4 ms·
> Nobody knows the answer and history is no guide, save that apocalyptic predictions about new technologies have, to date, all been wrong. If any past apocalyp
by fwlr 18d ago
> Nobody knows the answer and history is no guide, save that apocalyptic predictions about new technologies have, to date, all been wrong.
If any past apocalyptic prediction had been true, you would not have been around to write this sentence and we would not have been around to read it. It’s not a very convincing argument when we cannot in principle observe the counterfactual.
- watwut 18d agoPlus, plenty of negative predictions turned out to be entirely true. And then it took a lot of time and effort to counteract them. It is not like history was composed of happiness and roses only. Some of the really really bad stuff happened within last 100 years and a lot of that bad stuff was enabled and made possible by technology.
- XorNot 18d agoSuch as? Like it's fine to say this but the worst exterminations of human beings weren't enabled by anything much kre sophisticated then the pointy stick, or at most, the railroad.
- RandomLensman 18d agoEarly data processing machines were used in the Holocaust, for example. Or cipher devices played important roles in WWII.
- blfr 18d agoMongols did it on horseback. It's mostly a matter of will/capability and no scruples.
- RandomLensman 18d agoWhy do we need modern weapons for defense at all then? Horses, bows & arrows plus will not enough?
- bayindirh 18d agoBecause attacks have evolved. Defense follows the attackers. Good luck hitting a Mach 15 missile with a trebuchet.
- watwut 18d agoGenocides are more common in the 20th century, because they are easier. Due to technology.
- deleted 18d ago[deleted]
- tstenner 18d agoWe're in the middle of finding it out with climate change.
- bayindirh 18d agoMiddle? We're just starting. The air conditioning technology didn't hit its wall of fire yet. What we're going to do when that tech will cease to cool us? Every AC system (from refrigerators to air conditioners) has an upper limit, which is around 41 degrees Celsius for T1 class.
- RandomLensman 18d agoWhy would 41C be the limit for the hot side? How does it work now in hotter places?
- bayindirh 18d agoIn short: Things degrade. More: https://angliancompressors.com/blog/how-ambient-temperature-affects-air-compressor-performance/ https://angliancompressors.com/blog/how-ambient-temperature-... There's a T3 class for up to 52 degrees Celsius. While it's higher than 41 degrees, it's not significantly higher: https://zerohvacr.com/blogs/t1-t2-t3-explained-climate-classes-for-air-conditioners https://zerohvacr.com/blogs/t1-t2-t3-explained-climate-class...
- RandomLensman 18d agoIs 52C a physical limit?
- bayindirh 18d agoYes. The compressor can't pump more heat outside since it's already hot from working and trying to pump out the extracted heat as well. For T1 class of devices, that 41 degrees is also a physical limit, not an artificial cut, because of their design. You know, thermodynamics.
- throw0101a 16d ago>> Plus, plenty of negative predictions turned out to be entirely true. And then it took a lot of time and effort to counteract them. > Such as? The ozone layer, Y2K. More recently, climate change (which humanity as a whole is mostly doing nothing about, so we'll see how that ends).
- timr 18d agoBy that logic, literally any ridiculous supposition must be taken seriously, because you can’t prove a negative.
- myrmidon 18d agoNo, that does not follow. Any other argument against <ridiculous apocalyptic supposition> is perfectly fine, just not the "it hasn't happened before" one.
- timr 18d agoYou're arguing in favor of a teapot circling Mars. We can't prove it's not there, but telling me that "nobody has ever found it" is an invalid argument is obviously absurd. In that quote, the author is telling you that all of your past predictions of teapots have been wrong (which is 100% true -- the ridiculous doom has been going on since at least GPT-2. remember how that was "too dangerous to release"?) Show me why I should believe in this one.
- applfanboysbgon 18d agoThis is a grevious misuse of Russell's Teapot. You realise your assertion, if followed to its logical conclusion, is that because civilization has existed for this long, it can never collapse no matter what. > In that quote, the author is telling you that all of your past predictions of teapots have been wrong Past predictions have zero influence on future ones. If you flip a coin 10 times and get heads every time, the probability of your next coin flip coming up heads is 50%, not 100%, because it is independent of any prior trials. Moreover, if Alice and Bob each make 100 predictions and are 100% wrong, but Charles makes 10 predictions and is 100% correct, Alice and Bob's predictions have zero bearing on whether you should trust Charles' predictions. They are not even a factor to be considered. I don't think I even disagree with you in the broad picture. I am not concerned about language models. But you have committed three blatant logical fallacies in a row. You literally could not make a worse case for your position if you tried, I suspect.
- chrchang523 18d agoThis is, of course, known as the Anthropic Principle…
- harimau777 18d agoI'm not even sure that the author is correct. The industrial revolution was pretty apocalyptic for the people forced to work in dangerous factories for minimal pay.
- CalRobert 18d agoHell, maybe the Silurian hypothesis is true and past predictions were correct.
- conception 18d agoI suspect they have not all been wrong for some people, e.g. native peoples at various times prophesied I’m sure about various technological marvels their more advanced colonizers/enemies/etc.
- neuroticnews25 18d agoI always struggle to understand such an anthropic principle type of reasoning. >If any past apocalyptic prediction had been true, you would not have been around to write this sentence and we would not have been around to read it So what? How is this [proportion of possible universes in which we can read the failed prediction] logically relevant to our universe? It just doesn't click for me, it smells like some additional premise is smuggled, possibly the same as in the simulation hypothesis argument.
- fwlr 18d agoPerhaps another way to look at it is to say that “every past apocalyptic prediction was false” is tautologically true? A statement can be a trivial tautology, as in “P or not-P”. Or it can be a more complicated form of tautology, such as a “self-referential” tautology, as in “This statement is true”. The anthropic principle is then just a name for the claim that there is also another complicated form of tautology alongside “self-referential”, one that we might call “indexical”.
- ngriffiths 18d agoApocalyptic predictions normally get everyone into gear to prevent the threat. Not a great argument for "let's see what happens if we just sit around this time"
- Cthulhu_ 18d agoBut warnings (e.g. not apocalyptic but damaging or having any effects) have come true, by and large; people warned about the effects of pollution / co2 emissions / global warming over 150 years ago [0], to name a popular example. I don't think there are many truly human created apocalyptic events out there besides global thermonuclear war, and I don't think the worst-case AI superintelligent killer robot scenario would be apocalyptic. Unless it somehow triggers global thermonuclear war, but then it becomes a chicken-or-egg question (and it'll probably be humans pushing the proverbial button, as nukes are '60s tech and (hopefully) airgapped etc). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
- throw0101a 16d ago> If any past apocalyptic prediction had been true, you would not have been around to write this sentence and we would not have been around to read it. It’s not a very convincing argument when we cannot in principle observe the counterfactual. Only one "apocalyptic prediction" needs to be true, once, for everyone to have a bad day. The fact that previous ones were avoid may be survivor ship bias and perhaps: > The preparedness paradox is the proposition that if a society or individual acts effectively to mitigate a potential disaster such as a pandemic, natural disaster or other catastrophe so that it causes less harm, the avoided danger will be perceived as having been much less serious because of the limited damage actually caused. The paradox is the incorrect perception that there had been no need for careful preparation as there was little harm, although in reality the limitation of the harm was due to preparation. Several cognitive biases can consequently hamper proper preparation for future risks.[1] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox