I like the interviewer, but Lanier needs to pull himself together, just a bit - I've now watched a great deal of footage, and read here and there, and I've seriously not bumped into a single sound argument of his - where does he hide them?? "Read it in my book" or "data shows" is the closest he gets.
Also, I really don't like the way he is ridiculing the people he disagrees with for being so certain of their predictions, when at the same time, he himself is arrogantly sure of his own thoughts..
i dont get what he means by everyone being able to live off their brains. this seems to assume a future where there's some sort of extreme abundance whereby no more work is required to maintain or provide for human society. even assuming this does happen. why then do we still need to sell our ideas to one another? why not just exchange them for free?
I read this book it was good, although he could have gone deeper into things... then i smoked some weed and i either didn't know what he was talking about or didnt agree on his eschatological opinions
Wow, I have never heard so bias and dismissive a summary of the Singularity movement. A) it is not a theology, it is the pursuit of theoretical AI. B) The most, MOST optimistic projection is 35 years from now, approximately 2045. C) It is not about digital brains or whatever simplistic nonsense he mentioned, just that technological chanrge will enable us to creat godlike machine intelligence, perhaps in 35 years, perhaps 100. When that happens, nothing else matters at all.
@nhmisnomer: um, what did you expect when you watched a video of a talk show with Lanier as the invited guest? An expression of someone else's feelings and opinions?
blech, I hate this guy! What a narcissist. The whole talk was how he feels and how people view him and what he thinks and how he hopes these titans of the digital age have the sense to adopt his views (as if - what have you invented that I use every day?) I kept waiting for him to say something concrete but as we say in the education&training field: There was no THERE there.
I remember Alan Watts.. All teachers should have a class on Watts. I greedily donwloaded everything i could find by WATTS when Napster was free from the Philosophy Store and the Electronic University. Now there is a kickstarter movie on him. +1 for Alan Watts refrence +5 more points if you mention the Joyous Cosmology.
I'm sure it's because I just watched the bloggingheads debate with Yudkowsky, but when he mentioned "the personality type" that identifies with the ideas he criticizes, I couldn't help think of EY, much as I respect him,
But OH!! If Jaron had really read listened to and understood Alan Watts he would know that Alan never presumed humans were 'supernatural' and thus 'better' than the natural world
Watts always emphasized that humans AND nature are sacred!
@zezt Lanier is not pitting humans against the natural world. He is saying that we shouldn't be so quick to reduce humanity to the level of current technological 'imperatives' or 'crap computers happen to be efficient at doing', for example. The basic jist is, I think, that technological fetishization and business plans are anything but the sort of "sacred" sort of thing you are concerned to defend. Lanier wants technological progress to be more 'human-centered' rather than dehumanizing.
@General8675 I dispute your point. He doesn't say it's bad outright, but he insinuates it constantly. Not in this video, but elsewhere. Calling it "underachieving openness" and "The existing Internet design is centered on creating the illusion of no-cost effort" and "The Internet can and must be redesigned". Funny how he says that but offers zero details. I agree he's a philosopher. I doubt his abilities as a computer scientist. I strongly disagree he's a "digital guru".
@retrogradeorbit Lanier obviously has a problem with a lot of what is happening with technology these days. Web 2.0 is his primary target. Calling "it" underachieving openness. "It" is not "technology". "It" is a trend in technology. You might be a fan of Web 2.0, but that doesn't make you more pro-technology. It makes you pro-Web 2.0.
@retrogradeorbit Regarding his abilities as a computer scientist: He has for a long time been leading teams of programmers. He isn't just a guy that goes around talking to laymen and writing articles. People can look over his accomplishments and positions and decide if they are impressed or not.
@retrogradeorbit As far as details go, he points to some possible solutions (not a lot) in his book and in these sorts of vids. He often points to an early design for the net that was less anonymous & allowed for micropayments. If you're curious about what "re-design" Lanier would like, you can be pretty sure it would address the problems he discusses in his book and in vids, and it would promote creativity and human-centered technological advance. "How" would be decided by many people.
