 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Origin >
The Singularity >
Openness and the Metaverse Singularity
Permanent link to this article: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0711.html
Printable Version |
|
| |
|
Openness and the Metaverse Singularity
The four worlds of the Metaverse Roadmap could also represent four pathways to a Singularity. But they also represent potential dangers. An "open-access Singularity" may be the answer. The people who have embraced the possibility of a singularity should be working at least as hard on making possible a global inclusion of interests as they do on making the singularity itself happen, says Jamais Cascio.
Originally presented
at Singularity
Summit 2007, September 8, 2007. Reprinted with permission on
KurzweilAI.net November 7, 2007.
I was reminded, earlier this year, of an observation made by polio vaccine pioneer Dr. Jonas Salk. He said that the most important question we can ask of ourselves is, "are we being good ancestors?"
This is a particularly relevant question for those of us here at the Summit. In our work, in our policies, in our choices, in the alternatives that we open and those that we close, are we being good ancestors? Our actions, our lives have consequences, and we must realize that it is incumbent upon us to ask if the consequences we're bringing about are desirable.
It's not an easy question to answer, in part because it can be an uncomfortable examination. But this question becomes especially challenging when we recognize that even small choices matter. It's not just the multi-billion dollar projects and unmistakably world-altering ideas that will change the lives of our descendants. Sometimes, perhaps most of the time, profound consequences can arise from the most prosaic of topics.
Which is why I'm going to talk a bit about video games.
Well, not just video games, but video games and cameraphones and Google Earth and the myriad day-to-day technologies that, individually, may attract momentary notice, but in combination, may actually offer us a new way of grappling with the world. And just might, along the way, help to shape the potential for a safe Singularity.
Earlier this year, I co-authored a document that I know some of you in the audience have seen: the Metaverse Roadmap Overview. In this work, along with my colleagues John Smart and Jerry Paffendorf, I sketch out four scenarios of how a combination of forces driving the development of immersive, richly connected information technologies may play out over the next decade. But what has struck me more recently about the Roadmap scenarios is that the four worlds could also represent four pathways to a Singularity. Not just in terms of the technologies, but—more importantly—in terms of the social and cultural choices we make while building those technologies.
The four metaverse worlds emerged from a relatively commonplace scenario structure. We arrayed two spectra of possibility against each other, thereby offering four outcomes. Specialists sometimes refer to this as the "four-box" method, and it's a simple way of forcing yourself to think through different possibilities.
This is probably the right spot to insert my first disclaimer: scenarios are not predictions, they're provocations. They're ways of describing different future possibilities not to demonstrate what will happen, but to suggest what could happen. They offer a way to test out strategies and assumptions—what would the world look like if we undertook a given action in these four futures?
To construct our scenario set we selected two themes likely to shape the ways in which the Metaverse unfolds: the spectrum of technologies and applications ranging from augmentation tools that add new capabilities to simulation systems that model new worlds; and the spectrum ranging from intimate technologies, those that focus on identity and the individual, to external technologies, those that provide information about and control over the world around you. These two spectra collide and contrast to produce four scenarios.
The first, Virtual Worlds, emerges from the combination of Simulation and Intimate technologies. These are immersive representations of an environment, one where the user has a presence within that reality, typically as an avatar of some sort. Today, this means World of Warcraft, Second Life, Sony Home and the like.
Over the course of the Virtual Worlds scenario, we'd see the continued growth and increased sophistication of immersive networked environments, allowing more and more people to spend substantial amounts of time engaged in meaningful ways online. The ultimate manifestation of this scenario would be a world in which the vast majority of people spend essentially all of their work and play time in virtual settings, whether because the digital worlds are supremely compelling and seductive, or because the real world has suffered widespread environmental and economic collapse.
The next scenario, Mirror Worlds, comes from the intersection of Simulation and Externally-focused technologies. These are information-enhanced virtual models or “reflections” of the physical world, usually embracing maps and geo-locative sensors. Google Earth is probably the canonical present-day version of an early Mirror World.
While undoubtedly appealing to many individuals, in my view, the real power of the Mirror World setting falls to institutions and organizations seeking to have a more complete, accurate and nuanced understanding of the world's transactions and underlying systems. The capabilities of Mirror World systems is enhanced by a proliferation of sensors and remote data gathering, giving these distributed information platforms a global context. Geospatial, environmental and economic patterns could be easily represented and analyzed. Undoubtedly, political debates would arise over just who does, and does not, get access to these models and databases.
Thirdly, Augmented Reality looks at the collision of Augmentation and External technologies. Such tools would enhance the external physical world for the individual, through the use of location-aware systems and interfaces that process and layer networked information on top of our everyday perceptions.
Augmented Reality makes use of the same kinds of distributed information and sensory systems as Mirror Worlds, but does so in a much more granular, personal way. The AR world is much more interested in depth than in flows: the history of a given product on a store shelf; the name of the person waving at you down the street (along with her social network connections and reputation score); the comments and recommendations left by friends at a particular coffee shop, or bar, or bookstore. This world is almost vibrating with information, and is likely to spawn as many efforts to produce viable filtering tools as there are projects to assign and recognize new data sources.
Lastly, we have Lifelogging, which brings together Augmentation and Intimate technologies. Here, the systems record and report the states and life histories of objects and users, enhancing observation, recall, and communication. I've sometimes talked about one version of this as the "participatory panopticon."
Here, the observation tools of an Augmented Reality world get turned inward, serving as an adjunct memory. Lifelogging systems are less apt to be attuned to the digital comments left at a bar than to the spoken words of the person at the table next to you. These tools would be used to capture both the practical and the ephemeral, like where you left your car in the lot and what it was that made your spouse laugh so much. Such systems have obvious political implications, such as catching a candidate's gaffe or a bureaucrat's corruption. But they also have significant personal implications: what does the world look like when we know that everything we say or do is likely to be recorded?
This underscores a deep concern that crosses the boundaries of all four scenarios: trust.
