From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Thu Mar 28 2002 - 09:00:38 MST
Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
> >
> > This is not a comfortable point of view. It sound like the worst
> > sort of short-term thinking, like eating the seed corn. However, the
> > truth is that all energy generation is disruptive. Solar, wind, and
> > hydro generally require massive up-front capital outlay for longer-term
> > paybacks, Coal mining rapes the landscape and builds CO2, nuclear
> > requires a massive outlay for educating the public, etc.
> >
>
> Singularity, contrary to some opinions is not inevitable. A
> long endless war (the dumb US one turned more hot for instance)
> could seriously slow down technological advances as could
> socio-political counter-measures (many of which we seem to be
> attempting).
Exactly when has it been claimed that wartime ever decreased the rate of
technological development?
>
>
> > In my opinion, the correct extropian evaluation uses a very sharp
> > discount rate, because we know that technology will advance much faster
> > than most analysts believe. Therefore, we should favor energy generation
>
> We actually "know" no such thing. Look how easy it was to stop
> a lot of high-tech startups in their tracks with the one-two
> punch of the tech slump and 9/11 and the additional blow of
> Bushite nonsense. Technology is not just technology, it
> involves people, politics and business.
The dot com world was melting down long before Bush was even elected,
primarily due to a lot of money being wasted on truly stupid ideas
without coherent business plans or market research.
>
> > that minimizes initial capital outlay. This conclusion goes against all
> > my prejudices and upbringing and is therefore emotionally uncomfortable,
> > but is a direct consequence in my rational analysis that the singularity
> > is highly likely to occur before 2020.
>
> I do not think this is highly likely any more. The world is a
> good deal different than it was a couple of years ago and not
> altogether for the good of such a prediction. I believe
> Singularity is possible by 2020 but not so likely. If it does
> come before 2020 I would expect it to come from nanotech
> advances first rather than AI. I don't believe we have much of
> a workable plan for producing a SI that soon yet.
I think it will come from the human augmentation market, which *will*
advance as soon as the handicapped exceed normal human performance with
augmentations by large margins.
>
> > This does not mean that I'm
> > waiting for the tooth fairy to bring about the singularity. It does mean
> > that I'm no longer interested in the power debate.
> >
>
> Why? Because the SI (supposedly) will figure it all out for us
> as soon as it kicks in? This seems very dangerous to me.
It's also rather pollyannish.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:07 MST