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

‘His ideas resonate’: how the Unabomber’s dangerous anti-tech manifesto lives on

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 95 posts

Re: ‘His ideas resonate’: how the Unabomber’s dangerous anti-tech manifesto lives on

#81

Post by leobg »

xg15 wrote: post #67
leobg wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude. Read the tweet in context [1]. He was responding to this headline: “The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race." Most likely, he was thinking of the dangers of AI (hence “might” - because we still don’t know). [1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1667627403089268739?s=46...

If that's the case, it's still hypocritical - he was one of the early investors in OpenAI: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-openai-reason-exis...

You haven’t followed the story at all, have you?

He founded OpenAI to prevent an outcome where AGI is developed closed source by a single corporation - which he thought would likely be Google. Elon founding OpenAI actually led to him falling out with Larry Page, who used to be a good friend of Elon (but who didn’t share these concerns about AI).

It is ironic that it’s now OpenAI that partnered with Microsoft and runs GPT-3/4/x on a closed source basis. This is the opposite of what Elon wanted to achieve, and what he had in mind when he named the venture “OpenAI”.

Elon (who left OpenAI in 2018) has criticized OpenAI for this many times over the last months. He says OpenAI has taken donations as a non profit and then turned around and made themselves into a closed source for-profit.

Re: ‘His ideas resonate’: how the Unabomber’s dangerous anti-tech manifesto lives on

#82

Post by weast »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #66
aeternum wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you really nailed the ultimately question: Can technology have agency? If not, then it's just another tool for humans. We are excellent tool users, and leverage everything we can to expand our senses and abilities. We already successfully wield tools of unimaginable power. If technology itself can have agency, then it truly is a paradigm shift for the millennia. There has never been an entity that is better a…

I think this is all a red herring. At least until we crack GAI, at which point paperclip maximizers and other lethal agents of pure technology come knocking. Point being: technology, so far, has never been autonomous. But technology also doesn't grow on trees, nor does it stick out from the ground like a valuable rock. Technology is actively invented, and requires costly reproduction and maintenance. It only sticks a…

I think Nassim Taleb used the analogy of studing an ant or a bee colony: it is not sufficient to study the ant or the bee in isolation, as it is the interactions between them and their respective colonies that shapes the behaviour. Shifting the level of analysis makes counterintuitive behaviours at the individual level (i.e. bees sacrificially stinging attackers) make sence when we shift the level of analysis up.

Re: ‘His ideas resonate’: how the Unabomber’s dangerous anti-tech manifesto lives on

#83

Post by drewcoo »

speak_plainly wrote: post #3

I never found his argument convincing. The main tension in his manifesto is motivated by an underlying assumption that isn’t accurate. He sees technology as being a distinct force in opposition to humanity rather than an extension of humanity and that is the source of his fears. There are a lot of reasons to believe that technology is not an opposing force, like the idea of embedded cognition and embedded action. I t…

Humans are tool users. That's technology.

But the Luddites of the 19th century didn't like being devalued by tech. Like the Hulk, Luddites smash!

San Francisco's Great Fire of 1906 would not have happened if the city hadn't been plumbed for gas - new tech at the time that apparently did not have human safety in mind.

In the early 20th century there was an uneasy relationship with electricity, easily demonstrated by Thomas Edison's gruesome staged electrocution of animals and also by the the more whimsical cartoons of Rube Goldberg.

These stresses have been ongoing and increasing, the Unabomber just being one more example.

I think it has to do with people not handling the amount of new complexity all at once. And that seems like a wonderful design problem.

Re: ‘His ideas resonate’: how the Unabomber’s dangerous anti-tech manifesto lives on

#84

Post by wellthisisgreat »

petsfed wrote: post #61
wellthisisgreat wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's some rich whataboutism

In the context of "having a harvard degree implies a certain amount of skill and capability of to improve the world", I think its fair to honestly look at who he's being held up to in comparison. There a lot people in the world who, if you asked them who was the most dangerous person to graduate from Harvard, they'd pick George W. Bush over some guy who killed 3 and injured not quite 2 dozen. Getting into or graduati…

I am not defending Bush (a Yale grad, but that's beside the point) and the like. Unabomber was a psychopath who purposefully murdered people.

"he did less damage" - "then a lobbyist or McKinsey" is a wild statement. He was a purposeful murderer. Trying to lump McKinsey consultants and politicians (horrible people, most of them, I am sure) with a serial killer is normalizing murder. Murder is a line that, I imagine, is drawn in concrete for any person who expects to be welcome in the modern society.

I will take my chances in being the subject to damage done by any randomly picked lobbyist vs Unabomber. Won't you?

What is going on with HN if this is the kind of discourse that's getting upvoted and approved.

Re: ‘His ideas resonate’: how the Unabomber’s dangerous anti-tech manifesto lives on

#85

Post by drewcoo »

Minor49er wrote: post #12

The manifesto itself isn't dangerous, but the way that Kaczynski drove attention towards it certainly was

Technically he got it published buy promising to stop bombing. He drew attention to it by stopping terrorism.

Not trying to excuse anything. Just sayin'.