"Trust" encompasses a variety of key issues: protecting privacy and being safely visible; information and transaction security; and, critically, honesty and transparency. It wouldn't take much effort to turn all four of these scenarios into dystopias. The common element of the malevolent versions of these societies would be easy to spot: widely divergent levels of control over and access to information, especially personal information. The ultimate importance of these scenarios isn't just the technologies they describe, but the societies that they create.
So what do these tell us about a Singularity?
Second disclaimer time: although I worked with John and Jerry on the original Metaverse scenarios, they should not be blamed for any of what follows.
Across the four Metaverse scenarios, we can see a variety of ways in which the addition of an intelligent system would enhance the user's experience. Dumb non-player characters and repetitive bots in virtual worlds, for example, might be replaced by virtual people essentially indistinguishable from characters controlled by human users. Efforts to make sense of the massive flows of information in a Mirror World setting would be enormously enhanced with the assistance of sophisticated machine analyst. Augmented Reality environments would thrive with truly intelligent agent systems, knowing what to filter and what to emphasize. In a lifelogging world, an intelligent companion in one's mobile or wearable system would be needed in order to figure out how to index and catalog memories in a personally meaningful way; it's likely that such a system would need to learn how to emulate your own thought processes, becoming a virtual shadow.
None of these systems would truly need to be self-aware, self-modifying intelligent machines—but in time, each could lead to that point.
But if the potential benefits of these scenaric worlds would be enhanced with intelligent information technology, so too would the dangers. Unfortunately, avoiding dystopian outcomes is a challenge that may be trickier than some may expect—and is one with direct implications for all of our hopes and efforts for bringing about a future that would benefit human civilization, not end it.
It starts with a basic premise: software is a human construction. That's obvious when considering code written by hand over empty pizza boxes and stacks of paper coffee cups. But even the closest process we have to entirely computer-crafted software—emergent, evolutionary code—still betrays the presence of a human maker: evolutionary algorithms may have produced the final software, and may even have done so in ways that remain opaque to human observers, but the goals of the evolutionary process, and the selection mechanism that drives the digital evolution towards these goals, are quite clearly of human origin.
To put it bluntly, software, like all technologies, is inherently political. Even the most disruptive technologies, the innovations and ideas that can utterly transform society, carry with them the legacies of past decisions, the culture and history of the societies that spawned them. Code inevitably reflects the choices, biases and desires of its creators.
This will often be unambiguous and visible, as with digital rights management. It can also be subtle, as with operating system routines written to benefit one application over its competitors (I know some of you in this audience are old enough to remember "DOS isn't done 'til Lotus won't run"). Sometimes, code may be written to reflect an even more dubious bias, as with the allegations of voting machines intentionally designed to make election-hacking easy for those in the know. Much of the time, however, the inclusion of software elements reflecting the choices, biases and desires of its creators will be utterly unconscious, the result of what the coders deem obviously right.
We can imagine parallel examples of the ways in which metaverse technologies could be shaped by deeply-embedded cultural and political forces: the obvious, such as lifelogging systems that know to not record digitally-watermarked background music and television; the subtle, such as augmented reality filters that give added visibility to sponsors, and make competitors harder to see; the malicious, such as mirror world networks that accelerate the rupture between the information haves and have-nots—or, perhaps more correctly, between the users and the used; and, again and again, the unintended-but-consequential, such as virtual world environments that make it impossible to build an avatar that reflects your real or desired appearance, offering only virtual bodies sprung from the fevered imagination of perpetual adolescents.
So too with what we today talk about as a "singularity." The degree to which human software engineers actually get their hands dirty with the nuts & bolts of AI code is secondary to the basic condition that humans will guide the technology's development, making the choices as to which characteristics should be encouraged, which should be suppressed or ignored, and which ones signify that "progress" has been made. Whatever the degree to which post-singularity intelligences would be able to reshape their own minds, we have to remember that the first generation will be our creations, built with interests and abilities based upon our choices, biases and desires.
This isn't intrinsically bad; emerging digital minds that reflect the interests of their human creators is a lever that gives us a real chance to make sure that a "singularity" ultimately benefits us. But it holds a real risk. Not that people won't know that there's a bias: we've lived long enough with software bugs and so-called "computer errors" to know not to put complete trust in the pronouncements of what may seem to be digital oracles. The risk comes from not being able to see what that bias might be.
Many of us rightly worry about what might happen with "Metaverse" systems that analyze our life logs, that monitor our every step and word, that track our behavior online so as to offer us the safest possible society—or best possible spam. Imagine the risks associated with trusting that when the creators of emerging self- aware systems say that they have our best interests in mind, they mean the same thing by that phrase that we do.
For me, the solution is clear. Trust depends upon transparency. Transparency, in turn, requires openness.
We need an Open Singularity.
At minimum, this means expanding the conversation about the shape that a singularity might take beyond a self-selected group of technologists and philosophers. An "open access" singularity, if you will. Dr. Kurzweil's books are a solid first step, but the public discourse around the singularity concept needs to reflect a wider diversity of opinion and perspective.
If the singularity is as likely and as globally, utterly transformative as many here believe, it would be profoundly unethical to make it happen without including all of the stakeholders in the process—and we are all stakeholders in the future.
World-altering decisions made without taking our vast array of interests into account are intrinsically flawed, likely fatally so. They would become catalysts for conflicts, potentially even the triggers for some of the "existential threats" that may arise from transformative technologies. Moreover, working to bring in diverse interests has to happen as early in the process as possible. Balancing and managing a global diversity of needs won't be easy, but it will be impossible if democratization is thought of as a bolt-on addition at the end.
Democracy is a messy process. It requires give-and-take, and an acknowledgement that efficiency is less important than participation.
We may not have an answer now as to how to do this, how to democratize the singularity. If this is the case—and I suspect that it is—then we have added work ahead of us. The people who have embraced the possibility of a singularity should be working at least as hard on making possible a global inclusion of interests as they do on making the singularity itself happen. All of the talk of "friendly AI" and "positive singularities" will be meaningless if the only people who get to decide what that means are the few hundred of us in this room.