@retrogradeorbit to correct what I said earlier about "it" being Web 2.0, upon reflection the "underachieving openness" is probably directed at a lot of the open source stuff going on--I'm not sure of the context of that quote, and I was likely mistaken to think it was used as part of a critique of Web 2.0. Still, open source is another trend that he thinks needs some critiquing, and that isn't the same at all as being anti-technology.
This guy is an example of no-evidence based reasoning. So many of his ideas when examined closely from a technical perspective are devoid of foundations. His writing convinces many non-tech people who simple don't really understand the foundations. I would imagine that Lanier is a terrible programmer. He's basically a jilted musician hippie who is angry at the nerds who have seen success on the Internet. I wish the media would stop calling him a "Digital Guru" because he is nothing of the sort.
I dont think you get it. also as someone who would value "reasoning" I think it is a little hypocritical to nitpick about titles. He is also making more philisophical points about how to use technology, you will never hear him say that the internet is bad, he is just trying to refocus technologists on making technology with people in mind, not just for machines sake.
Even if you don't agree with what he's saying, I recommend you read the book! Maybe you can get it from a library if you don't like buying.. It's a good read..
He seems to be trying to refute the idea of the progress of technology, and the inevitability of the singularity (barring any sort of wall), with ideologies about the nature of human relationships.
Based on this talk, I don't think any of his ideas are mutually exclusive with transhumanism (or "post-humanism" as he calls it).
fwiw (not a lot) I like a lot of what he says but I have a question. What does he mean by 'supernatural' when referring to humans? Does he just mean special because we (afawk) are the only animals with consciousness or is there some woo he doesn't go into here?
Also he seems a little short sighted on what defines a finite game. Surely you could imagine a future where you can create a bomb that could destroy a solar system/galaxy/universe/multiverse/allof-time etctetcusw Anyway im nitpicking now
@weavehole Yeah, I think he was aware of your nitpicking point there. His point is that, once you can make a bomb that can blow up the world, then the game comes to an end once the bomb is used. I think he is basically suggesting that we focus on using technology for some human purpose (interaction, connection) with the idea being that such progress would somehow protect/distract us from more destructive games. With multiple-choice personalities being the target moreso than bombs at this point.
By supernatural he means that our experiance is something more than chemical interplay. that we are more than the sum of our parts and that those other things that are not physical are even more special.
as far as technology being a finite game, he is making the statement that the value of technology is only in its use for communicating and catalyzing human creativity. The bomb metaphor is that beyond the planet bomb, the bomb doesn't add anything significant to the solution.
Jaron Lanier drives me crazy. Some of the points he makes I do agree with, especially the ones that deal with social networking and advertising, but his ideas that we should try to move past technology and "focus on our survival" I don't like at all." It's obvious that technology has consequences now and they can potentially get much worse, but the value that technology has offered and still has to offer is something that clearly outweighs advertising and the"singularity."
@tman9889 I don't think he's anti-technology, he's just trying to remind us that a sort of fetishization of tech isn't healthy. We can can ride technology to a wonderful future as long as we aren't letting it just drag us behind it. Just because something is efficient or easier to process via tech doesn't mean it should be a priority for us (although businessmen and people fascinated by gadgets might want to embrace such advances, and ignore their full human potential while doing so).
I'm not sure I find it more amusing or saddening the idea that a strong common pool of knowledge, information and culture is somehow wasting our time. The idea that remixing and building on others work is somehow worthless. Please identify one great artist that hasn't been influenced by or used the resources of the common culture he/she lived within. I'd love to see any one Intellectual Property-lover pay back a dollar to every single person whose unpayed work made his work possible.
@astromkarl: Are you GEN Y? Just curious. There is a huge difference in actually creating something from scatch than remixing or mashing it or just plain ripping it off. Try making a film from scratch as opposed to just re-editing one with a different soundtrack? Banksy turns this idea around quite effectively in his hilm Exit Through the Gift Shop. If you can't see the difference between being influenced by or actually using someone else art work (or just plain ripping it off) that's a worry.
@astromkarl I agree with you. What he says is almost comparable to saying everyone should build their guitar before they play it.
Using materials that exist is a legitimate form of expression.
