From: Eugene Leitl (eugene@liposome.genebee.msu.su)
Date: Wed Jul 22 1998 - 09:52:18 MDT
Robin Hanson writes:
> >I think this is a dangerous position. ...
>
> Yes, powerful ideas are dangerous. But that doesn't make them wrong.
I was actually thinking about the verbatim sense: it might kill you,
since you choose not the right strategy because of a wrong model. No rhetorics.
> >The bulk of past predictions now seems ludicrous. ...
>
> This claim is independent of any concept of singularity. So are you
> saying no one should ever attempt to envision the future decades ahead?
Independent? Not quite. It's just that predicting things grows the
harder the nearer we are near the Singularity. _Of course_ one should
attempt to envision the future decades ahead, just don't expect it's
graven in stone you'll turn out right.
> >If there is no banking nor art after the Singularity, extrapolating
> >from past human insight is worth shit.
> >you emerge a god from the other side ... which is perfectly
> >incomprehensible for an nonparticipating mehum observer.
>
> How can you be so sure of these things, that gods have no banking, and
> that gods are incomprehensible to us? These true by definition of "god"?
I can't be sure, that's the reason I mentioned this. The bandwidth of
possible developments suddenly explodes, and you're a sorely put at
assigning probabilities to each individual branch of the multitude.
As to 'gods are incomprehensible to us', why, yes, I'd say that's a
part of their definition. If I can predict the actions of a posthuman,
then it is no different from a wind-up toy.
'gene
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:23 MST