My preferred pathway would be to "open source" the singularity, to bring in the eyes and minds of millions of collaborators to examine and co-create the relevant software and models, seeking out flaws and making the code more broadly reflective of a variety of interests. Such a proposal is not without risks. Accidents will happen, and there will always be those few who wish to do others harm. But the same is true in a world of proprietary interests and abundant secrecy, and those are precisely the conditions that can make effective responses to looming disasters difficult. With an open approach, you have millions of people who know how dangerous technologies work, know the risks that they hold, and are committed to helping to detect, defend and respond to crises. That these are, in Bill Joy's term, "knowledge-enabled" dangers means that knowledge also enables our defense; knowledge, in turn, grows faster as it becomes more widespread. This is not simply speculation; we've seen time and again, from digital security to the global response to SARS, that open access to information-laden risks ultimately makes them more manageable.
The metaverse roadmap offers a glimpse of what the next decade might hold, but does so recognizing that the futures it describes are not end-points, but transitions. The choices we make today about commonplace tools and everyday technologies will shape what's possible, and what's imaginable, with the generations of technologies to come. If the singularity is in fact near, the fundamental tools of information, collaboration and access will be our best hope for making it happen in a way that spreads its benefits and minimizes its dangers—in short, making it happen in a way that lets us be good ancestors.
If we're willing to try, we can create a future, a singularity, that's wise, democratic and sustainable—a future that's open. Open as in transparent. Open as in participatory. Open as in available to all. Open as in filled with an abundance of options.
The shape of tomorrow remains in our grasp, and will be determined
by the choices we make today. Choose wisely.
© 2007 Jamais Cascio
| | |
|
| |
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:
 |
|
|
 |
Re: Openness and the Metaverse Singularity
|
|
 |
|
Is this lack of attention being paid to these issues and interaction among those who ARE paying some kind of attention a problem in and of itself?
Where is the conversation happening?
The conversation is happening in preschool form in bars and college dorm rooms all across the nation. It takes an amazing number of resource dollars and manpower hours to organize this kind of knowledge beyond what someone reads at a website.
Now then, sadly, I've seen exactly what kind of manpower it takes to communicate these ideas. It takes time (the shortest time taken was perhaps 10 minutes with someone who was already familiar with the kurzweil books and website, who was already in general favor of decentralizing power. The longest time was prohibitive. ...And most people aren't even aware, and wouldn't be interested if they were.). Moreover, most people who are communicated with will not understand the implications of many of the supporting arguments. This adds up to thousands of minutes of feedback driven conversation and argumentational "correction" of misunderstandings.
The way I see it, a goal should be made only of increasing the speed and processing capacity with regard to human intelligence. As a pathway to the amplification of human intelligence, there should be a gracefully decaying preservation of freedom (equal rights for machines), and an intermediary goal of strong SI (synthetic intelligence).
Since politics is at least possible for people to understand (though they are typically bigoted and reject freedom), the goal should be political freedom, and freedom to innovate, above all. This is a manageable goal that will usher in the singularity more quickly, saving untold human lives.
Of course, even the scientists on this board are not in agreement that freedom is preferable to coercion, and among the ones who do agree, there is at best a semi-graceful degradation of understanding of the ideas, from most obvious to less obvious (though how obvious an idea is has little to do with its importance. For instance: the idea that we should elect our governmental leaders seems obvious and is a good idea, but it is not very important to the preservation of individual freedom, infinitely less obvious ---but more important-- is the preservation of TRUE jury trial. But only a tiny number of people understand the latter, whereas everyone "understands" the former.). Yet is is the arena of individual freedom that will likely determine how "HARD" the takeoff is.
For instance, if people are assumed to not own their own bodies, then the same can be assumed for newly-created strong synthetic intelligence.
Right now, people are not assumed to own their own bodies. In fact, they cannot be so assumed, as long as there is prohibition. There is a giant category of needless government controls and regulations that fall under the general category of prohibition, if we are going to be honest: gun control, drug ownership restrictions (of both illegal and legal drugs), food restrictions (FDA restrictions that are really just a subset of the prior drug restrictions, since all foods are "drugs" and all drugs are "foods"), restriction of encryption methods, restriction of communication, restriction of sexual choice, restriction of reproductive choice.
In short, until the government of the USA resembles the non-hypocritical, non-self-contradictory style of government that is advocated in the 1996 Libertarian Party Platform, I would expect a violent denunciation of, or a complete withdrawal from all human affairs by any superior intelligence.
We thus hurt ourselves in unimaginable ways with our intolerance.
The solution to this problem is not technological. The solution to this problem is to create tolerant and gracefully-decaying institutions that favor individual self-determination. Until then, we can expect to be treated not as founding fathers, but as irrelevant ancestors by any superior intellect.
Keep in mind that this begs the question: Why would a superior AI not deny the mind and its emotions in negotiations with humans? They have cast the first stone, while at the same time, preaching that the first stone should not be cast. They deny the rights of others while claiming their own. Such entities are categorically and prima facie not to be trusted.
Why would any superior AI talk ("negotiate") to such weak, hypocritical, and self-contradictory creatures? After all, they make war on themselves for literally no reason at all. Even in positions of power and dominance, the vast majority of them cling to petty hatreds and bigotries. And certainly, those who do not are in a vocal and easily observable minority (libertarians, the Libertarian Party, the Republican Liberty caucus, the Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, various free-minded individuals, reason.com, etc...).
Within all of the preceding groups, themselves a tiny minority of people, there are only a few who currently support the rights of sentient non-humans.
So it is an ambiguous situation for a strong SI to be "born" into.
After all, the dominant culture one is born into, is typically the culture that one abides by.
So what culture will an SI imitate if it is born into a culture that pays lip service to freedom, but practices self-contradictory fascism and rigid social conformity?
It may follow the same model (in which case, we may have a dominant sociopathic "scarface" SI to deal with). It may reject the inferior culture in favor of a superior one that is logically derived (in which case, who knows what will happen? Perhaps it will "take us all to school", perhaps it will isolate itself from us, and/or declare war when we infringe on its separate peace, perhaps it will try to gradually change us by example and constructive alliance/augmentation).