Re: ‘His ideas resonate’: how the Unabomber’s dangerous anti-tech manifesto lives on

#86

Post by LatteLazy »

LatteLazy wrote: post #4

I feel very sympathetic to his complaints about society. But he offers no solutions that would not embarrass a 4 year old. He wanted people, all people everywhere to give up tech. And he never bothered to address either of the obvious issues with this: (a) that whoever didn't would have a huge military advantage over those that did and would soon be in charge and (b) that we can only stay alive in the numbers we curr…

There was a reply here correcting me and saying Kaczynski DID in fact have a plan: to target weak points of the modern industrial economy, disable them in a co-ordinated attack, and then rely on the fact we would then lack the tech to do high tech work and have already used the resources available with low tech tools (eg we have mostly exhausted the easy-to-access mineral deposits, so removing our ability to access deeper ones would force humanity back to pre-industrial life.

I have only come across this idea in Atwood's Oryx and Crake (fiction). I wondered if it (a) true as an idea (the examples I've seen are very unconvincing) and (b) what he was actually proposing...

Re: ‘His ideas resonate’: how the Unabomber’s dangerous anti-tech manifesto lives on

#87

Post by ok123456 »

wellthisisgreat wrote: post #84
petsfed wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of "having a harvard degree implies a certain amount of skill and capability of to improve the world", I think its fair to honestly look at who he's being held up to in comparison. There a lot people in the world who, if you asked them who was the most dangerous person to graduate from Harvard, they'd pick George W. Bush over some guy who killed 3 and injured not quite 2 dozen. Getting into or graduati…

I am not defending Bush (a Yale grad, but that's beside the point) and the like. Unabomber was a psychopath who purposefully murdered people. "he did less damage" - "then a lobbyist or McKinsey" is a wild statement. He was a purposeful murderer. Trying to lump McKinsey consultants and politicians (horrible people, most of them, I am sure) with a serial killer is normalizing murder. Murder is a line that, I imagine, i…

Which is worse for the world: an lone sociopath who does a short spree of destructive acts, or a ruling class of organized psychopaths with all the levers of power with the ability to use the national security state to kill anything that gets in their way?

I think half a million dead Iraqis would say the latter.

Re: ‘His ideas resonate’: how the Unabomber’s dangerous anti-tech manifesto lives on

#88

Post by wellthisisgreat »

ok123456 wrote: post #87
wellthisisgreat wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not defending Bush (a Yale grad, but that's beside the point) and the like. Unabomber was a psychopath who purposefully murdered people. "he did less damage" - "then a lobbyist or McKinsey" is a wild statement. He was a purposeful murderer. Trying to lump McKinsey consultants and politicians (horrible people, most of them, I am sure) with a serial killer is normalizing murder. Murder is a line that, I imagine, i…

Which is worse for the world: an lone sociopath who does a short spree of destructive acts, or a ruling class of organized psychopaths with all the levers of power with the ability to use the national security state to kill anything that gets in their way? I think half a million dead Iraqis would say the latter.

After seeing you label Unabomber a “sociopath” and corrupt politicians “psychopaths”, I believe an informed discussion is not to be expected.

Best of luck.

Re: ‘His ideas resonate’: how the Unabomber’s dangerous anti-tech manifesto lives on

#89

Post by ok123456 »

wellthisisgreat wrote: post #88
ok123456 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is worse for the world: an lone sociopath who does a short spree of destructive acts, or a ruling class of organized psychopaths with all the levers of power with the ability to use the national security state to kill anything that gets in their way? I think half a million dead Iraqis would say the latter.

After seeing you label Unabomber a “sociopath” and corrupt politicians “psychopaths”, I believe an informed discussion is not to be expected. Best of luck.

no.

I'm sorry this makes you feel bad.

Re: ‘His ideas resonate’: how the Unabomber’s dangerous anti-tech manifesto lives on

#90

Post by petsfed »

wellthisisgreat wrote: post #84
petsfed wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of "having a harvard degree implies a certain amount of skill and capability of to improve the world", I think its fair to honestly look at who he's being held up to in comparison. There a lot people in the world who, if you asked them who was the most dangerous person to graduate from Harvard, they'd pick George W. Bush over some guy who killed 3 and injured not quite 2 dozen. Getting into or graduati…

I am not defending Bush (a Yale grad, but that's beside the point) and the like. Unabomber was a psychopath who purposefully murdered people. "he did less damage" - "then a lobbyist or McKinsey" is a wild statement. He was a purposeful murderer. Trying to lump McKinsey consultants and politicians (horrible people, most of them, I am sure) with a serial killer is normalizing murder. Murder is a line that, I imagine, i…

George H.W. Bush went to Yale. His son, George W. Bush went to Harvard.

I'm not trying to excuse, or minimize, Kaczynski's crimes. I am asking you to understand that in the case of revolutionaries and political leaders, the difference between heroes and terrorists is ultimately decided by the people of the future. It is very easy to see serial killers and bomb makers as individually evil, because its a very personal sort of violence, and the motivations are expressed and enacted on a very personal level.

But how do you deal with more indirect motivations and indirect violence? Was Churchill's inaction during the Bengal famine murder? What about all the collateral damage during Bush's tenure with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is Barack Obama a murderer for ordering the death of Anwar Al-Awlaki? Or was it the drone operator who followed the order?

This is to say nothing of the original comment, that Kaczynski did less damage than the average Harvard grad (depicted as someone in finances. The extent to which working in finances causes damage and death is, I think, a lot less direct than even the damage done by a head of state enacting national policy).

I don't think Kaczynski did the right thing, or that his underlying motivations were even coherent, let alone morally correct. Do not misunderstand me. But if we're stack-ranking history's greatest monsters (and Harvard graduates), actual effectiveness counts at least as much as intent.

Post reply on HN