5 ms·

Not Actually on YouTube, "A Quick Rundown of Accelerationism", 00:00:20. Right at the start. >I think capitalism and artificial intelligence are the same thing

Not Actually on YouTube, "A Quick Rundown of Accelerationism", 00:00:20. Right at the start. >I think capitalism and artificial intelligence are the same thing. It's the same process. Capitalism can only be artificial intelligence production, and artificial intelligence can only come out of self-propelling capitalism. He says "artificial" specifically, forgive my impudence. My read however is that that isn't a fundamental difference to him, it's just an artifact of the fact that silicon transistors relay information faster than biological neurons can. Intelligence is the same noumenon underneath, and it will assert itself one way or another as the fundamental pathfinding algorithm of matter. EDIT: Ah, what's more, I believe sentience/ensoulment as it is usually defined is not really a thing Land is interested in as a philosophical object. The machine god at the end of time might end up being a total p-zombie for all he cares, so long as it puts the atoms into the right place. This is a common stumbling point in r/acc discussions: We're agnostic about whether anything is experiencing qualia here. That's a separate and more, uh, normal metaphysical debate. If such a thing even exists.

balamatom 2y ago
Thanks! I can definitely see where he's coming from with that take, myself having grown up in a culture that has overwritten itself with capitalism over the course of scantly two generations. I'm saying that because I don't reckon it's the kind of thing one could recognize when one is on the inside of it. Not without fucking oneself up something wicked, anyway
52-6F-62 2y ago
What can he possibly be basing this on? Sounds like a faith to me. They are trying to manufacture a god for the rest
- hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
  Ain't that the million dollar question, my friend. I am not about to slog myself through enough Immanuel Kant to explain how to got there, though. I already had one undergrad. You're right to notice a connection to theism here, though. It sounds nuts to see but I actually see some distant parallels between Land and Omohundro's ideas and, like, old gnostic traditions, or the early 20th century process philosophy of Charles Hartshorne.
  - gom_jabbar 2y ago
    Land is also explicitly referencing Omohundro and his Basic AI Drives in his work, e.g.: "Intelligence is escape, with a tendency to do its own thing. That's what runaway means, as a virtual mind template. Omohundro explains the basics." [0] "Intelligence optimization, comprehensively understood, is the ultimate and all-enveloping Omohundro drive." [1] [0] https://retrochronic.com/#pythia-unbound https://retrochronic.com/#pythia-unbound [1] https://retrochronic.com/#against-orthogonality https://retrochronic.com/#against-orthogonality
balamatom 2y ago
>We're agnostic about whether anything is experiencing qualia here Oh that's a great point! Vis a vis all the cogsci slop that regularly pretends to "explain consciousness", being agnostic about it sure beats the usual "not being able to comprehend the question in the first place" (as frequently exemplified by HN comment[er?]s under that type of headline)
gom_jabbar 2y ago
Transcribed here (with some additional context): https://retrochronic.com/#interview https://retrochronic.com/#interview
tim333 2y ago
A video link https://youtu.be/lrOVKHg_PJQ https://youtu.be/lrOVKHg_PJQ I think it's plainly mumbo jumbo. I mean take: "capitalism can only be artificial intelligence production" We've had capitalism for centuries with no AI production. As a time saver I often find once someone comes up with one bit of nonsense you can find better things to do than analyse all their other statements in case there are some non bunk aspects.
- balamatom 2y ago
  >We've had capitalism for centuries with no AI production. But it was capitalism that ended up producing AI. And if that's how things have ended up, then that must've been where things had been going all along, no? (Ask the Cheshire Cat for the opposite statement.) That's teleology for you, it's a thing that's usually obvious in hindsight, but, as you demonstrate, even that not always. And if you and your ancestors have never lived under any other social system besides the one that evolved into contemporary capitalism, how would you even be able to make the distinction between the telos of capitalism and the telos of any other global process? What would be your point of reference, experientially speaking? Do you even know any other dreams besides the ones that capitalism dreams throughout your waking hours? Back to Plato's cave with you it seems, and don't, I repeat, please don't think about limited liability corporations, the construct of "personhood" that the legal system ascribes them, and how the only thing that can even attempt to kill a corporation is a government (which is just another kind of "corporation", in the sense of rule-based meta-entity which uses human intelligence as a replaceable building block). And governments have been largely captured (outsmarted) by the corporations. For decades at this point. Qui bono? You Bono? On your way there allow me to guess, you believe that there's least one school of economics which is not "mumbo jumbo" (a term, besides the tastelessness of dismissiveness, also bearing subtle racist connotations), don't you? EDIT: Check this shit out: >Mungo Park's travel journal Travels in the Interior of Africa (1795) describes 'Mumbo Jumbo' as a character, complete with "masquerade habit", whom Mandinka males would dress up as in order to resolve domestic disputes From Wikipedia, emphasis mine. Consider!
  - tim333 2y ago
    Wikipedia disagrees a little on mumbo jumbo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbo_jumbo_(phrase) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbo_jumbo_(phrase) Apparently it comes from the Mandinka word "Maamajomboo". I don't think using African words is racist, if anything it's pro African. re "but it was capitalism that ended up producing AI", capitalism has also produced sandwich toasters for example but to thus declare "capitalism can only be sandwich toasters" would be equally silly as "capitalism can only be artificial intelligence production."