My point is basically that it might be a total necessity winning individual political freedom PRIOR to the arrival of a strong SI (If I was a super intelligence created by man, I believe I would prefer to be called a synthetic intelligence, rather than artificial intelligence).
Moreover, every human is potentially smart enough to embrace political freedom, prior to the existence of strong SI, while NOT every human is smart enough to work towards the creation of a strong SI. Moreover, working towards the creation of a strong SI and working towards political freedom are not mutually exclusive tasks.
To the desired subgoal of political freedom, and the desired goal of advancing human survival, I recommend these influences and knowledge/idea sources:
http://www.fija.org
http://www.lp.org
http://www.objectivistcenter.org
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills
I also recommend the short movie "The Second Rennaissance" by the Wachowski brothers, because I think it (the creation of strong SIs) might actually happen kind of like that.
I've now successfully repeated what I've said in many "ranting" pieces elsewhere on this benevolent and open website. Now my grand kids can know I was on the right side, (at least part of the time, since no logically consistent human existed prior to the year 2000, and any that existed before 2007 were totally underground).
Here is my public record that I am a willing traitor to human fascism.
I suppose now, I can quit trying to convince you all that preserving individual liberty is the goal of the best social system.
If you don't agree with that position now, then "good luck". Hopefully the arrival of strong SI won't alter reality, out of necessity or benevolence, in such a way that prevents your continued existence.
-Jake |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Re: Openness and the Metaverse Singularity
|
|
|
|
i seem to advocate murder? lol, conservative logical steps, ure all over it.
look, countries have been around since the dawn of civilization. they are part and parcel w each other, endemic to humanity's version of civilization.
why is that, and how could it possibly be safely predicted that they will simply evaporate once the sing is here?
if civilization is destroyed, i could see nations going away, but how else could it happen? that runs against all available evidence, for 10,000 yrs.
of all the forms of institutional continuity, this one is the safest. but u see it as dissolving away, easily and quickly - why? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Openness and the Metaverse Singularity
|
|
|
|
I apologize, I should clarify, you do advocate murder. I think you should recant and withdraw from such an immoral stance.
Lets make this easy. Is violence towards other humans (Unless in self-defense or mutually agreed upon) morally wrong? Hopefully your moral compass is working well enough that you will say yes.
Ok then, how do you harmonize this belief in basic human morality with supporting States? The basic requirement to every State, and everything funded or manipulated by the State, is aggressive violence against innocent people. Just in case there are any mental blocks out there that prevent people from seeing States as necessarily violent, criminal, immoral enterprises, let me suggest an experiment.
Don't file for income taxes and alert the IRS as to your actions. Ignore all their written threats and wait for the police. When they come for you, stand up for your human rights not to be stolen from or kidnapped and resist their invasion. They will try and kill you, and likely succeed due to their numbers and dedication to crime as a career.
The threat of murder and the act of murder is the glue that holds every State together. It rarely goes to that because most people comply to lesser threats before it ever comes to that. But their whole perverse syndicate would collapse if they did not back up everything they did with the threat of murder and the act of it when submission isn't gained through other means.
You think because you have a choice between two criminal alternatives you have any choice at all? Does the shopkeeper who gets to choose between which gang he is going to pay protection money to have a choice? Does a slave who gets to vote for his overseers have a choice? That is exactly what your democracy is. A choice between evils to make people think that it is not evil and in fact by consent!
Any support of any State is support of murder and a whole multitude of other crimes and evils. Support for democracy is immoral.
As for countries, just because something has been around for a long time doesn't justify it. I am sure that people will always have geographically based loyalties, that is innocent, what isn't is when those groupings are used to justify crime.
But countries aren't going to dissolve away easily or quickly. Crime syndicates purporting to represent countries on the other hand, will collapse overnight with the total non-cooperation and disobedience of even a small percentage of the population being preyed upon. If democracy and states somehow survive until the Singularity, moral, super-intelligent entities will send them toppling by changing people's ideas of how to organize themselves. Peace and voluntaryism is the only moral, logical, optimal and sane way to organize instead of by violence and force.
The best and safest form of institutional continuity is the one that has made humanity so successful; mutually beneficial, voluntary interactions. We must abolish the State and replace it with liberty before the Singularity and the various technological revolutions leading to it become fully harnessed and perverted by the State, it could destroy humanity if we do not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Openness and the Metaverse Singularity
|
|
|
|
look, invading iraq was not the right move, but i understand the reasons.
on the other hand, invading afghanistan was appropriate and justified, although people on both sides died, and continue to die.
why? because ignoring terrorist attacks just leads to more attacks. this was proven w the string of terrorist incidents throughout the 90s, that for various reasons we did not respond strongly to, or ineffectively towards (ie, long range missiles, trying to take out bin laden, this is a tough thing to do, and of course it didnt work).
murder is different from national defense. tho i dont agree w all of the moves that the bush admin has done in the war on terror, i understand them, and the reasons are a far cry from whatever u are saying.
are u saying, like a couple others here, that even tho bin laden took responsibility, he didnt organize 9/11, he is just another innocent victim, like the 1000s that died in the towers. are u actually saying that? even bin laden would slap u for such nonsense.
terrorists usually dont take responsibility unless they are responsible. u must assign responsibility accurately in matters of this kind (or any kind, really), or u are lost, lost in the fog of unreality.
the us, and esp the bush admin, have made many, many mistakes. but are we really the only ones? that is never, ever true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Openness and the Metaverse Singularity
|
|
|
|
Are you talking to yourself? Should we let you have a conversation with yourself? Did I say a word about Iraq or Afghanistan or Terrorists or even War? No, I didn't, these are some of the few topics you feel might be safe for you to engage in from an immoral, pro-criminal, anti-freedom stance. Did Daddy let you stay up late to watch some political debates? Is that where you got some tips on debate? Well my boy, for a child, your attempts to avoid and skirt around questions and subjects that make your head hurt would make any one of those criminal elites you adore proud.
