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

More Everything Forever

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 321 posts

Re: More Everything Forever

#271

Post by philipkglass »

arduanika wrote: post #205
philipkglass wrote: post #14

This is, loosely speaking, the bundle of ideologies that Timnit Gebru and Émile P. Torres dubbed TESCREAL (transhumanism, Extropianism, singularitarianism, (modern) cosmism, Rationalism, Effective Altruism, and longtermism). While these are largely associated with modern Silicon Valley esoteric techbros (and the odd Oxfordian like Nick Bostrom), they have very deep roots, which Becker excavates – like Nikolai Fyodoro…

I think you might have taken this snippet from Cory Doctorow's review, not the NYT article here? https://pluralistic.net/2025/04/22/vinges-bastards/#cyberpun... The NYT article does not mention the dreaded T word, and is not clear to me whether this notional acronym plays any large role in Becker's book.

Yes, you're right. I read both articles but I should have placed my original comment as a reply to the Pluralistic link.

Re: More Everything Forever

#272

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

ido wrote: post #229
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds very good but it's difficult to square with the behavior of those corporations. Can it really be that the change all of these well meaning rich people want to see in the world is... products that spy on an manipulates their users, products that can't be repaired, and products that putting future generations at risk by damaging the environment? Either these investments are not paying off, or they are and t…

I would guess it's not so much that they "want to see this change" as much as "they want to make as much money as possible and don't care about these consequences"

Yeah, I agree. But of what use is that money, if not to ensure that you can shape the consequences according to your vision? If you have to make things worse to make money, and you need money to make things better, then a sane person would course-correct.

Beyond a certain point, supposing that your investments continue to yield monetary returns at the cost of making others tolerate worse outcomes, it's just an indicator that you're a junkie.

Re: More Everything Forever

#273

Post by dmonitor »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #181
dmonitor wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luke 17:20-37 also seems to support the idea that Jesus was trying to tell people the kingdom was spiritual, not physical. The kingdom as a concept wasn't some novel idea, either. Jesus was claiming he was the fulfillment of the messianic prophecy in Judaism. He was reinterpreting the prophecy, though, as a spiritual rather than literal liberation. Tangential, but you can interpret the anti-christ in christian belief…

The "Kingdom of Heaven" was not a contemporary concept in first-century CE Judaism, to my knowledge.

Not that term, but a Messiah that will establish / lead a powerful Jewish nation was

Re: More Everything Forever

#274

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

robertlagrant wrote: post #224
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds very good but it's difficult to square with the behavior of those corporations. Can it really be that the change all of these well meaning rich people want to see in the world is... products that spy on an manipulates their users, products that can't be repaired, and products that putting future generations at risk by damaging the environment? Either these investments are not paying off, or they are and t…

> products that spy on an manipulates their users, products that can't be repaired, and products that putting future generations at risk by damaging the environment? You seem to have a very narrow view of the range of products that exist. Are you basically just talking about smartphones?

When I wrote that I was thinking about the coersive trend of SaaS products in general, the labyrinthine firmware used by my HVAC system, and land investments that result in rainforests being burned to make room for more cows.

Re: More Everything Forever

#275

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

arduanika wrote: post #204
mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one vision of how things play out. But I do think it's possible that AI ends up killing every last person, in which case I think "everything good comes with tradeoffs" is a bit too much of an understatement.

Ah, so if that's what you mean by AI downsides, then you might find this useful: https://www.wikihow.com/Leave-a-Cult

I came to this conclusion on my own, so, no.

Re: More Everything Forever

#276

Post by amarcheschi »

hollerith wrote: post #270
amarcheschi wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't explicitly referring to the more "sane" people expressing doubts regarding Ai. Hinton at least says that other issues in Ai should be dealt with, rather than just being an Ai doomer who only fears Ai takeover he actually realizes that there are other current issues as well At this point, how many times should we have been dead for eliezer?

Like almost all the other doomers, Eliezer never claimed to know which generation of AIs would undergo a sudden increase in capability resulting in our extinction or some other doom, not with any specificity beyond saying that it would probably happen some time in the next few decades unless the AI project is stopped.

Idk, a few years ago when chatgpt came out he was saying things like "if we're still alive in 3 years (...)" where chatgpt 3.5 was still a glorified transformer. And modern llms still are. It's the constant fear mongering that stings my nerves.

And well, I'm not surprised nobody knows which generation of Ai could undergo an increase causing our extinction, it's not even sure if there could exist such a thing, let alone know which generation

Re: More Everything Forever

#277

Post by apercu »

FL33TW00D wrote: post #267
apercu wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For one, where is Starship and when did it last launch? For another, this hypothetical spacecraft (which does not yet exist) would not be wherever it is in terms of completion had NASA not existed.

1. More recently than SLS :) 2. Agree 100%.

lol - fair.

Re: More Everything Forever

#278

Post by hollerith »

amarcheschi wrote: post #276
hollerith wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like almost all the other doomers, Eliezer never claimed to know which generation of AIs would undergo a sudden increase in capability resulting in our extinction or some other doom, not with any specificity beyond saying that it would probably happen some time in the next few decades unless the AI project is stopped.

Idk, a few years ago when chatgpt came out he was saying things like "if we're still alive in 3 years (...)" where chatgpt 3.5 was still a glorified transformer. And modern llms still are. It's the constant fear mongering that stings my nerves. And well, I'm not surprised nobody knows which generation of Ai could undergo an increase causing our extinction, it's not even sure if there could exist such a thing, let alo…

He has been saying for a couple of years that it is possible any day now, but in the same breath he has always added that it is more likely 10 or 20 or 30 years from now than it is today.

It is not a contradiction be confident of the outcome while remaining very uncertain of the timing.

If an AI is created and deployed that is clearly much "better at reality" than people are (and human organizations are, e.g., the FBI), that can discover new scientific laws and invent new technologies and be very persuasive, and we survive, then he will have been proved wrong.

Re: More Everything Forever

#279

Post by dudeinjapan »

schnitzelstoat wrote: post #251
dudeinjapan wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can back-test the mentality of this book: - Longevity research is bad/wasteful > In 1900 and prior, the global average life expectancy was around 32 years. Thanks to modern medicine, this has doubled to 70 years. This is a tremendous gift to every human alive today. - Going to Mars is bad/extravagant/fruitless > Going to the moon, exploring new continents, these were all "extravagant/fruitless" undertakings in the…

> exploring new continents, these were all "extravagant/fruitless" undertakings in their own eras. Was this ever true? Within a few decades of the European discovery of the Americas they had already subjugated both the Aztec and Inca empires and were able to extract vast amounts of wealth. I agree with you though.

Columbus struggled to get funding for his first voyage, and many expeditions/colonies in the new world ended in disaster. In hindsight yes over the centuries it was all incredibly lucrative but doubt it felt that way for the first pioneers.

Re: More Everything Forever

#280

Post by amanaplanacanal »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #261
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moon would do the job at a lot cheaper price.

Nope. Because of aero braking, Mars takes less delta v to get to and land on than the moon does.

Now I'm wondering why the Apollo program went to the moon if doing Mars is so much cheaper.
Post reply on HN