Re: The Singularity

Eugene Leitl (
Wed, 22 Jul 1998 19:52:18 +0400 (MSD)

Robin Hanson writes:

> >I think this is a dangerous position. ...
> Yes, powerful ideas are dangerous. But that doesn't make them wrong.

I was actually thinking about the verbatim sense: it might kill you, since you choose not the right strategy because of a wrong model. No rhetorics.

> >The bulk of past predictions now seems ludicrous. ...
> This claim is independent of any concept of singularity. So are you
> saying no one should ever attempt to envision the future decades ahead?

Independent? Not quite. It's just that predicting things grows the harder the nearer we are near the Singularity. _Of course_ one should attempt to envision the future decades ahead, just don't expect it's graven in stone you'll turn out right.

> >If there is no banking nor art after the Singularity, extrapolating
> >from past human insight is worth shit.
> >you emerge a god from the other side ... which is perfectly
> >incomprehensible for an nonparticipating mehum observer.
> How can you be so sure of these things, that gods have no banking, and
> that gods are incomprehensible to us? These true by definition of "god"?

I can't be sure, that's the reason I mentioned this. The bandwidth of possible developments suddenly explodes, and you're a sorely put at assigning probabilities to each individual branch of the multitude.

As to 'gods are incomprehensible to us', why, yes, I'd say that's a part of their definition. If I can predict the actions of a posthuman, then it is no different from a wind-up toy.