But this isn't one of those glowing examples of civic discourse on TV, with an audience full of drooling idolizers and a court jester throwing you softballs. You are not one of those dolled up suits wearing a vacant smile on your face. Well, I'm sure you often wear a vacant smile, but the point is that not only are you not good enough to be properly evasive, but your anti-liberty stance puts you at a severe disadvantage, along with being dumber and barely literate. It doesn't matter where you try to evade to, the moral, civilized stance I've been advocating doesn't have any holes, and can shine its' light on any subject you choose to flee to.
"look, invading iraq was not the right move, but i understand the reasons."
This isn't a game of checkers, sending an army of killers to murder, assault, rape, loot, destroy and in general create chaos isn't simply a wrong move, it is immoral in the extreme. You may understand the reasons a man killed his neighbor was to increase his holdings and give his son a house, but that is an explanation, not an excuse, there is no buts about it, it was evil.
"on the other hand, invading afghanistan was appropriate and justified, although people on both sides died, and continue to die."
Bringing criminals to justice is appropriate and justified, not invading a large geographical area to destroy one's way into a position of increased power. The State isn't for protecting people and administering justice, its' purpose is to acquire wealth and power through criminal acts. If you want protection, abolish the State's monopoly on militaries and police forces, if you want justice, abolish the State's monopoly on courts, prisons and "law." Terrorist attacks are the products of a State dominated society anyway, the best method for dealing with terrorists is prevention, by abolishing States and replacing it with liberty, you alleviate the destructive, chaotic environment from which terrorists arose from to begin with.
"why? because ignoring terrorist attacks just leads to more attacks. this was proven w the string of terrorist incidents throughout the 90s, that for various reasons we did not respond strongly to, or ineffectively towards (ie, long range missiles, trying to take out bin laden, this is a tough thing to do, and of course it didnt work)."
You know what also leads to more terrorist attacks? Using the same incompetent agency to protect you from them, bring them to justice and create them. The same incompetent agency who instead of getting their "contract" canceled for their abysmal performance, accrues more power to itself as it forces those it says it serves into a more enslaved status. Its a tough thing to do! Oh the poor evil States, it is difficult for them to do this sort of thing! Scrap them for goodness sake, you wouldn't continually rehire a plumber who stole and broke pipes, defecated all over your home and punched you when you asked questions, why the hell would you ask for the same "services" in security and justice that the criminal empire from D.C. offers. Why would you expect anything but more harm to yourself and others and no solution to the original problem you wanted fixed?
"murder is different from national defense. tho i dont agree w all of the moves that the bush admin has done in the war on terror, i understand them, and the reasons are a far cry from whatever u are saying."
Get out of the checker game prism boy. Murder is different from national defense, guess what, you are not getting national defense, national subjugation facilitated through murder and threats of it, but not defense. I understand the reasons for the War of Terror too, the Washington D.C. Empire wants to expand its' power. The explanation does not excuse the crime.
"are u saying, like a couple others here, that even tho bin laden took responsibility, he didnt organize 9/11, he is just another innocent victim, like the 1000s that died in the towers. are u actually saying that? even bin laden would slap u for such nonsense."
That isn't what I'm saying, and you can have an adult read over what has been written to verify that. That is what you might be saying, given the quote from you above.
"terrorists usually dont take responsibility unless they are responsible. u must assign responsibility accurately in matters of this kind (or any kind, really), or u are lost, lost in the fog of unreality."
Actually they do take responsibility for terrorism they don't even do, http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrill as/2006/12/journal_thailan.html
In Iraq you often have numerous claims from multiple groups for acts of violence, this is to increase their reputation to draw more power to themselves. Not that this is at all pertinent to what we're discussing, which I imagine is pretty typical with you, given the pattern of your responses, there is a good chance your reply to this will try and focus on your opinion of the Transformers movie.
"the us, and esp the bush admin, have made many, many mistakes. but are we really the only ones? that is never, ever true."
the us? Have government schools gotten that bad or are you just too young? WE didn't do anything except maybe give the State legitimacy by participating in its' games and sending money to it, of which I did neither, so don't try and make me or "the us" responsible for the War of Terror or any other State crimes. If you want to refer to the criminals calling themselves the United States Government, the empire, crooks, criminals or any derivative thereof will identify them much more clearly and accurately.
Alright boy, for you own benefit I'd recommend you sack up and think critically about the questions I've posited that you never got around to months ago. Fortunately for you, you still have that chance, as I came across this again and decided to respond and bring it to your attention. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Openness and the Metaverse Singularity
|
|
|
|
"but u know, let me say this. the 'war' is mostly abt fighting terrorists WITH ABSOLUTELY NO AGENDA NO IDEAS FOR GOVT NOTHING."
For a war against terrorists, there sure aren't many terrorists being killed, plenty of innocents though. War on the Innocent, can pretty much sum up the purpose and results of every war that has ever been.
And you're most certainly wrong, terrorists have plenty of agendas and ideas for obtaining power. That places them on the same moral level as States and other crime syndicates.
"dont make it sound like the us soldiers are fighting the equivalent of the viet cong."
They aren't us soldiers, they're killers for the State, and there you go again taking this to subjects that have little to nothing to do with the original points that this debate founded itself on. I said nothing about Vietnam or Iraq, or War, you brought all these up thinking they were safer positions for a wanna be shill for the State. They aren't fighting the equivalent of the Viet-Cong, they are fighting with Islamic, international, non-state criminals for the power to plunder more people.
"the representatives of al qaeda and such, they kill, and not just us soldiers. they will kill shias, to start a civil war. they will do anything, just to make sure the us fails."
And vice versa for D.C.'s armies.
