From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Thu Jul 17 2003 - 20:06:47 MDT
Bryan Moss wrote,
> Right. I agree completely. I just resubscribed here after
> some 18 months (IIRC). The last time I was active here I
> became rather disillusioned and over the last year or so I
> can honestly say I haven't so much as thought about extropy
> or transhumanism. I came back for some nostalgia.
Welcome back! I was just complaining about losing list members.
> I think part of the problem is that we need to bracket a
> certain number of "ultratechnologies," the singularities in
> our equations, these being superintelligence, uploading, and
> drexlerian nanotechnology.[...]
Good points.
> Extropy is a child of the computer age, so it's little wonder
> that these three embody it so profoundly, and not only through
> their crippling optimism.
This makes sense to me. We are having the same design problems that the
computer age has had. Software design and communications improvements
are tremendous, but haven't resulted in the magnitudes of improvement
that we expected.
> Moore's Law, a fundamental adage of our philosophy
> and of computer science, despite being a marketing technique
> of a particular company that decided to reduce component size
> and increase speeds, design be damned.
I wish more people understood this. Moore's law IS a marketing ploy.
Are there any real engineers that quote or use this "law", or even
believe it qualifies as a "law"?
> another part of computer age mythos:
> abstractionism. Of course, there's no physical theory for
> uploading, except perhaps, if you might allow, this short,
> utterly erroneous argument: (1) at the quantum level reality
> is discrete; (2) therefore, a quantum computer can simulate
> any part of reality; (3) the brain probably isn't capable of
> exploiting quantum mechanical effects; (4) therefore, a
> classical computer can simulate a brain that is identical to
> and identifiable with the original.
Another interesting parallel to technology here. Abstraction is a good
tool, but in practice it has lead too many people to design bloated,
inefficient, unreliable software. Similarly, I think our ideas about
technology have been abstracted to the point that we produce bloated,
inefficient and unreliable expectations.
> This, at least, is what
> I can salvage from my side of those copy arguments we used to
> have. (I concede.) And finally, we shovel all the real
> problems under that carpet we call "software." This is part
> of that larger Myth of the Computer Age: universality. We
> can do anything in software, given enough speed. This is not
> true in any practical or useful sense, however.
Agreed! The myth I keep running into is the seven-layer model of
networking. It says that layers are abstracted independently of each
other so that the physical, data-link, network, transport, session,
presentation, application layers can all mix-and-match/plug-and-play/and
be vendor neutral. It sounds good in theory, but it isn't real. If it
were real, we should be able to run a Linux program displaying IBM
EBCDIC characters over an http web session via a non-TCP protocol on an
appletalk network running Microsoft netbios on an ATM link!
> I say the following with complete confidence: there will be
> no Yudkowskian Singularity, the copy is not the original, the
> creation of the first assembler will not cause an immediate
> revolution in manufacturing. These are science fiction
> pipedreams.
I believe that these things will happen eventually. But they will be
carved out with great difficulty at every step of the process.
Technology gets more complicated as it grows exponentially. Layers upon
layers of abstraction make system unpredictable. Complexities make
seeing the complete picture more and more impossible. As technology
solves our problems, we are presented with more numerous and more
difficult problems. Like a video game where you never win, we just keep
advancing to more and more difficult levels. The work gets harder, the
rewards get bigger, the disasters get worse, and the process repeats
itself over and over. There is no end to this process, and I'm not sure
why so many people on the Luddite side and on the technology side think
there is.
> Yes, and as well as realising that this stuff requires hard
> work, we need a *critical* approach to technology. We need
> to take our heads out of the sand, lose the ridiculous
> "luddite" talk, and realise that, yes, technology does effect
> peoples lives, and that, no, not all technology effects all
> lives in a positive way. Technophilia doesn't cut it.
Agreed! I have come to believe that the Luddites are right in their
fears. This stuff is dangerous and will cause problems. However, I
don't believe they are right in their solutions. We can't just ignore
the stuff or get everybody to agree to relinquish any use of technology.
We must strive to make sure that safety and security are included in all
technology. We need to make sure that dangerous technology doesn't
accidentally destroy the world just as we have to make sure that
dangerous terrorists don't deliberately destroy the world. This takes
auditing, accountability, transparency, negotiation and a whole lot of
attitude adjustment. People who risk massive disasters without taking
proper precautions are like terrorists. They risk other people's lives
to achieve their own goals. They don't care if other people die if it
will help them reach their own goals. There must be a way to work with
Luddites, identify real problems, and then develop solutions to address
these concerns.
> Technology is ideological in the strongest sense.
You make a lot of excellent points that I agree with. Mike Lorrey is
also making other points that I agree with. Anders said it best when he
said we are in a phase of "growing up". Our college-days of idealism
are gone. We are in the real world now. Things aren't as rosy as we
thought. We live in a Dilbertesque world, and there are too many
pointy-haired bosses calling the shots who don't understand what they
are talking about. We want to make a difference, and still want to
pursue our dreams. But we have to adapt to the real world and the real
future. The future isn't turning out to be what we expected it to be.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISM, CISSP, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC Certified InfoSec Manager, Certified IS Security Pro, NSA-certified InfoSec Assessor, IBM-certified Security Consultant, SANS-cert GSEC <HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 17 2003 - 20:18:18 MDT