I am not a proponent of "ripping off", or not giving back to artists who's materials you've used (I myself don't participate in remix culture in my art that much). But I think Jaron misses the point and is a little too traditionalist.
I am precisely FOR weakening copyright protections simply because we need more engineers solving the world's TANGIBLE problems instead of becoming wishy washy hippies making art and trying to promote empathy.
Also we should not worry about a future where not enough arts are being created, but the future where too much art is created, putting more and more pressure on an individual's most precious resource, their time.
@sturmovikdragon If an individual chooses to create art, there is no excess stress on their time. An individual ought to spend her time as she pleases. Or do you believe that an individual must spend their time otherwise? Committed to the tangible problems of the world? Committed to the tasks you agree with or find value in?
@sturmovikdragon Do you think that the law ought to specifically coerce people away from artistic pursuits, or any other pursuit for that matter, just because you have a better idea of what an individual should do with her life?
@Pratogaros The Constitution grants congress the power to promote science and the "useful" arts. Useful represents an explicit policy decision of what will benefit society so someone will be making the decision of what useful means. All I want is that entity is one whom is guided by analysis and not emotion.
@sturmovikdragon I do not know if elected officials should decide what useful means, especially if money is involved. Politicians are the group least likely to use reason to inform their judgment. Or perhaps they are the least likely to use reason as we might see fit.
@sturmovikdragon For example, instead of assessing what useful is to the general public, congressmen might decide what is more useful to government interest or special interest groups who support them. These interests can vastly differ from yours. In that case what gets funding as a useful art may be useless to you, even after government analyzes and deliberates the term "useful."
@sturmovikdragon Do you believe that government should coerce people away from artistic pursuits? Is this primarily because the arts do not deal with anything tangible?
What is tangible? And are things we consider intangible any less important than tangible things? Should the government decide what tangible means too?
@sturmovikdragon I raise the question because slavery was incredibly useful, economic, and effective and it benefited for the old southern white society. But at the same time slavery excluded people of color from the very idea of "society" as well as "humanity."
@sturmovikdragon Systems of power in the US recognized slavery's usefulness, some even advocated it. The individuals this idea of usefulness debased could not, as congressmen or as recognized citizens, could not vote to change what "usefulness" meant here. The utility of slavery kept them from attaining any form of public power because this form of "usefulness" relied on keeping them powerless.
@sturmovikdragon A lack of empathy IS a problem, and art doesn't need to solve "TANGIBLE problems" for people to find it valuable. Who, in all seriousness, worries about a future in which "too much art is created"?!
I like the interviewer, but Lanier needs to pull himself together, just a bit - I've now watched a great deal of footage, and read here and there, and I've seriously not bumped into a single sound argument of his - where does he hide them?? "Read it in my book" or "data shows" is the closest he gets.
Also, I really don't like the way he is ridiculing the people he disagrees with for being so certain of their predictions, when at the same time, he himself is arrogantly sure of his own thoughts..
FredeGF 4 days ago
i dont get what he means by everyone being able to live off their brains. this seems to assume a future where there's some sort of extreme abundance whereby no more work is required to maintain or provide for human society. even assuming this does happen. why then do we still need to sell our ideas to one another? why not just exchange them for free?
reggiejax 1 week ago
cyborgs > humans
BabyBreeBree69 1 week ago
I read this book it was good, although he could have gone deeper into things... then i smoked some weed and i either didn't know what he was talking about or didnt agree on his eschatological opinions
Jixejo 1 week ago
"No one remembers Alan Watts?... that's really sad".
Yes, it is.
DrAugustusValdes 2 weeks ago 2
Allen Ginsberg on Charlie Rose. One distinction Lanier's got insight and real world achievement. great video.
rumcheckbooktrader 2 months ago
Wow, I have never heard so bias and dismissive a summary of the Singularity movement. A) it is not a theology, it is the pursuit of theoretical AI. B) The most, MOST optimistic projection is 35 years from now, approximately 2045. C) It is not about digital brains or whatever simplistic nonsense he mentioned, just that technological chanrge will enable us to creat godlike machine intelligence, perhaps in 35 years, perhaps 100. When that happens, nothing else matters at all.
thebigoneisbig 3 months ago
And, yes, I do remember Alan Watts. "In My Own Way" (paper, book) still occupies a position on my bookshelf. And, of course, podcasts are available.
