7 ms·

I read this a number of years ago and it's been churning in my mind ever since. While I do think Bostrom is definitely onto something here in terms of dangers o

I read this a number of years ago and it's been churning in my mind ever since. While I do think Bostrom is definitely onto something here in terms of dangers of technology, his proposed solution of heavy surveillance via a "high tech panopticon" is seeming worse and worse to me every year. Primarily because recent years have made me pretty much certain that idiotic activists would attempt to control this system to achieve their own ends. It would start out monitoring people for signs of developing some killer virus or WMD or something, and within 10 years it will have been hijacked into a system that monitors and punishes people for "problematic" speech and whatnot. Of course, it's the activists who get to decide what exactly constitutes a "problem".

usednet 4y ago
I think you’ve gotten things a little confused. A governmental “high tech panopticon” already exists, and it’s used to target activists.
- verisimi 4y ago
  ... and Canada freezing the truckers bank accounts was a great example.
brnaftr361 4y ago
I agree. It seems both naive and ironic that we'd be capable of fighting fire with fire - which is what the man is proposing. I can't think of a single institution that hasn't self-corrupted. Governments, religions, NGOs, and et cetera; there isn't a single entity manned and driven by men that hasn't turned itself into shit, and such an apparatus would do just that, with outsized implications. Scratch the activist boogeyman, anybody operating this would be the moral authority and there is no individual or institution comprised of men that has ever inspired confidence enough to rightly espouse the view that either a holistic surveillance apparatus or global government would be any better. This guy is so naive it isn't even funny though, total charlatan. Can't wait to finish dissecting this shit.
- napier 4y ago
  - thatjoeoverthr 4y ago
    Provide an argument without providing an argument.
- avindroth 4y ago
  >>> I can't think of a single institution that hasn't self-corrupted. This is a very cheap take, and undermines the unbelievable amount of function that institutions play, despite corruption. The self-corrupting institutions that you speak of are what drive modern society. To reject them altogether, that is naive. Institutions are also destined to corrupt, see Quigley's work. This is why they die, to give room for new. >>> ...a single entity manned and driven by men that hasn't turned itself into shit... Again, another general take that is not flexible enough to consider the context of Bostrom here. What Bostrom is suggesting is an extremely severe scenario in which there is no other choice other than to place our bets on a centralized authority. I think general distrust of authority and institutions can make one read this article in a bent way, but let's pose it this way; what is an alternative solution to the easy-nukes scenario? If one writes an article on the same topic, how would you frame the solution? >>> ...the view that either a holistic surveillance apparatus or global government would be any better. Centralized systems have done a lot better than decentralized systems in many cases. See many attempts being made in crypto space. They run case by case. It takes tremendous amount of smart design to make decentralized systems work. Sometimes centralized systems are more flexible than decentralized systems. Laissez-faire, power to the people, and all that is great and people (of the world) should tend towards that. This is what I appreciate about America, and their steadfast approach to these values. But that is a general take. Religiosity towards these values can be a great detriment to epistemic flexibility. If this reads as if I am arguing for centralized systems over decentralized systems, I am not. Note I put in a lot of conditionals, like "sometimes" and "case by case". There are situations where centralized systems are better, and where decentralized systems are better. As humanity improves, we will replace centralized portions of the world with decentralized counterparts. But as it stands, centralization is really useful under certain conditions. Could you really decentralize the army? (Maybe in a few hundred years) All this is to say, we need centralization sometimes, and the situation that Bostrom is suggesting here is that sometimes.
FeepingCreature 4y ago
It seems to me then that the real problem is not constructing a surveillance system, but designing a trustworthy surveillance system in the first place.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  If power corrupts, and that seems to be the general case, then absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any broad system is ripe for abuse without checks, checks can only exist with a weak enough system.
alexb_ 4y ago
I think that this doesn't actually try to "propose" anything, but is rather a thought experiment of what would need to happen to prevent our eventual doom (and that something being so unachievable as to be impossible to implement)
matthewdgreen 4y ago
I think it’s fascinating that so many Internet users really think “activists” are the true threat to freedom, when in reality activists have had relatively little influence outside of the Internets. What would actually happen is that someone would use this to enshrine their own political power, targeting the political opposition. They would pass laws to target vulnerable racial minority groups and gay people, perhaps even prohibiting teachers from teaching children about them, most likely using threats to “children and family” and “grooming and pedophilia” as their boogie man. This is what’s happened in Russia and several increasingly authoritarian nations, absolutely zero of which are run by irate Twitterati who care about “problematic speech” in the sense that I suspect HN readers understand the term. The surveillance aspects are also happening in western nations, and it’s rarely activists pushing these narratives. I bring this up because somehow people act like oppressive government is some kind of science-fiction future that (conveniently) will be brought about by people they disagree with, despite the fact that those people don’t have much of a track record of achieving it. Meanwhile oppressive governments exist today and almost always follow a well-trodden path that we can study and avoid, if we stopped fantasizing about imaginary threats.
- krona 4y ago
  OP is imagining a far more likely Brave New World where the majority of society demands totalitarian obedience through coercive control, because its good for you and the stability and safety of society.
- car_analogy 4y ago
  You don't think the people that drove the October and Cultural revolutions could be termed 'activists'? And it is folly to believe that because things developed a certain way in, say, Russia, they will develop the same where circumstances differ. For example, despite your dismissal of activists' influence, Scotland criminalized expressions of 'hate', even within private homes [1,2], and there are innumerable anti-discrimination laws in the US, that arguably conflict with the constitution's free association provision. Couple a law such as the Scottish hate crime bill with panopticon surveillance, and the results are chilling. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364821 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364... [2] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hate-crime-bill-hate-talk-in-homes-must-be-prosecuted-6bcthrjdc https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hate-crime-bill-hate-talk...