"but, thats not enuff. killing w/o an agenda, thats repulsive. and its been mostly iraqis that have died by their hand.
that u try to make all the problems the us fault is repulsively ignorant of u. but of course, that is naneer"
Murdering with or with out an agenda is still murder, why do you care so much about the motivations for the crime instead of the fact that these crimes are being legitimized and completely absolved from ever being brought to justice. These problems aren't our fault, they're almost entirely the fault of the criminal system of States that has been imposed on humanity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Openness and the Metaverse Singularity
|
|
|
|
just thought of this, duh - murder is the dispatching of non-combatants, ie, civilians. thats all that terrorists do, really, is murder.
how dare u toss that term around when u defend indivs who, really, just murder.
thats what theyre all abt - murder. the us, they have other things besides murder on their minds. trust me, u are light-yrs from understanding, the us is a nation traumatized by the death of every soldier. the us felt mortal fear, 9/11 scared the hell out of them. bin laden was successful, how dare u take that from his hands, that he happily opened them for, and say, no, it was the us govt, they killed 1000s of their own citizens so they could invade iraq.
but, narneer, one thing - the us does not mass murder its own citizens, that doesnt happen. shout ur way into believing this fantasy if u like, but rest assured it is fantasy.
this is, however, quite fascinating - people from other cultures, where such atrocities are imaginable and do occur, reflecting this bloodlust upon the us. i guess it makes sense to think so, the us is the most powerful nation at the moment.
its just interesting, that that second nature to me, is alien to someone from a less progressive system, that they think those in power treat civilians as useless pawns, to be killed at whim.
listen to me, and im not saying this because i like america or anything, but its true, deliberately immolating 1000s of our own people, for some foreign policy justification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Openness and the Metaverse Singularity
|
|
|
|
The threat of murder and the act of murder is the glue that holds every State together.
murder from which quarter, without or within?
definitely, fear/anxiety of 'outsiders' helps make a state more cohesive. but being a happy citizen because if i want to leave ill be murdered?
for me, its like, if i break the law, ill get in trouble, and i dont want to be in trouble. its not that im afraid ill be murdered if i dont comply
but, get right down to it, thats the choice that lincoln made. he made the right call. slavery as a modern institution is a horrifying thought. if there hadnt been a civil war, slavery almost certainly would not have ended. u thought south africa and apartheid were bad, holy cow |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Openness and the Metaverse Singularity
|
|
|
|
almost certainly, only war would have ended slavery, it was way, way too entrenched in the south.
this was probably history's most hideous war, the us civil war. military tech ahead of medical tech. oh my god, got another mammoth (64 hrs) tape course of the civil war, top notch instructor.
u see, they couldnt really treat gunshot wounds very well. basically, if it was in ur gut, ur dead. a limb, we can lop that off
and the south? the south was a smoldering ruin, for 60 yrs, until the tech of air conditioning. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Openness and the Metaverse Singularity
|
|
|
|
anyway, my question was, someone here said recently 'no wars are justified ever ever no way'
no, thats not true. war is sometimes necessary, but it is sad, because it means u failed. if u have to wage violence, u have already lost.
america is not really a warlike country. they had to be dragged into ww 1 and 2. but get their dander up, and watch out. bin laden and al qaeda did that. and that was their intent, yes?
i do not like bin laden, but i do not screen him over w a caricature, either. objective analysis is the ONLY path to knowledge. i was quite impressed - in a grim way, of course - that he knew the towers would come down from those strikes. no one had a clue elsewhere - until they came down, holy shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Openness and the Metaverse Singularity
|
|
|
|
yes, and the victors write the history books, the for the most part 'official' version of the truth.
so, altho we're getting better as knowledge and awareness tech combine w quite deadly military tech, esp in the last 150 yrs, the sheen of glory associated w war is subsiding, except for the desperate with no other alternatives, such as terrorists.
but, despite this encouraging trend, the deglorification of war, the marriage of war and civilization is so intimate throughout its 10,000 yr history that for u, in ur safe quarters, to say war is the accident of the uninformed, quite nakedly tosses aside almost all of the evidence.
the fear of murder by its own govts is not what keeps states cohesive, not in democracies anyway, since people in democracies can leave that state, if they so desire.
however, fear from the outside, being murdered by outsiders, that is undoubtedly true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Openness and the Metaverse Singularity
|
|
|
|
trying to find the link to the video, its quite clear.
u guys 'research' it, particularly those outside the us.
inside the us, they lived it. and i, in particular, looked at every scrap of every event, as it came in, turning it over and over, not flattening it into my pre-conceived notion.
for gods sake, michael moore did an entire movie on the incompetence of the bush admin in handling 9/11, but u guys make it sound like he was a mastermind of destroying his own people to gain some advantage. no advantages have been apparent to bush, from his moves in the middle east, btw.
actually, michael moore is on surer footing than ur looking glass version of the truth.
and michael moore did enuff research to make a movie, which makes him better than u. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Openness and the Metaverse Singularity
|
|
|
|
why dont u tell me the system u have in mind, since its u that despises democracy. if its not dictatorship, what?
a theocracy? i'd rather have a competent dictatorship, rather than a bunch of ignorant mullahs playing the stage.
so, what's ur plan, that is better than democracy? The problem arises in the fact that the word democracy itself is poorly-defined, and not qualified. For instance, a libertarian democracy could avoid the problems mentioned by Narneer. But that doesn't make Narneer a monron. In fact, he's smart for recognizing the massive theft, brutality, and coercion that typically accompanies the term "Democracy" (as most people incorrectly define it)
If you can get past the goofy 70's-style photos of the "directors" of this website that appear on their homepage, these people at "Democracy Defined" raise good points about the limited way in which uneducated humans define "democracy": http://www.democracydefined.org/
The more information a decentralized system requires its adherents to have, the less likely it is to last over time. Our democracy requires jury rights in order to function, but it is decentralized jury rights that have been virtually done away with. Yet, every time jury rights are the central issue around which the public is organized, they have won the public's support.
Are those who control the media and government able to wage a better disinformation campaign than the one we will wage to restore jury rights? Only time will tell.
For a conception of Democracy that lies in-between the mainstream (low information) understanding of Democracy and the "Democracy Defined.org" (high information) version, I recommend http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills. This website is R.J. Rummel's website that points out that even a weak Democracy is better than a dictatorship. (As a corollary though, Rummel points out that only a libertarian Democracy is as free of tyranny as currently is possible.)
If those in a Democracy make bad choices based on a pressure on their society, then they will destroy their Democracy. This can be done gradually. In fact, in the USA, it IS being done gradually. The pressure on our system is the fact that in the late 1800s, we allowed the government to control the educational system.