MoreLifePlease 5 months ago
@nhmisnomer: um, what did you expect when you watched a video of a talk show with Lanier as the invited guest? An expression of someone else's feelings and opinions?
MoreLifePlease 5 months ago
blech, I hate this guy! What a narcissist. The whole talk was how he feels and how people view him and what he thinks and how he hopes these titans of the digital age have the sense to adopt his views (as if - what have you invented that I use every day?) I kept waiting for him to say something concrete but as we say in the education&training field: There was no THERE there.
nhmisnomer 6 months ago
I remember Alan Watts.. All teachers should have a class on Watts. I greedily donwloaded everything i could find by WATTS when Napster was free from the Philosophy Store and the Electronic University. Now there is a kickstarter movie on him. +1 for Alan Watts refrence +5 more points if you mention the Joyous Cosmology.
continue.
MrDigitalWorlds 8 months ago
this was great, thankyou.
I'm sure it's because I just watched the bloggingheads debate with Yudkowsky, but when he mentioned "the personality type" that identifies with the ideas he criticizes, I couldn't help think of EY, much as I respect him,
urizen1 10 months ago
this was great, thankyou
urizen1 10 months ago
Did he say "supernaturaly better than machines" ?
sorin7486 1 year ago
@sorin7486 i think so - super-natural, (ie but not limited to matter with a soul)
lotec11 9 months ago
Almost 10 minutes in and I have no idea what he's talking about.
sorin7486 1 year ago
@sorin7486 stick with it
lotec11 9 months ago
But OH!! If Jaron had really read listened to and understood Alan Watts he would know that Alan never presumed humans were 'supernatural' and thus 'better' than the natural world
Watts always emphasized that humans AND nature are sacred!
zezt 1 year ago
@zezt Lanier is not pitting humans against the natural world. He is saying that we shouldn't be so quick to reduce humanity to the level of current technological 'imperatives' or 'crap computers happen to be efficient at doing', for example. The basic jist is, I think, that technological fetishization and business plans are anything but the sort of "sacred" sort of thing you are concerned to defend. Lanier wants technological progress to be more 'human-centered' rather than dehumanizing.
bledges 1 year ago 10
NOONE in that audience has heard of Alan Watts??????! How sad is this!
zezt 1 year ago
@General8675 I dispute your point. He doesn't say it's bad outright, but he insinuates it constantly. Not in this video, but elsewhere. Calling it "underachieving openness" and "The existing Internet design is centered on creating the illusion of no-cost effort" and "The Internet can and must be redesigned". Funny how he says that but offers zero details. I agree he's a philosopher. I doubt his abilities as a computer scientist. I strongly disagree he's a "digital guru".
retrogradeorbit 1 year ago 2
@retrogradeorbit Lanier obviously has a problem with a lot of what is happening with technology these days. Web 2.0 is his primary target. Calling "it" underachieving openness. "It" is not "technology". "It" is a trend in technology. You might be a fan of Web 2.0, but that doesn't make you more pro-technology. It makes you pro-Web 2.0.
bledges 1 year ago
@retrogradeorbit Regarding his abilities as a computer scientist: He has for a long time been leading teams of programmers. He isn't just a guy that goes around talking to laymen and writing articles. People can look over his accomplishments and positions and decide if they are impressed or not.
bledges 1 year ago
@retrogradeorbit As far as details go, he points to some possible solutions (not a lot) in his book and in these sorts of vids. He often points to an early design for the net that was less anonymous & allowed for micropayments. If you're curious about what "re-design" Lanier would like, you can be pretty sure it would address the problems he discusses in his book and in vids, and it would promote creativity and human-centered technological advance. "How" would be decided by many people.
bledges 1 year ago
@retrogradeorbit to correct what I said earlier about "it" being Web 2.0, upon reflection the "underachieving openness" is probably directed at a lot of the open source stuff going on--I'm not sure of the context of that quote, and I was likely mistaken to think it was used as part of a critique of Web 2.0. Still, open source is another trend that he thinks needs some critiquing, and that isn't the same at all as being anti-technology.