balamatom 2y ago

Thanks! I can definitely see where he's coming from with that take, myself having grown up in a culture that has overwritten itself with capitalism over the course of scantly two generations. I'm saying that because I don't reckon it's the kind of thing one could recognize when one is on the inside of it. Not without fucking oneself up something wicked, anyway

52-6F-62 2y ago

What can he possibly be basing this on? Sounds like a faith to me. They are trying to manufacture a god for the rest

hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
Ain't that the million dollar question, my friend. I am not about to slog myself through enough Immanuel Kant to explain how to got there, though. I already had one undergrad. You're right to notice a connection to theism here, though. It sounds nuts to see but I actually see some distant parallels between Land and Omohundro's ideas and, like, old gnostic traditions, or the early 20th century process philosophy of Charles Hartshorne.
- gom_jabbar 2y ago
  Land is also explicitly referencing Omohundro and his Basic AI Drives in his work, e.g.: "Intelligence is escape, with a tendency to do its own thing. That's what runaway means, as a virtual mind template. Omohundro explains the basics." [0] "Intelligence optimization, comprehensively understood, is the ultimate and all-enveloping Omohundro drive." [1] [0] https://retrochronic.com/#pythia-unbound https://retrochronic.com/#pythia-unbound [1] https://retrochronic.com/#against-orthogonality https://retrochronic.com/#against-orthogonality

balamatom 2y ago

>We're agnostic about whether anything is experiencing qualia here Oh that's a great point! Vis a vis all the cogsci slop that regularly pretends to "explain consciousness", being agnostic about it sure beats the usual "not being able to comprehend the question in the first place" (as frequently exemplified by HN comment[er?]s under that type of headline)

gom_jabbar 2y ago

Transcribed here (with some additional context): https://retrochronic.com/#interview https://retrochronic.com/#interview

tim333 2y ago

A video link https://youtu.be/lrOVKHg_PJQ https://youtu.be/lrOVKHg_PJQ I think it's plainly mumbo jumbo. I mean take: "capitalism can only be artificial intelligence production" We've had capitalism for centuries with no AI production. As a time saver I often find once someone comes up with one bit of nonsense you can find better things to do than analyse all their other statements in case there are some non bunk aspects.

balamatom 2y ago
>We've had capitalism for centuries with no AI production. But it was capitalism that ended up producing AI. And if that's how things have ended up, then that must've been where things had been going all along, no? (Ask the Cheshire Cat for the opposite statement.) That's teleology for you, it's a thing that's usually obvious in hindsight, but, as you demonstrate, even that not always. And if you and your ancestors have never lived under any other social system besides the one that evolved into contemporary capitalism, how would you even be able to make the distinction between the telos of capitalism and the telos of any other global process? What would be your point of reference, experientially speaking? Do you even know any other dreams besides the ones that capitalism dreams throughout your waking hours? Back to Plato's cave with you it seems, and don't, I repeat, please don't think about limited liability corporations, the construct of "personhood" that the legal system ascribes them, and how the only thing that can even attempt to kill a corporation is a government (which is just another kind of "corporation", in the sense of rule-based meta-entity which uses human intelligence as a replaceable building block). And governments have been largely captured (outsmarted) by the corporations. For decades at this point. Qui bono? You Bono? On your way there allow me to guess, you believe that there's least one school of economics which is not "mumbo jumbo" (a term, besides the tastelessness of dismissiveness, also bearing subtle racist connotations), don't you? EDIT: Check this shit out: >Mungo Park's travel journal Travels in the Interior of Africa (1795) describes 'Mumbo Jumbo' as a character, complete with "masquerade habit", whom Mandinka males would dress up as in order to resolve domestic disputes From Wikipedia, emphasis mine. Consider!
- tim333 2y ago
  Wikipedia disagrees a little on mumbo jumbo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbo_jumbo_(phrase) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbo_jumbo_(phrase) Apparently it comes from the Mandinka word "Maamajomboo". I don't think using African words is racist, if anything it's pro African. re "but it was capitalism that ended up producing AI", capitalism has also produced sandwich toasters for example but to thus declare "capitalism can only be sandwich toasters" would be equally silly as "capitalism can only be artificial intelligence production."