usednet 4y ago

I think you’ve gotten things a little confused. A governmental “high tech panopticon” already exists, and it’s used to target activists.

verisimi 4y ago
... and Canada freezing the truckers bank accounts was a great example.

brnaftr361 4y ago

I agree. It seems both naive and ironic that we'd be capable of fighting fire with fire - which is what the man is proposing. I can't think of a single institution that hasn't self-corrupted. Governments, religions, NGOs, and et cetera; there isn't a single entity manned and driven by men that hasn't turned itself into shit, and such an apparatus would do just that, with outsized implications. Scratch the activist boogeyman, anybody operating this would be the moral authority and there is no individual or institution comprised of men that has ever inspired confidence enough to rightly espouse the view that either a holistic surveillance apparatus or global government would be any better. This guy is so naive it isn't even funny though, total charlatan. Can't wait to finish dissecting this shit.

napier 4y ago
- thatjoeoverthr 4y ago
  Provide an argument without providing an argument.
avindroth 4y ago
>>> I can't think of a single institution that hasn't self-corrupted. This is a very cheap take, and undermines the unbelievable amount of function that institutions play, despite corruption. The self-corrupting institutions that you speak of are what drive modern society. To reject them altogether, that is naive. Institutions are also destined to corrupt, see Quigley's work. This is why they die, to give room for new. >>> ...a single entity manned and driven by men that hasn't turned itself into shit... Again, another general take that is not flexible enough to consider the context of Bostrom here. What Bostrom is suggesting is an extremely severe scenario in which there is no other choice other than to place our bets on a centralized authority. I think general distrust of authority and institutions can make one read this article in a bent way, but let's pose it this way; what is an alternative solution to the easy-nukes scenario? If one writes an article on the same topic, how would you frame the solution? >>> ...the view that either a holistic surveillance apparatus or global government would be any better. Centralized systems have done a lot better than decentralized systems in many cases. See many attempts being made in crypto space. They run case by case. It takes tremendous amount of smart design to make decentralized systems work. Sometimes centralized systems are more flexible than decentralized systems. Laissez-faire, power to the people, and all that is great and people (of the world) should tend towards that. This is what I appreciate about America, and their steadfast approach to these values. But that is a general take. Religiosity towards these values can be a great detriment to epistemic flexibility. If this reads as if I am arguing for centralized systems over decentralized systems, I am not. Note I put in a lot of conditionals, like "sometimes" and "case by case". There are situations where centralized systems are better, and where decentralized systems are better. As humanity improves, we will replace centralized portions of the world with decentralized counterparts. But as it stands, centralization is really useful under certain conditions. Could you really decentralize the army? (Maybe in a few hundred years) All this is to say, we need centralization sometimes, and the situation that Bostrom is suggesting here is that sometimes.

FeepingCreature 4y ago

It seems to me then that the real problem is not constructing a surveillance system, but designing a trustworthy surveillance system in the first place.

vorpalhex 4y ago
If power corrupts, and that seems to be the general case, then absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any broad system is ripe for abuse without checks, checks can only exist with a weak enough system.

alexb_ 4y ago

I think that this doesn't actually try to "propose" anything, but is rather a thought experiment of what would need to happen to prevent our eventual doom (and that something being so unachievable as to be impossible to implement)

matthewdgreen 4y ago

I think it’s fascinating that so many Internet users really think “activists” are the true threat to freedom, when in reality activists have had relatively little influence outside of the Internets. What would actually happen is that someone would use this to enshrine their own political power, targeting the political opposition. They would pass laws to target vulnerable racial minority groups and gay people, perhaps even prohibiting teachers from teaching children about them, most likely using threats to “children and family” and “grooming and pedophilia” as their boogie man. This is what’s happened in Russia and several increasingly authoritarian nations, absolutely zero of which are run by irate Twitterati who care about “problematic speech” in the sense that I suspect HN readers understand the term. The surveillance aspects are also happening in western nations, and it’s rarely activists pushing these narratives. I bring this up because somehow people act like oppressive government is some kind of science-fiction future that (conveniently) will be brought about by people they disagree with, despite the fact that those people don’t have much of a track record of achieving it. Meanwhile oppressive governments exist today and almost always follow a well-trodden path that we can study and avoid, if we stopped fantasizing about imaginary threats.

krona 4y ago
OP is imagining a far more likely Brave New World where the majority of society demands totalitarian obedience through coercive control, because its good for you and the stability and safety of society.
car_analogy 4y ago
You don't think the people that drove the October and Cultural revolutions could be termed 'activists'? And it is folly to believe that because things developed a certain way in, say, Russia, they will develop the same where circumstances differ. For example, despite your dismissal of activists' influence, Scotland criminalized expressions of 'hate', even within private homes [1,2], and there are innumerable anti-discrimination laws in the US, that arguably conflict with the constitution's free association provision. Couple a law such as the Scottish hate crime bill with panopticon surveillance, and the results are chilling. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364821 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364... [2] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hate-crime-bill-hate-talk-in-homes-must-be-prosecuted-6bcthrjdc https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hate-crime-bill-hate-talk...