bledges 1 year ago
This guy is an example of no-evidence based reasoning. So many of his ideas when examined closely from a technical perspective are devoid of foundations. His writing convinces many non-tech people who simple don't really understand the foundations. I would imagine that Lanier is a terrible programmer. He's basically a jilted musician hippie who is angry at the nerds who have seen success on the Internet. I wish the media would stop calling him a "Digital Guru" because he is nothing of the sort.
retrogradeorbit 1 year ago
@retrogradeorbit
I dont think you get it. also as someone who would value "reasoning" I think it is a little hypocritical to nitpick about titles. He is also making more philisophical points about how to use technology, you will never hear him say that the internet is bad, he is just trying to refocus technologists on making technology with people in mind, not just for machines sake.
General8675 1 year ago
Virg
ilovecarpet7 1 year ago
Even if you don't agree with what he's saying, I recommend you read the book! Maybe you can get it from a library if you don't like buying.. It's a good read..
vaeinoej 1 year ago
I don't get it.
He seems to be trying to refute the idea of the progress of technology, and the inevitability of the singularity (barring any sort of wall), with ideologies about the nature of human relationships.
Based on this talk, I don't think any of his ideas are mutually exclusive with transhumanism (or "post-humanism" as he calls it).
inthefade 1 year ago
fwiw (not a lot) I like a lot of what he says but I have a question. What does he mean by 'supernatural' when referring to humans? Does he just mean special because we (afawk) are the only animals with consciousness or is there some woo he doesn't go into here?
Also he seems a little short sighted on what defines a finite game. Surely you could imagine a future where you can create a bomb that could destroy a solar system/galaxy/universe/multiverse/allof-time etctetcusw Anyway im nitpicking now
weavehole 1 year ago
@weavehole Yeah, I think he was aware of your nitpicking point there. His point is that, once you can make a bomb that can blow up the world, then the game comes to an end once the bomb is used. I think he is basically suggesting that we focus on using technology for some human purpose (interaction, connection) with the idea being that such progress would somehow protect/distract us from more destructive games. With multiple-choice personalities being the target moreso than bombs at this point.
bledges 1 year ago
@weavehole
By supernatural he means that our experiance is something more than chemical interplay. that we are more than the sum of our parts and that those other things that are not physical are even more special.
as far as technology being a finite game, he is making the statement that the value of technology is only in its use for communicating and catalyzing human creativity. The bomb metaphor is that beyond the planet bomb, the bomb doesn't add anything significant to the solution.
General8675 1 year ago
Hi, can someone please give me the correct spelling to the musical instrument from the beginning of this talk. Thanks :-)
jammin138 1 year ago
Comment removed
gggjjj44 1 year ago
Added my comment before Jaron got to it in his presentation!
blishen 1 year ago
Read EM Forster "The Machine Stops":
Same idea in written in 1909
blishen 1 year ago
Jaron Lanier drives me crazy. Some of the points he makes I do agree with, especially the ones that deal with social networking and advertising, but his ideas that we should try to move past technology and "focus on our survival" I don't like at all." It's obvious that technology has consequences now and they can potentially get much worse, but the value that technology has offered and still has to offer is something that clearly outweighs advertising and the"singularity."
tman9889 1 year ago 4
@tman9889 I don't think he's anti-technology, he's just trying to remind us that a sort of fetishization of tech isn't healthy. We can can ride technology to a wonderful future as long as we aren't letting it just drag us behind it. Just because something is efficient or easier to process via tech doesn't mean it should be a priority for us (although businessmen and people fascinated by gadgets might want to embrace such advances, and ignore their full human potential while doing so).
bledges 1 year ago
@tman9889 I disagree
thesparitan 7 months ago
@thesparitan How so?
tman9889 7 months ago
Thank you for this
ermhm 1 year ago
I find it impossible to take this guy seriously.
