At 07:03 PM 12/5/01 -0800, Robert wrote:
>> Robert's point is that the technology he (as a singularitarian) [snip]
>But I have to protest the characterization of being a "singularitarian".
>I'll simply note the lack of a Sysop AI in either of these scenarios.
>it is a function of the 'overlord(s)' being
>willing to grant favors.
>I'm not an individual who strongly favors "court politics", so I do
>not consider myself to be a "singularitarian".
Apologies for using the wrong word there: I know that Eliezer and his
colleagues have appropriated this term. All I meant to indicate was,
broadly, `one who expects a technological singularity in the foreseeable
future'. And surely this does underlie your Promethean projections (`Don't
bother going to Pluto anytime soon because I'll have torn it apart by the
time your probe crawls there')?
On the matter of whether Sysops and other less congenial forms of what I've
lately suggested calling Custodians or Stewards would have the odious
characteristics you ascribe to them, Eliezer repudiated this suggestion on
SL4. I hope he might cc. that post to the extropian list so all may munch
on its nutrients.
>That would serve to foster productive discussion instead of unproductive
Robert, I assume you're making a larger and more general point here, but I
do hope my little whimsy with vowels was not seen as sniping at the expense
of Amara, but just as a merriment triggered by her own.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:24 MDT