This is quite dystopian to say the least, and what's even more dystopian is that there are powerful people who feel like this is a goal somehow…
The Gentle Seduction (1989)
61–70 of 84 posts
Re: The Gentle Seduction (1989)
#62What a wonderful way to start my Sunday, to distract from the antics of the rich and powerful, and to pay attention to things that matter.
I found it curious that a novel published in 1989 refers to the future immortal being going through crude pre-singularity historical records and comparing them to cobweb ("An analogy to cobwebs made her smile for a moment."). I thought Berners-Lee wouldn't launch his first "World Wide Web server" for another 2 years, no?
Re: The Gentle Seduction (1989)
#63Re: The Gentle Seduction (1989)
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where in the story does NLP (I guess you mean "Neurolinguistic programming" and not "Natural Language Processing") factor in?
It isn’t in the content of the story, but in the craft of storywriting itself. The author does not have to know these to make use of the methods identified by NLP. Rhetoric (as a study in and of itself) and persuasion has long been studied and practiced by humanity.
I do not understand why you'd intentionally close your mind to persuasive arguments.
Sure, let's say the author does use NLP. What of it?
Re: The Gentle Seduction (1989)
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Efficient for what? What reason has AI to exist?
What reason do you?
> What reason do you?
Me? Not much. Humanity in general? We’re the only sapient, tool-wielding species that we know of on the only complex-life-supporting biosphere we know of.
Until proven otherwise, that—in my view—grants us a charge: to maintain and protect ourselves and said biosphere and to work to understand and disprove our specialness. Depending on your interpretation of “protect,” it might also include spreading life and tool-wielding civilisation.
Re: The Gentle Seduction (1989)
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Extreme longevity with a none is kind of depressing.
Why? Life for an individual is long enough IMO. Death means renewal. Our children are better than us.
Even besides our selfish impulse to live the 'why' is clear. If death is inherently a bad loss, then the longer life extension takes the worse it is.
Re: The Gentle Seduction (1989)
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
What reason do you?
> What reason do you? Me? Not much. Humanity in general? We’re the only sapient, tool-wielding species that we know of on the only complex-life-supporting biosphere we know of. Until proven otherwise, that—in my view—grants us a charge: to maintain and protect ourselves and said biosphere and to work to understand and disprove our specialness. Depending on your interpretation of “protect,” it might also include sprea…
I mean, this is really post ad hoc on your part. You say you have charge to maintain and protect, but this is just an outcome of your genetic lineage being that of those that survived needed to have a prerogative to survive or they didn't. Our entire biosphere runs on impulse and almost no reason. A machine based 'lifeform' would be nearly the opposite, it's purpose would be with reason.
Re: The Gentle Seduction (1989)
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What reason do you? Me? Not much. Humanity in general? We’re the only sapient, tool-wielding species that we know of on the only complex-life-supporting biosphere we know of. Until proven otherwise, that—in my view—grants us a charge: to maintain and protect ourselves and said biosphere and to work to understand and disprove our specialness. Depending on your interpretation of “protect,” it might also include sprea…
I mean, this is really post ad hoc on your part. You say you have charge to maintain and protect, but this is just an outcome of your genetic lineage being that of those that survived needed to have a prerogative to survive or they didn't. Our entire biosphere runs on impulse and almost no reason. A machine based 'lifeform' would be nearly the opposite, it's purpose would be with reason.
> You say you have charge to maintain and protect, but this is just an outcome of your genetic lineage being that of those that survived needed to have a prerogative to survive or they didn't
Sure. I’m not arguing we are preördained. Just that we have the unique ability to embrace this charge and a unique ability to recognise it.
It’s a sword in the stone. Except we already exercise all the powers of the king. The sword represents us acknowledging noble obligations that should accompany those.
> Our entire biosphere runs on impulse and almost no reason. A machine based 'lifeform' would be nearly the opposite, its purpose would be with reason
We are a product of that same biosphere and often operate on impulse and without reason. The machines would be a product of us.
Re: The Gentle Seduction (1989)
#69Re: The Gentle Seduction (1989)
#70That’s interesting, they use the Singularity to refer to technological explosion in general rather than specifically AI becoming super intelligent. This seems to predate the AI usage. >"Singularity is a time in the future. It'll occur when the rate of change of technology is very great--so great that the effort to keep up with the change will overwhelm us. People will face a whole new set of problems that we can't ev…
The first recorded use seems to be by Stan Ulam in 1958, who was paraphrasing John von Neumann: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19940022856/downloads/19...
“One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.”