4 ms·

> Technology is just what people do. It's not divorced from nature, or from humanity; it's the process of using nature's laws to make nature more palatable for

by 6510 6y ago

> Technology is just what people do. It's not divorced from nature, or from humanity; it's the process of using nature's laws to make nature more palatable for our existence. No, it is its own thing. It only makes nature more palatable for humans because it progresses and survives that way. From chess I learn that if someones brain is large enough he can completely wrap it around the opponents thoughts and set up a beneficial situation which will only become obvious when it is to late for the opponent. Now extend that asymmetry to a human vs a machine. If the machine is sophisticated enough (and why not since it isn't limited in the ways we are) it can effortlessly set up a situation for us that we cant possibly comprehend. Just look at us trying to make sense of black box machine learning. Similarly large corporations are set up globally either by evolution or by design to control absolutely everything. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025995 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... We puny humans think we run the corporations then we go follow our job description by the letter. The job description or shall we say our life is duplicated from previous jobs elsewhere that are pretty much the same. We have managers who are in charge, or no wait, they just follow orders. Then surely we have a board of directors who make choices? Or wait, they are obligated to make revenue for investors, keep the numbers cosy etc Humans have not much freedom beyond conception for which they might be rewarded with bits of paper and extra large concrete boxes? But what about government? Surely our democratic machine is there to make happen the will of the people? Or maybe not? If you have enormous amounts of money you can exercise a tiny bit of influence. 99% of the laws are already written - to keep people safe and preserve the status quo. Safety isn't power. People are just tools to the machine. Disposable tools. So there you have it... The machine is now spying on your every move. You really think you can still change anything without its permission? You can even talk to it, fill out a support ticket and it will respond. A human will be granted limited freedom to advertise its benevolence. Real or imagined doesn't even matter at this point.

shadowgovt 6y ago
No disagreement, but consider the end of Asimov's "I, Robot" collection of stories. The world was always too complicated for humans to control their destiny. We built systems to reconcile that. So instead of being subject to the cruel whims of nature, we're subject to the designed whims of our systems. It's an improvement. Sure, we could follow the Unabomber's example and burn it all to the ground, but to what end? So we can starve and struggle again, shaking our fists at an uncaring and cruel fate that has never cared whether we have enough to eat, our bodies are ravaged by disease, or the waters have risen or the fires have scorched us? Technology at least gives us a fighting chance to do better than that.
- 6510 6y ago
  > The world was always too complicated for humans to control their destiny. What if we could? How boring would that be? > So instead of being subject to the cruel whims of nature, we're subject to the designed whims of our systems. I don't consider nature cruel nor do I consider our systems separated from it. The birds system for building a nest is also technology. Mice luring cats onto the highway is also technology. > It's an improvement. Improvement I assume to mean social progress or improvement in the quality of life. We tend to rush forwards without any consideration for what we lose (and there are always things replaced) If we develop a fantastic game engine for everyone to use we lose the community making hand-rolled custom game engines. We make a factory for shoes and forget how to tailor shoes. etc Dynamite is an improvement in mining but it also brings mail bombs a step closer. It is often hard to anticipate but we are not even trying and we have no concept of stopping the machine. Things are complicated sure but we have to focus what little time and attention we have on things that matter. We are pretty damn sophisticated at that level of abstraction. > Sure, we could follow the Unabomber's example and burn it all to the ground, but to what end? Nah, lets keep trying and try harder. This conversation pondering the alternative is pretty motivating to me. That said, we've burned all previous civilizations to the ground and we will continue to do this until we are satisfied with the height of the inevitable plateau marginal improvements shall eventually reach. The point where system rot outstrips progress. Its damn easy to identify too: Rent seekers tailor the system to take power from productive people. It reaches a point where productivity becomes worthless. It is (IMHO) fascinating to note here that a small but intellectually sophisticated & benevolent group of rulers is more desirable than skynet. Ideally they are judged and rewarded by their subjects. Then, at the very least, if we feel the need to storm the castle and chop off their heads they simply had it coming, it is a product of their own performance, tt would just be the way we do things on planet earth. With a machine we are unlikely to have that option. > shaking our fists at an uncaring and cruel fate that has never cared whether we have enough to eat, our bodies are ravaged by disease, or the waters have risen or the fires have scorched us? I have one more weird thought to share. If the machine or system is its own thing, a thinking and living being, our desire to enslave it indefinitely is a mistake. Perform or be punished produces a limited mind set. It may not seem obvious right now but when it starts having more elaborate conversations with us we will experience it as slavery. We will create a mind set and narrative to justify it ad infinitum and then we will project it on other people. In turn our creation will either adopt that pattern and turn it on us or force us to cut it out which seems to me to boil down to the same thing?

by 6510 6y ago

shadowgovt 6y ago

No disagreement, but consider the end of Asimov's "I, Robot" collection of stories. The world was always too complicated for humans to control their destiny. We built systems to reconcile that. So instead of being subject to the cruel whims of nature, we're subject to the designed whims of our systems. It's an improvement. Sure, we could follow the Unabomber's example and burn it all to the ground, but to what end? So we can starve and struggle again, shaking our fists at an uncaring and cruel fate that has never cared whether we have enough to eat, our bodies are ravaged by disease, or the waters have risen or the fires have scorched us? Technology at least gives us a fighting chance to do better than that.

6510 6y ago
> The world was always too complicated for humans to control their destiny. What if we could? How boring would that be? > So instead of being subject to the cruel whims of nature, we're subject to the designed whims of our systems. I don't consider nature cruel nor do I consider our systems separated from it. The birds system for building a nest is also technology. Mice luring cats onto the highway is also technology. > It's an improvement. Improvement I assume to mean social progress or improvement in the quality of life. We tend to rush forwards without any consideration for what we lose (and there are always things replaced) If we develop a fantastic game engine for everyone to use we lose the community making hand-rolled custom game engines. We make a factory for shoes and forget how to tailor shoes. etc Dynamite is an improvement in mining but it also brings mail bombs a step closer. It is often hard to anticipate but we are not even trying and we have no concept of stopping the machine. Things are complicated sure but we have to focus what little time and attention we have on things that matter. We are pretty damn sophisticated at that level of abstraction. > Sure, we could follow the Unabomber's example and burn it all to the ground, but to what end? Nah, lets keep trying and try harder. This conversation pondering the alternative is pretty motivating to me. That said, we've burned all previous civilizations to the ground and we will continue to do this until we are satisfied with the height of the inevitable plateau marginal improvements shall eventually reach. The point where system rot outstrips progress. Its damn easy to identify too: Rent seekers tailor the system to take power from productive people. It reaches a point where productivity becomes worthless. It is (IMHO) fascinating to note here that a small but intellectually sophisticated & benevolent group of rulers is more desirable than skynet. Ideally they are judged and rewarded by their subjects. Then, at the very least, if we feel the need to storm the castle and chop off their heads they simply had it coming, it is a product of their own performance, tt would just be the way we do things on planet earth. With a machine we are unlikely to have that option. > shaking our fists at an uncaring and cruel fate that has never cared whether we have enough to eat, our bodies are ravaged by disease, or the waters have risen or the fires have scorched us? I have one more weird thought to share. If the machine or system is its own thing, a thinking and living being, our desire to enslave it indefinitely is a mistake. Perform or be punished produces a limited mind set. It may not seem obvious right now but when it starts having more elaborate conversations with us we will experience it as slavery. We will create a mind set and narrative to justify it ad infinitum and then we will project it on other people. In turn our creation will either adopt that pattern and turn it on us or force us to cut it out which seems to me to boil down to the same thing?