel like I've made that qualifier many times in general, but to be clear
 
Top