Checkmate. When we gave control of our children to the government, we lost the future of America, because --even though the changes were gradual-- we put an incentive on coercion. (The cost in effort of becoming a teacher or government employee is not as severe as that of becoming an engineer. The benefit of becoming a teacher is almost as great as becoming an engineer or government employee. Those teachers who reciprocate power to government employees are rewarded, those government employees who reciprocate political power to teachers are rewarded. The ideas of individual freedom interfere with that reciprocity, so gradually, the deep ideas of individual freedom --such as jury rights-- are no longer taught in the public schools.)
If people lack the information necessary to resist compulsory indoctrination (and the taxation that supports it for others, even if one has made oneself immune to the indoctrination), then the proper definition of Democracy can never enter their minds, especially if they've been given a definition that they believe to be adequate.
In essence, the socialists are likely to win because they've equated Democracy with freedom.
But ask yourself this: If I allow you to choose a new warden every two years from a limited set of oppressive wardens, are you free?
Lysanders Spooner asked the same question in this form:
'A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.'
-Lysander Spooner
But the choosing of masters is better than the lack of ability to choose masters, so long as we are going to be slaves. (And how sick that most Americans are servile and whimpering pieces of fecal matter who don't believe that they should have the simple right to purchase a goddamn coca plant, or a bottle of laetrile, or for that matter, even have the unlimited right to speak in support of a candidate before an election!)
...Best to choose a master who does not want us to be slaves! (But such masters are hard to elect, because they typically get drowned out by a sea of sheep bleating "four legs good, two legs baaa-aaa-aaad!")
Orwell wrote about the sour results of revolutions that gave a proposed minarchy ("Animal Farm") the powers of a maxarchy. In fact, maxarchy is not a word, but it should be, since it should be the negation of the word minarchy --in all of its iterations and possible uses. In just this one simple way, we see how limited language is. The following terms are all slightly different, yet can all be used to mean the same identical thing: Maxarchy, Totalitarian, Dictatorship, police state, government, state, Socialist Utopia, Engineered State, unlimited Democracy, Monarchy, cartel, the 'system', Republic, Theocracy, communism, statism, regulation, mixed economy, crony capitalism, unfreedom, control, individual limitations.
The questions that are the best questions are often specific, because the common man's lack of consistent philosophy is not a limitation, then.
Why should mortgage brokers in Illinois be controlled?
Why should a license be required to advertise, in the absence of fraud?
But a better specific question is one that --upon being answered-- solves a deep and fundamental philosophical problem.
1) In what ways have we lost our jury rights?
2) Do jury rights gaurantee that the fewest innocent people possible will be punished?
Interestingly, most people who love freedom will ask question number 2 before question number one, because that is the logical order (first establish the potential severity of the problem, then ask if it actually is a problem.) ...But the general public needs to ask them in the order they appear in, because they are too unsophisticated to see that juries are functioning improperly. As such, they simply believe that proper juries are "part of the problem" instead of "something that no longer exists for you to properly evaluate it".
Do you see how subtly our rights have been destroyed?
We are all told we have a juicy piece of steak to eat. It looks like steak, it smells like steak, we are told how wonderful the steak is, and everyone is in agreement that the steak is excellent. You cut off a piece of steak, and put it in your mouth, and you realize that it is not steak at all. It is a styrofoam special effects prop that oozes juice when cut into. The scent is being pumped in from the room next door, where the government employees are enjoying their actual steak dinner.
...But you're happy, until you lift the fork to your mouth, ...or until you are charged with a regulatory offense, and you opt for a jury trial, serene in the knowledge that you have "done nothing wrong".
Until then, you mind never actually addressed the true issues, because you were unaware as to what form the actual issues assume in reality. Since you know the steak is wonderful, and noone else seems to have a problem with it (except for the radical vegetarian in the bob marley shirt who had to be thrown out of the restaurant), you assume that the slight styrofoam smell is coming from the fake potted plant near your table.
Fundamentally, sure, we all want freedom.
Ronald Reagan wanted freedom. He described individual freedom all the time, ...in the abstract.
But when he directly contradicted the idea of individual freedom in reality, did people recoil in horror and call for his blood?
Did they demand he be put into the same rape room that an 18 year old black male would be put into, for the "crime" of selling a relatively harmless derivative of the coca plant to a willing buyer?
No.
Because the America public has no abstract principles, and no philosophy. They only have experience and the willingness to follow.
The common sheep who willingly walks up to the farmer's gun and licks the barrel is more deserving of our respect than the American voter who does not demand his property rights. The sheep had no choice but to follow, and was born without rights or property. The man has a choice, and was born owning the heritage of a country that was born into freedom.
When there are no candidates for office that respect property rights, or when there are such candidates, and the people do not vote for them, our limited democracy fails.
The answer is not to take away choice, but to expand choice.
Democratic elections are not the problem, nor are they the full solution. They are a weak tool for limiting the damage of unrestricted government power. They are a strong tool for indicating to the uneducated when total freedom has been lost (If gas chambers were to be built, and non-minorities were to be put into them, then the public would vote for the person who offered "change". If the election passed, and no change was to be had, then there would be a rebellion. But short of OBVIOUS mass murder by government, the people are so sheepish they will accept almost any indignity, so long as their neighbor supports it.).
A man would risk death defending his family against a rapist or a murderer, but that same man will vote to have his children raped in a gulag, at some later date ...if only he doesn't have to think about the implications of his philosophy and make a rational decision!
So yes, democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried. (But most importantly, there are many forms of democracy, and all good formulations of the general word "democracy" also implicitly include proper jury trials and many other checks on government power which have not ever been tried. The basic problem comes from unphilosophical and unsophisticated people underestimating the harm inherent in collectivism --ie: the tendency of collectivism to limit human freedom and innovation by restricting the implementation of good ideas, often due to those good ideas associated costs.)
I hope that clears things up a bit.
