Thanks so much. I honestly can never tell if my articles are good -- that surprises some people, but I'm not the kind of person who automatically thinks my work is excellent by default! Very helpful to know that you found it clear and useful. :-)
I have been learning from you since reading your book. It is brave of you to try to do what you are doing as a full-time, independent scholar. But you are a careful, clear voice among the small group of people who are trying to help the rest of us understand and steel ourselves against the consequences from the "cockamamie" ideas and immoral, destructive actions of the insane "digital life" crowd.
I found your work from researching the AI complex. The conclusions you reach have greatly informed me, and reinforce my independent conclusions. What is overlooked is the world system tyrannical implications. In order for the mythological transformation of humanity to occur, ubiquitous harvesting of virtually all information is thus required. Digital twins, substrate interoperability, and differential access to that substrate are necessary precursors to the transcendent goal. Whether the mythological vision is in any way attainable is highly questionable. But, as you observe, it provides a rational for the installation of the required system, a system which offers a level off tyrannical control unmatched in human history.
As far as I can tell, this system will rule through permissions, classifications, twin manipulation modeling as a real time function and various other sneaky modalities of control.
While the EXTINCTION debate garners headlines, the obscured threat of the tyrannical edifice remains radically neglected. Perhaps you might consider highlighting this aspect.
Also, your TESCREAL analysis needs to get out to the press and the public. A concentrated outreach would be extremely beneficial to the present debate. Who these people are and what they actually believe is unknown to virtually everyone.
Another of Bostrom's thefts is Paradise Engineering, right ? Didn't he steal the idea from David Pearce's voluminous writings on hedweb? (Admittedly, in the early-mid 2000's, I was quite impressed with Pearce's massive web of links on psychopharmacology and brain stimulation studies).
There is an assumption here that you are taking for granted. An assumption which you consider so obvious that you don’t even feel the need to defend it, but which in fact requires defending. Namely, that the cosmic posthuman utopia is undesirable and legacy humans should be preserved for eternity. This is not obvious to me!
David: I believe you have misunderstood Émile. He is not *assuming* that humans of today should continue to exist, such that the "should" requires support. He is *asserting a value* that humans of today are of paramount importance. Under that assertion, the loss of humanity as it exists today is, by definition, bad.
Émile's writing on the types of extinction was hugely beneficial for my understanding of this point. Because of his clarity in communication, I was able to see that his assertions and mine are not assumptions that need support in the face of challenge. We are not failing to understand each other. We simply have opposing values.
One of your best and clearest explainers, Emile. Keep up the good, essential work you are doing.
Thanks so much. I honestly can never tell if my articles are good -- that surprises some people, but I'm not the kind of person who automatically thinks my work is excellent by default! Very helpful to know that you found it clear and useful. :-)
I have been learning from you since reading your book. It is brave of you to try to do what you are doing as a full-time, independent scholar. But you are a careful, clear voice among the small group of people who are trying to help the rest of us understand and steel ourselves against the consequences from the "cockamamie" ideas and immoral, destructive actions of the insane "digital life" crowd.
I’m just glad that I’d happily bet my life we won’t achieve ASI, given that I’m also forced to.
I found your work from researching the AI complex. The conclusions you reach have greatly informed me, and reinforce my independent conclusions. What is overlooked is the world system tyrannical implications. In order for the mythological transformation of humanity to occur, ubiquitous harvesting of virtually all information is thus required. Digital twins, substrate interoperability, and differential access to that substrate are necessary precursors to the transcendent goal. Whether the mythological vision is in any way attainable is highly questionable. But, as you observe, it provides a rational for the installation of the required system, a system which offers a level off tyrannical control unmatched in human history.
As far as I can tell, this system will rule through permissions, classifications, twin manipulation modeling as a real time function and various other sneaky modalities of control.
While the EXTINCTION debate garners headlines, the obscured threat of the tyrannical edifice remains radically neglected. Perhaps you might consider highlighting this aspect.
Also, your TESCREAL analysis needs to get out to the press and the public. A concentrated outreach would be extremely beneficial to the present debate. Who these people are and what they actually believe is unknown to virtually everyone.
Schism or controlled opposition?
Another of Bostrom's thefts is Paradise Engineering, right ? Didn't he steal the idea from David Pearce's voluminous writings on hedweb? (Admittedly, in the early-mid 2000's, I was quite impressed with Pearce's massive web of links on psychopharmacology and brain stimulation studies).
There is an assumption here that you are taking for granted. An assumption which you consider so obvious that you don’t even feel the need to defend it, but which in fact requires defending. Namely, that the cosmic posthuman utopia is undesirable and legacy humans should be preserved for eternity. This is not obvious to me!
Émile appears to believe that cosmic posthuman utopia is, above all else, silly.
David: I believe you have misunderstood Émile. He is not *assuming* that humans of today should continue to exist, such that the "should" requires support. He is *asserting a value* that humans of today are of paramount importance. Under that assertion, the loss of humanity as it exists today is, by definition, bad.
Émile's writing on the types of extinction was hugely beneficial for my understanding of this point. Because of his clarity in communication, I was able to see that his assertions and mine are not assumptions that need support in the face of challenge. We are not failing to understand each other. We simply have opposing values.