4 ms·
I find it strange that he says we have no way of imagining what post-singularity would be like. I get his point, it's so different that we can't really get it.
by jkaunisv1 12y ago
I find it strange that he says we have no way of imagining what post-singularity would be like. I get his point, it's so different that we can't really get it. But we have ample science fiction that still explores the possibilities and gives us a starting point for imagining it.
Also surprised he doesn't mention basic income when discussing the decreasing value of the individual and the problems that could cause. He's identified some important problems but this interview was very high level and didn't seem to even touch on possible solutions. These are things society is already thinking of.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago> I find it strange that he says we have no way of imagining what post-singularity would be like. It's by definition - the singularity is defined as the moment when technology advances so fast that we just can't keep up with it. If you can still reasonably predict how will it look like, it's not singularity yet.
- jkaunisv1 12y agoIt's the moment where we lack the capacity to work at its level and control it. That doesn't preclude imagining outcomes. His whole article was about how he tries to imagine the full scope of possibilities rather than narrow down to predictions (that are often false). It's not about reasonably predicting. As an example, we don't yet have fine-grained, ubiquitous nanotech like that featured in Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson. But that book is all about imagining what it might lead to. We extrapolate from assumptions all the time, why is this one any different?