DrLight9 1 year ago
I'm not sure I find it more amusing or saddening the idea that a strong common pool of knowledge, information and culture is somehow wasting our time. The idea that remixing and building on others work is somehow worthless. Please identify one great artist that hasn't been influenced by or used the resources of the common culture he/she lived within. I'd love to see any one Intellectual Property-lover pay back a dollar to every single person whose unpayed work made his work possible.
astromkarl 1 year ago
@astromkarl: Are you GEN Y? Just curious. There is a huge difference in actually creating something from scatch than remixing or mashing it or just plain ripping it off. Try making a film from scratch as opposed to just re-editing one with a different soundtrack? Banksy turns this idea around quite effectively in his hilm Exit Through the Gift Shop. If you can't see the difference between being influenced by or actually using someone else art work (or just plain ripping it off) that's a worry.
RowanTE 1 year ago
@astromkarl I agree with you. What he says is almost comparable to saying everyone should build their guitar before they play it.
Using materials that exist is a legitimate form of expression.
I am not a proponent of "ripping off", or not giving back to artists who's materials you've used (I myself don't participate in remix culture in my art that much). But I think Jaron misses the point and is a little too traditionalist.
inthefade 1 year ago
Jaron Lanier, retired jedi.
TheTruth006 1 year ago 22
I am precisely FOR weakening copyright protections simply because we need more engineers solving the world's TANGIBLE problems instead of becoming wishy washy hippies making art and trying to promote empathy.
Also we should not worry about a future where not enough arts are being created, but the future where too much art is created, putting more and more pressure on an individual's most precious resource, their time.
sturmovikdragon 1 year ago
@sturmovikdragon If an individual chooses to create art, there is no excess stress on their time. An individual ought to spend her time as she pleases. Or do you believe that an individual must spend their time otherwise? Committed to the tangible problems of the world? Committed to the tasks you agree with or find value in?
Pratogaros 1 year ago
@sturmovikdragon Do you think that the law ought to specifically coerce people away from artistic pursuits, or any other pursuit for that matter, just because you have a better idea of what an individual should do with her life?
Pratogaros 1 year ago
@Pratogaros The Constitution grants congress the power to promote science and the "useful" arts. Useful represents an explicit policy decision of what will benefit society so someone will be making the decision of what useful means. All I want is that entity is one whom is guided by analysis and not emotion.
sturmovikdragon 1 year ago
@sturmovikdragon I do not know if elected officials should decide what useful means, especially if money is involved. Politicians are the group least likely to use reason to inform their judgment. Or perhaps they are the least likely to use reason as we might see fit.
Pratogaros 1 year ago
@sturmovikdragon For example, instead of assessing what useful is to the general public, congressmen might decide what is more useful to government interest or special interest groups who support them. These interests can vastly differ from yours. In that case what gets funding as a useful art may be useless to you, even after government analyzes and deliberates the term "useful."
Pratogaros 1 year ago
@sturmovikdragon Do you believe that government should coerce people away from artistic pursuits? Is this primarily because the arts do not deal with anything tangible?
What is tangible? And are things we consider intangible any less important than tangible things? Should the government decide what tangible means too?
Pratogaros 1 year ago
@sturmovikdragon Should the government enforce a single meaning of "useful"?
What is the kind of "usefulness" which benefits society?
Pratogaros 1 year ago
@sturmovikdragon I raise the question because slavery was incredibly useful, economic, and effective and it benefited for the old southern white society. But at the same time slavery excluded people of color from the very idea of "society" as well as "humanity."
Pratogaros 1 year ago
@sturmovikdragon Systems of power in the US recognized slavery's usefulness, some even advocated it. The individuals this idea of usefulness debased could not, as congressmen or as recognized citizens, could not vote to change what "usefulness" meant here. The utility of slavery kept them from attaining any form of public power because this form of "usefulness" relied on keeping them powerless.
Pratogaros 1 year ago
@sturmovikdragon In addition, I do not think analysis is entirely untouched by emotion.
(I don't intend to be invective, I am not attacking you. I am just interested in your thoughts.)
Pratogaros 1 year ago
@sturmovikdragon A lack of empathy IS a problem, and art doesn't need to solve "TANGIBLE problems" for people to find it valuable. Who, in all seriousness, worries about a future in which "too much art is created"?!
greekfreakhot 7 months ago