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

What ever happened to the transhumanists?

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 448 posts

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#121

Post by nickff »

peteradio wrote: post #97
photochemsyn wrote: post #91

To become transhuman or posthuman, you'd first have to understand what it is to be human, and we're not anywhere near that. Some of the enthusiasm about the hopes for such a transition were raised by this: > "The Human Genome Project finally released a complete human genome sequence in 2003, in a project that took 13 years to complete." The most remarkable thing about that accomplishment was how little it resulted in…

You could potentially make a thing that acts like you, that's it. The only reason our existence is tolerable is that we agree with the guy that when he goes to bed he is dead and I take over in the morning and I make the same deal tomorrow.

I quite like that phrasing (in your second sentence); did you come up with it yourself, or did you catch it somewhere?

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#122

Post by concinds »

adastra22 wrote: post #118
concinds wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my answer to bufferoverflow. Also: virtual reality isn't just a heads-up display or an iPhone camera feature. Augmented ears that can hear things normal humans can't hear, augmented eyes, or an augmented brain inherently means you lose sovereignty over your own mind since there is a necessary and irreducible degree of trust you need to have in your government and in corporations: trust that they are not interferi…

Most transhumanists I know are interested in biological immortality, mind uploading, hive minds, etc. VR does nothing for that.

Mind uploading and hive minds are perfect examples of what I mention in my last paragraph (which I edited after posting, and you may not have seen before replying); my concerns are more than relevant there.

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#123

Post by philipkglass »

danjoredd wrote: post #89
elliotec wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pessimistic and myopic view of transhumanism. Where it becomes a good idea is a context that humanity is limited in its current (biological) form. There are lots and lots of things that could kill our species over the next several thousand years and the transhumanists simply think it is worth investing in looking into how we could potentially use technology to adapt to those threats or enhance the human expe…

My main area of concern is people who can exploit these augmentations for political, personal, and profit reasons. Even in the best scenario possible, these things are going to happen. All code is flawed in some fashion. Unless we plan on keeping these augmentations completely offline, they can and WILL be exploited by hackers. Imagine how giddy North Korea would be to be able to mess with the President's body, or ha…

Even in the best scenario possible, these things are going to happen. All code is flawed in some fashion. Unless we plan on keeping these augmentations completely offline, they can and WILL be exploited by hackers.

I think that companies are capable of making secure systems when they have the right incentives. The Xbox One, launched 9 years ago, has never had its security broken such that it could play copied games. That's even though customers have physical access to the hardware and ample incentives to hack it. Microsoft prioritized security because it's directly aligned with the money the ecosystem makes from game sales. Implants don't need to run all the complicated software a modern game console does (which includes a web browser and video players as well as actual games), so they could have a much smaller software attack surface in the first place.

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#125

Post by Barrin92 »

filoeleven wrote: post #68
nemo44x wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if Ted Kaczynski will be hailed as a great philosopher in the future and humans 100 years from now will condemn our time for our treatment of him while justifying his actions as that of a desperate man on the right side of history. It's ironic writing this on a website.

From the manifesto: > But it is obvious that modern [REDACTED] philoso- phers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psycho- logical needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it sat…

I always find this kind of argument ironic because one, it's obviously intensely psychological itself, as are most philosophical attitudes (which does little to disqualify them) and secondly if you just were to take postmodern philosophy as a predictive science I don't think any discipline has been more prescient in describing our current condition.

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#126

Post by AtlasBarfed »

Transhumanism should be about freedom and increased ability.

But the future is about corporate authoritarian dystopia, extreme wealth inequality, and environmental armageddon.

Pessimism for the future is beginning to take over.

I mean, look at "Meta", and the fact it's tied to effing facebook and all the crappiness that entails. VR is a lot like transhumanism in many ways, and it's clear VR will be attached to megacorps and google-class lockout and non-customer service.

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#127

Post by revolvingocelot »

nemo44x wrote: post #98
filoeleven wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the manifesto: > But it is obvious that modern [REDACTED] philoso- phers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psycho- logical needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it sat…

Obviously “post-modern”.

>>they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior)

You think that this describes post-modernism? I thought post-modernism was all about, well, relativism.

Upon looking it up, I'm amazed to discover that Kaczynski wrote "leftists", because the excerpted paragraph sure as hell describes the modern conservative. Raging against science and rationality and truth to serve an emotional drive to power? Trump, Bolsonaro, Putin...

I think perhaps this is, uh, a difference in worldview.

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#128

Post by EddySchauHai »

the8472 wrote: post #47
dekhn wrote: post #20

they rebranded as effective altruism

or became more concerned with AI alignment than thinking about potential upsides

Stuff like AI alignment is why I'm less interested in the EA groups nowadays tbh. Too much preference is given to these sci-fi ideas over rational known solutions to real issues. I also find it's not CS guys talking about these issues but philosophers and I don't believe you can weigh up risk/reward of issues in the mid-far future off of peoples views who don't understand (even theoretical) implementation details. I still fully agree with many other parts of EA though, like giving what we can and focusing on effective charities.

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#129

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Banana699 wrote: post #54
nemo44x wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if Ted Kaczynski will be hailed as a great philosopher in the future and humans 100 years from now will condemn our time for our treatment of him while justifying his actions as that of a desperate man on the right side of history. It's ironic writing this on a website.

What do you mean the future ? I hail my Ted as a hero on the right side of history now .

What's your threshold? How many innocent people does he have to kill and/or maim before you no longer are willing to consider him a hero?

And yes, they were innocent. The one I met personally was a tech at the store where I bought my first computer. (And if you consider that enough to make him "not innocent", well, you're using a computer to read and comment here, so...)

To me, he is condemned by his methods. If you're willing to deliberately, actively, persistently attempt to blow up innocent people, I can't trust your judgment on how people should interact with each other to make society better.

Re: What ever happened to the transhumanists?

#130

Post by jandrewrogers »

As someone who was quite plugged into the transhumanist scene in the 1990s and well-acquainted with several of the people referenced, I have a perspective that I think explains it more succinctly.

When I was introduced to it in the early 1990s, the movement was dominated by extremely technical doers and thinkers, with a culture that encouraged rigor. It was philosophical rather than political. In the late 1990s, transhumanism had its Eternal September moment, when it became fashionable and trendy to be "transhumanist". The discourse became dominated by people hijacking the transhumanist movement in service of their political and social agendas, with nary a nod toward rigor. The doers and serious people originally associated with the movement and which gave it its intellectual gravitas became greatly outnumbered and mostly moved on.

Many of the early transhumanists stopped labeling themselves as such because they did not want to be associated with the kind of people that came to define it.

Post reply on HN