5 ms·

Fwiw - I’m not sure it’s wise to ground one’s moral philosophy from mass murderers. The invisible hand in economics seems both more causal to technology’s advan

Fwiw - I’m not sure it’s wise to ground one’s moral philosophy from mass murderers. The invisible hand in economics seems both more causal to technology’s advancement and less dubious. Also there’s a fantastic BBC docuseries called “Connections” by James Burke that makes the case that nothing in tech could have happened sooner or later than it did, and that each progression was an inevitable next step from the previous. It has interesting implications.

atlgator 3y ago
I'm not here to have a Death of the Author debate. Aristotle said the mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it. I just thought the parallel was particularly insidious in the context of AI.
yowlingcat 3y ago
If you can't intellectually critique Ted Kaczynski's philosophy (or Adolf Hitler's philosophy) without critiquing the person, then you don't really have a critique in the first place. FWIW, I think both philosophies are deeply flawed AND that the actions each individual took were horrific, but a critique of their actions is not necessary to critique their ideologies; the ideologies themselves are deeply flawed in and of themselves. To GP's point, the idea of technology evolving for its own end is thought provoking and perhaps a little scary /because/ it does have historical basis, if for no other reason than for war, the ongoing constant of historical life. I guess it's most thought provoking to me because I want deeply to believe in the enlightenment, which seems diametrically opposed to the idea of technology evolving for its own end. But it's hard to convince myself of the realism of intrinsic technoprogressivism. It seems to me that progressivism in technological development must be very deliberately crafted and diplomatically achieved through global pacts between many nations and the will of their people.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- smaddox 3y ago
  Technology is just the tip of the iceberg that is knowledge and understanding. The deepest advancements to knowledge and understanding come primarily from self-driven and self-motivated investigation. The closer you get to "technology", the more development is driven by the necessity to solve a problem. But technological advancement would stagnate and plateau without advancements in knowledge and understanding.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  > I guess it's most thought provoking to me because I want deeply to believe in the enlightenment, which seems diametrically opposed to the idea of technology evolving for its own end. It's not as much technology developing for its own ends, but rather things happening when conditions are ripe. I haven't studied the period well enough to have a strong opinion here, but my current feeling is that enlightenment became inevitable once the printing press spread around the world - giving many more people access to knowledge and opinions, allowing many more people to broadcast their views, and do it much faster and more thoroughly than secular and religious establishment could ever hope to suppress. This isn't to take away the achievement of individuals coming up with ideas we now consider important - it's more of a recognition that those ideas are products of their times, that there were people in the past with the same ideas, but they didn't spread because conditions weren't right. This is a similar take to explaining why scientific breakthroughs were usually made by many people, independently, at roughly the same time: that's because the limiting factor of progress isn't individual genius, but the conditions - existing scientific body work, economics, technology for testing and measuring. Once conditions are right to enable the next incremental step, it pretty much immediately gets made by multiple geniuses around the world.
ghaff 3y ago
Burke's series at least implicitly made that case. But, in general, I'd be hard put to argue for major technological advances centuries before their time given the right person with the right knowledge and the right ruler's ear. (I'm open to exceptions like stirrups.)

atlgator 3y ago

I'm not here to have a Death of the Author debate. Aristotle said the mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it. I just thought the parallel was particularly insidious in the context of AI.

yowlingcat 3y ago

If you can't intellectually critique Ted Kaczynski's philosophy (or Adolf Hitler's philosophy) without critiquing the person, then you don't really have a critique in the first place. FWIW, I think both philosophies are deeply flawed AND that the actions each individual took were horrific, but a critique of their actions is not necessary to critique their ideologies; the ideologies themselves are deeply flawed in and of themselves. To GP's point, the idea of technology evolving for its own end is thought provoking and perhaps a little scary /because/ it does have historical basis, if for no other reason than for war, the ongoing constant of historical life. I guess it's most thought provoking to me because I want deeply to believe in the enlightenment, which seems diametrically opposed to the idea of technology evolving for its own end. But it's hard to convince myself of the realism of intrinsic technoprogressivism. It seems to me that progressivism in technological development must be very deliberately crafted and diplomatically achieved through global pacts between many nations and the will of their people.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
smaddox 3y ago
Technology is just the tip of the iceberg that is knowledge and understanding. The deepest advancements to knowledge and understanding come primarily from self-driven and self-motivated investigation. The closer you get to "technology", the more development is driven by the necessity to solve a problem. But technological advancement would stagnate and plateau without advancements in knowledge and understanding.
TeMPOraL 3y ago
> I guess it's most thought provoking to me because I want deeply to believe in the enlightenment, which seems diametrically opposed to the idea of technology evolving for its own end. It's not as much technology developing for its own ends, but rather things happening when conditions are ripe. I haven't studied the period well enough to have a strong opinion here, but my current feeling is that enlightenment became inevitable once the printing press spread around the world - giving many more people access to knowledge and opinions, allowing many more people to broadcast their views, and do it much faster and more thoroughly than secular and religious establishment could ever hope to suppress. This isn't to take away the achievement of individuals coming up with ideas we now consider important - it's more of a recognition that those ideas are products of their times, that there were people in the past with the same ideas, but they didn't spread because conditions weren't right. This is a similar take to explaining why scientific breakthroughs were usually made by many people, independently, at roughly the same time: that's because the limiting factor of progress isn't individual genius, but the conditions - existing scientific body work, economics, technology for testing and measuring. Once conditions are right to enable the next incremental step, it pretty much immediately gets made by multiple geniuses around the world.

ghaff 3y ago

Burke's series at least implicitly made that case. But, in general, I'd be hard put to argue for major technological advances centuries before their time given the right person with the right knowledge and the right ruler's ear. (I'm open to exceptions like stirrups.)