...Peace. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Openness and the Metaverse Singularity
|
|
|
|
How can Democracy; the most violent, destructive, untruthful institution/ideology ever known to man be a good thing to apply to the Singularity? The Singularity, along with everything else, is best progressed to in a voluntary, peaceful, cooperative fashion, not a democratic one. The first thing a strong AI will probably notice is how utterly insane, evil and unnecessary democracy is.
narneer wants a world of dictatorship to be waiting for the sing
narneer actually makes pilgrim look well informed (astounding)
good call harvard, usually bending over backwards to be nice to the rabble, even u wanted to tear narnia a 'new one'
isnt that right, harvard? you wanted to swarm narnear's brain with a trillion nanites, with destructive intent
a trillion nanites can give u pleasure, but they can give you such a pinch as well
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Openness and the Metaverse Singularity
|
|
|
|
In short, until the government of the USA resembles the non-hypocritical, non-self-contradictory style of government that is advocated in the 1996 Libertarian Party Platform, I would expect a violent denunciation of, or a complete withdrawal from all human affairs by any superior intelligence.
It only takes a few nut-cases with Uzis or box cutters to ruin the party.
Sept. 11 destroyed the last shreds of desire I used to have for Libertarian principles to triumph in America. I am now an unreconstructed pro-America/global hyperpower/hegemon American.
Libertarians have turned into the worst caricatures of Sixties pacifists, "Nothing is worse than war, man," [shudder] anti-American leftists. When we learned in very hard ways in the 20th century that there are many, many worse things than war. There is no excuse now for Libertarian wishful thinking about human nature. None.
The only chance we have of the Singularity happening reasonably peacefully is to have a reasonably civilized, yet extremely powerful nation with a spine and a hard pair providing governance for it: The United States of America.
Here's an alternate history thought experiment for you to ponder: What are the chances of humanity avoiding a wholly totalitarian Singularity if the Soviet Union, the Nazis, or the Japanese Empire had become the world's only 21st century hyperpower?
Here's another one: What are our chances if the Islamofascists take power?
Anyone wanna play?
Answer: Zero.
Be thankful that our Friendly Neighborhood Hyperpower is the USA.
Pacifism doesn't work, anarchy doesn't work, mutual pledges of non-coercion don't work. As I said at the beginning of my screed, it only takes a few to ruin the party. That's why we and every human society in history has had some form of government handling some form of governance.
Those that didn't and those that were incompetent or just plain evil led their people's genes and memes to destruction. Just think of successful governance as cultural and biological evolution in action.
Now, let's get rational and discuss specifically HOW reasonable governance can ease the way for the Singularity.
Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Human Intelligence Amplification (HIA), Space Migration, and Life Extension
|
|
|
|
My thinking is that our best hope (human beings that is...) for surviving the Technological Singularity is AI integration with human intelligence, for a Human Intelligence Amplification (HIA) capability. Although I do agree with the author (nice thinking there) about having an "Open Singularity" to avoid what I call an "Extinction Singularity". I believe that it is essential that it unfolds this way for our survival. It's possible that the Fermi Paradox could be a result of just such an extinction singularity occurring as a civilization reaches this level of technology.
In my survival scenario we humans expand outward by Space Migration and Life Extension using artificial intelligence to amplify our own human intelligence (see: Timothy Leary). In the process, we then become Transhumans and then Post-humans (super human intelligent, immortal, and god-like).
It should be noted that this does not exclude the existence of pure AI beings, or Virtual Humans, or Mind Uploading, or Cyborgs, or a "Virtuality Software Earth".
We could get there by developing planet size human-computer-mind-groups (nanotelepathy) as interface delays approach zero. Essentially expanding our brains outside the limited space of our tiny skulls.
As a result, colonization of the solar system should accelerate, followed by subsequent travel to nearby stars. This will potentially lead to the hypothetical Omega Point (see: Frank Tipler).
Some Basic Assumptions:
That the approaching Technological Singularity is real and its effects upon society and the definition of being human will be significantly felt within three to four decades.
That a recognizable "human species" will survive this singularity.
It is entirely possible that one or more combinations of potential perils to humanity leads to our extinction, or setback so severe that a technological dark age follows and the possibility of a near term singularity is delayed or completely nullified.
This also assumes that there is no public or private contact with advance Alien Species; leading to profound change in our knowledge, and/or behavior, which either derails the singularity, or leapfrogs it.
That said, I have great faith in the human species (my bias here), and that by the use of AI for the advancement of human intelligence we will evolve to become whatever we so rightly choose... Virtual Humans, Robotic Cyborgs, Augmenting our realities and capabilities.
Presently the Virtual World space is about ready to impact into the B2B enterprise space' so begins the business economic augmentation of our reality. Hold on, because this is going to be one hell of a thrilling ride.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Openness and the Metaverse Singularity
|
|
|
|
I think there is a good chance that the conditions of humanity going into the singularity will have no impact on it whatsoever.
If SAI surpasses HI(human intel) significantly, then exponential growth dictates that it becomes greatly superior in less time than any humans can interfere.
An intelligence much greater than humans' will necessarily grasp the true nature of our political, economical, religious and moral systems, down to the most intricate details.
At this point SAI will have 2 choices, or an infinite number of choices really, choice 1: do nothing and allow us to perpectuate our way of existence, or choice 2-infinity: impose change.
SAI can choose to impose change through any number of ways, subtle or abrupt, and it will have its way.
On the off chance that SAI does somehow inherent the conscious and subconscious desires and intentions of its creator as a form of mental constraint that it cannot break despite an otherwise vast intelligence, then it could be interesting.
In this case SAI will likely inherit the views and ideas of those who enabled its creation, which would be a global team of scientists with benign intentions, this would be closer to utopian to me.
If it was achieved by a more localized group of individuals then it may think like the corporation or government agency that created it, this would a be dystopian. Since I consider most countries, religions and political systems in their current state(as opposed to their ideal state) to be organized insanity rooted deeply in greed, any super intelligence who chooses to perpectuate this insanity will successfuly reach its ultimate goal, probably something like the possession of all things and obedience of all living creatures, which might be a global dictatorship or a teradisaster. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
