From: John B (discwuzit@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Apr 01 2002 - 08:36:55 MST
Ms Atkins wrote:
"Not neccessarily but it is and will remain a concern.
It is a concern that has often been expressed by many
on this list. Because of the scope of military and
control applications of nanotech and AI, they are of a
bit more concern than early computers were."
Agreed, it is something that is potentially a problem.
However, it's not a given, which is all I was
responding to.
"By the way, my last name contains a "t" instead of
the "d". "
My fault - sorry about that. Should have doublechecked
a bit more before posting.
"I disagree that the development required would be
massive as far as including a lot of people, for
either nanotech or AI."
I consider it quite likely that it will require quite
a lot of people, due to the bureaucratic requirements
of doing ANYTHING through the American government -
note that I assume that this will be the case with any
major "first-world" government you can care to
mention. This is not talking about the actual 'brains'
doing the work - agreed, all it really will take is
one or two major intellects to do the work, someone
with a unique perspective on how things work. But
there will be safety managers, systems administrators,
administrative assistants, security coordinators,
testing leads, documentation leads, physical security
leads, network security leads, development leads,
leading-technology-indicator analysts, etc - pick any
buzzword you care to name, it'll be in the list of
personnel one way or another.
"And I have personally had experience of firms with
military contracts not being willing (or perhaps
legally able) to license civilian uses of even
seemingly no-risk technology they had first developed
under military contract. If nanotech is first
weaponized it could be some time before the technology
is seen elsewhere."
I've seen other organizations with military/government
contracts finding loopholes and reapplying such tech
to non-governmental, non-military projects. It may not
be moral, but lawyers are clever and some management
may be unethical.
"This cigar is not a cigar. If you wish to believe it
is you are welcome to do so. But it is too convenient
by far. Saying there will always be theories dismisses
some quite important possibilities that it may be
dangerous to dismiss at this time as they are, if
realistic, in the way of our fondest hopes."
I agree, it's awful convenient for the Luddite and/or
power-conservation blocs, among the groups who most
benefit from such action. In the first place, the tech
was destabilizing and the "camel's nose under the
tent" (meaning the first indication you were about to
be visited by a most objectional neighbor), and in the
second the economic response was destabilizing. In
either case, they (the potential conspirators) need to
do something to halt the destabilization.
However, both would require significant access into
the technological sector (aka the 'dot coms') to set
this up. Do-able, but objectional to both groups
either due to morals or economic risk. It'd be more
likely that one or both (or the possibility that both
are represented in the same organization of people)
have access to/control of the venture capitalists.
Considering just how bumptious that group is,
something which I must consider unlikely.
If I'm wrong about this, please, do correct me. I'd
love to have a valid target.
I stated earlier, "All I can honestly say is that if
there *IS* convincing evidence of such a group
controlling our lives, I have yet to see it in the
(relatively few) years I've been watching.". Ms Atkins
responded, "If it could be seen easily it would of
course not be very effective. Personally I lean toward
believing there is some reason to be somewhat paranoid
at this time."
True, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean
they're not out to get you. However, paranoia is often
counterproductive in that you spend too much time
looking for connections that aren't there. *shrug* To
each their own, and I hope you find anything that's
out there. If you do, please DO let me know, and we'll
see what can be done. I'm just a loudmouth with a
fraction of the brains of some of the people on this
list, but I'm willing to stand up and speak as I feel
the need - and, quite frankly, in that type of
situation I probably would feel the need. *wry grin*
I stated, "In short, I don't see the dot-coms as
anything other than people betting - BETTING - on a
'sure thing' and getting their hands slapped
financially."
Ms Atkins posted, "So you are simply dismissing the
many, many companies and businesses who do not fall in
this neat package? You are dismissing the size of the
meltdown that did not limit itself to dot-com
companies and that continues long after any real
correction? Almost all nominal companies tanked
including many high-tech and AI efforts. A lot of
cutting-edge research has been set back as far as
being available to you or I.
Perhaps it was not a conspiracy but it has slowed all
of us down. My own goals of financial independence and
freedom to move to a different job, contract or start
my own business have also been effected negatively. I
am not alone in that."
As the great majority of venture capitalists are NOT
highly technically educated (at least those I've met
and read of), I can easily see one portion of the
"cutting edge" of technology's failure to be
economically feasible affecting all others. Especially
since the sectors involved here (dot-coms, AI) are all
computer based.
And computers are the same world-wide, ain't they?
*wry grin* I'm a system administrator by trade. I
can't count the number of times people have asked what
I did, and then asked about the intricacies of their
favorite software package on a platform I'm not savvy
on. "But, you run computers, right?" is the amazed
response when I explain that I don't know what they
need to do.
As for having slowed the advance of technology down -
you betcha. It's much harder to get funding - and
therefore jobs and new technology - into the technical
sectors. And yes, it's affected my life as well,
significantly.
But, is this necessarily a bad thing? That we have
TIME to adjust to this bunch of new technologies (new
processor types, new communication routes,
expansion/enhancement of old types like fiberoptics,
new software standards and 'standards' such as
Microsoft's .NET and XML respectively)?
I've argued here before that we need to understand the
tech while we can. Eventually, assuming the technology
continues its historical exponential growth, it's not
going to be possible as we are now. However, the
longer we're able to maintain comprehension the less
problems we'll have. And if we're capable of
generating friendly AI or IA before we loose that
comprehension, we may never need go through some of
the nastier potentials of the Singularity.
A goal I find extremely attractive.
-John
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover
http://greetings.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:11 MST