I grok that grass is to be walked upon (as MV Smith noted)--and also
several definitions of Singularity. We can be prepared, if there's
time. Most likely, there won't be. I do think a technoSingularity is
inevitable, if we don't derail civilization beforehand. If, however,
we can upgrade ourSELVES sufficiently before it arrives, it will not
be the "Singularity" we're expecting, and it's conceivable it won't
get out of hand. This is what I mean by 'being prepared.' Working the
other way around--trying to create a nonhuman SI--is I think
(personal opinion) suicidal. Control (including design choices) in
such a case--of actions, of intentions, of amicability--is an
illusion.
To my mind, there is only one definition of extinction: You and
everything like you is gone.
I agree "There is no Fate but what we make for ourselves." Or, as the
Greeks had it, "Character is Fate."
By either standard, Mankind is in trouble.
jm
On 29 Apr 2001, at 14:01, Emlyn wrote:
> Marlow wrote:
> > > ...
> > > I am spending almost all my time and effort working toward the
> Singularity,
> > > myself.
> >
> > #Not sure that's a good idea. We're not ready for it. We must be
> > prepared when it hits or extinction is likely. It'll get here; no
> > need to rush it.
> >
>
> You don't really grok the concept of Singularity, do you? There's two
> important point about it, to my mind...
>
> - It's already beginning. The "spike" is an extrapolation of occurences from
> before now.
> - You can't be prepared... at best, you can be less unprepared than everyone
> else.
> - Extinction? In this context, that's all about definitions.
> - It is no way pre-determined that a technological singularity will occur.
> It seems likely, but a lot can happen between now and then. The absence of
> pre-destination in all things, including the human environment of the near
> future, is the basic reason that tranhumanism, and extropianism, need to
> exist.
>
> Emlyn
>
John Marlow
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:00 MDT