Re: Sandberg 1, Yudkowsky 0

Forrest Bishop (
Thu, 28 Aug 1997 19:14:07 -0500 (CDT)

Anders wrote:
>(no, I simply can't stay out of a thread with this name :-)

>> but it looks like Sandberg was right; the "Singularity" CAN lead to

>One way of presenting the Singularity idea to avoid passivity is to
>point out that we can detemine what kind of singularity it will be.

Exactly, cf chaos theory. I think this is the subtext of our lists.

>Do we want a singularity where a small nano-elite transcends and
>everybodye else in the dust,

Sure, as long as moi is in it. ;)

> a Borg-de Chardin

This sound clever, but I don't know the reference.

> singularity where we
>all become one,

Probably the most boring.

>a cambrian explosion of new kinds of beings

My personal favorite.

> or
>a heads-in-the sand Singularity where things happen without any
>attempts to control them?

This actually seem the most unlikely.

> Individual choices will make these
>more or less likely.

More or less,