Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

yudkowsky.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 78 posts

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#11

Post by kirse »

greendestiny wrote: post #6

This doesn't do anything to dissuade me of the notion that the singularity movement is a religious movement. The comfort of hope in an afterlife and hope in scientific immortality seem quite similar. While research into singularity and anti-aging could be better funded, I'm not sure why we need to 'believe' in these things or make sure we join the correct denominations (transhumanist vs non-transhumanist). Besides, u…

Your comment was similar to one I was going to make... It's interesting to see that man still seeks that feeling of meaning (in life) and hope (after death) even when they do not believe in a God/afterlife.

How does one find value in life when - in the long run - their entire existence will be forgotten and their species just a blip on the timeline of Evolution? If you think about it, on the infinite (or even extremely large) timeline of this universe, our individual value pretty much equals 0.

Sure, in the short run it is evident that one's life can have value and purpose to humanity. Many powerful leaders and wars have proven this. But so what? Our egos won't be around to reap the glory of knowing that either. Zooming out to the larger timeline - or the big picture - of this universe, I can't see how someone finds value in this present life without a convincing belief in either:

1) God/Afterlife

2) The existence of a solution to mortality

Life without one of those beliefs would be like working hard with the goal of a profitable business but knowing that in the long-run my business would never turn over a single dollar of profit. It's pretty obvious that the big picture negates the short-term goals and meaning of that work.

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#12

Post by ajkirwin »

Am I one of the few people who looks forward to death? To know that there WILL be an end to things is something of a comfort to me.

I'd like to live for a time, sure, but even five hundred years might be too long. I'd either get driven insane by the constant bow-shocks of ever advancing culture, or I'd lapse into some kind of boredom-induced stupor.

I have my little slice of spacetime, to do with as I wish. I could live a great and noble life, or a horrific and cruel one. I could live another five decades, or if I wanted to, end it all tomorrow.

No matter what I may do, or not do, in the end.. there are no regrets, no looking back. Just.. the steady decay of my body, the essential atoms of my makeup being reused by other organisms, processes, chemical reactions.

And I like it that way.

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#13

Post by rsheridan6 »

mixmax wrote: post #7
greendestiny wrote: post #6

This doesn't do anything to dissuade me of the notion that the singularity movement is a religious movement. The comfort of hope in an afterlife and hope in scientific immortality seem quite similar. While research into singularity and anti-aging could be better funded, I'm not sure why we need to 'believe' in these things or make sure we join the correct denominations (transhumanist vs non-transhumanist). Besides, u…

The singularity won't happen: http://www.maximise.dk/blog/2008/11/why-singularity-may-neve...

There's no contradiction between Malthus and the coming of the singularity. Malthus essentially said that resources tend to be scarce, but there's no reason that they couldn't be scarce post-singularity.

This line of thinking leads to doom scenarios, when you think about how scarce resources would be allocated (bottom line - probably not to humans), so it does contradict singularity-as-the-promised-land scenarios.

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#14

Post by mixmax »

rsheridan6 wrote: post #13
mixmax wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The singularity won't happen: http://www.maximise.dk/blog/2008/11/why-singularity-may-neve...

There's no contradiction between Malthus and the coming of the singularity. Malthus essentially said that resources tend to be scarce, but there's no reason that they couldn't be scarce post-singularity. This line of thinking leads to doom scenarios, when you think about how scarce resources would be allocated (bottom line - probably not to humans), so it does contradict singularity-as-the-promised-land scenarios.

Scarcity means that the curve will break. The singularity is the notion that the growth will continue indefinitely at an ever wilder pace until it reaches a singularity. I'm saying it won't happen because technological advance will run into scarcity of resources, just like any other complex system. Malthus was just an example of this, since his thinking was much the same as Kurzweil's in regard to extrapolation of datasets.

Whether this will happen before or after transhumanism I don't know. But like any other exponential curve it won't go on forever.

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#15

Post by sharkfish »

But then most atheists also succumb to comforting lies, and make excuses for death even less defensible than the outright lies of religion. They flinch away, refuse to confront the horror of a hundred and fifty thousand sentient beings annihilated every day.

I would like to think that I, as an atheist, don't have to rationalize the unknown and accept that we just don't have the answers to the "why" of death. I realize he is in pain, but I don't think I'm lying to myself about death just because I don't have some over-arching dogma to believe in.

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#16

Post by nandemo »

Granted, it's painful to lose a dear one.

But there are so many wrong things with this article, it's difficult to know where to start.

Angry at the "way-things-are"? Does that even make sense? It feels like he's saying "everyone is dying, and what is the government doing?!"

"When Michael Wilson heard the news, he said: 'We shall have to work faster.' "

I mean, can one really say that seriously, outside of a poor SF story? So this is a rational, skeptical person, and not a cult member? Although I'm not religious, I think his religious relatives seem to have a much wiser attitude to life.

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#17

Post by gruseom »

But then most atheists also succumb to comforting lies

"Succumbing to comforting lies" is like being a tourist: only other people do it.

On another note, the Singularity is an amazing social example of what Freud called the return of the repressed.

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#18

Post by listic »

Retric wrote: post #9
mixmax wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The singularity won't happen: http://www.maximise.dk/blog/2008/11/why-singularity-may-neve...

There are limits to computation, but nothing prevents computers from achieving human or super human level intelligence. I suspect that 50 years from now we will have human level AI for a wide range of things. We have already passed that point for Chess and one by one other things will fall. What really prevents the singularity is the limits of the physical world. The speed of light is already a problem such that PC r…

Are there any real signs of progress in computers that could lead to them achieving human level intelligence? Look, computer beat world champion in chess over 10 years ago, but is nowhere close to doing that in Go anytime soon: http://ru.ly/34

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#19

Post by jcl »

listic wrote: post #18
Retric wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are limits to computation, but nothing prevents computers from achieving human or super human level intelligence. I suspect that 50 years from now we will have human level AI for a wide range of things. We have already passed that point for Chess and one by one other things will fall. What really prevents the singularity is the limits of the physical world. The speed of light is already a problem such that PC r…

Are there any real signs of progress in computers that could lead to them achieving human level intelligence? Look, computer beat world champion in chess over 10 years ago, but is nowhere close to doing that in Go anytime soon: http://ru.ly/34

I wouldn't say "nowhere close", as the quality of computer go players has improved dramatically in the last year or so:

http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/08/1243244&#3...

Re: Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

#20

Post by gjm11 »

mixmax wrote: post #14
rsheridan6 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no contradiction between Malthus and the coming of the singularity. Malthus essentially said that resources tend to be scarce, but there's no reason that they couldn't be scarce post-singularity. This line of thinking leads to doom scenarios, when you think about how scarce resources would be allocated (bottom line - probably not to humans), so it does contradict singularity-as-the-promised-land scenarios.

Scarcity means that the curve will break. The singularity is the notion that the growth will continue indefinitely at an ever wilder pace until it reaches a singularity. I'm saying it won't happen because technological advance will run into scarcity of resources, just like any other complex system. Malthus was just an example of this, since his thinking was much the same as Kurzweil's in regard to extrapolation of da…

"Singularity" here doesn't mean "infinite improvement", it means "such a big improvement that, from the point of view of people trying to predict it now, all bets are off". At least, that's how Vinge used the word and I think it's the commonest usage among present-day singularitarians like Yudkowsky.
Post reply on HN