Vernor Vinge on the Singularity - part 2 of 2

Part 2 of the conversation with Vernor Vinge on the Technological Singularity. Vernor Vinge published the original article at a Nasa conference in 1993 that reintroduced and popularized the concept of Technological Singularity. In this conversation he talks about its perimeters, and the issue of what is called hard take-off.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• david
• orban
• davidorban
• vernor
• vinge
• technological
• singularity
• future
• futurology
• accelerating
• change
• event
• horizon
• take-off
• ai
• artificial
• intelligence

[AuxentiusZ]

Interesting conversation, of a topic that I hope more people begin to discuss. As the Singularity advances, our time for discussing these topics runs out and increases the risks of a hard take off.

[CityzenJane]

maximizing negative outcomes - is a fantastic way to frame it...except that the multinationals control these things - develop in the US or in China - but develop. They as a rule rarely respect civic discourse or regulation or intervention...but talking about these things I might get labelled as a 'fanatic repressionist" - I would like to share the optimism WRT the internets as Vinge...but I've spent so much time reading YT comments.

[Jcolinsol]

Well I think that both justice and morality are observably subjective. They don't exist except as ideas relative to individuals. Where these ideas agree you get the inter-subjective consensus that defines relevant law and order.

But I see what you're saying and I agree with one reservation. I don't think that any state should have regional authority. A group has to be non-compulsory so that people can dis-associate if they disagree with a state.

[rickballance]

I'm curious however what your suggestions are. How do you think it is even possible to decentralize the state and involve individuals?

Most individuals -including myself- are absolutely not qualified to even take part in a popular vote. I'm absolutely against popular votes because the public is easily swayed and too damned ignorant to hold a valueable opinion on say - nuclear energy.

I'm not at all conservative but before tinkering with a stable system you better be sure the alternative works.

[rickballance]

I think it would be best to seperate morality from justice to some extent.

They sure are connected and they are both subjective but a society can maintain one standard of justice (applicable to murder, theft, etc) while at the same time maintaining a variety of "moral environments" for its people.

Many states in the US have different laws from one another while maintaining the same overall standard of justice. You can do things in Nevada or New York that are illegal elsewvere.There is choice.

[Jcolinsol]

Morality, justice, and law are all individual subjective value judgements. Is the impending execution of Mumia Abu Jamal justice or injustice? That is going to vary from person to person.

By institutionalizing the law and it's enforcement, you are diminishing the naturally occurring diversity within society. You are also slowing the progress of society. This is why minorities are always having to fight the state for their rights. The state is always behind the rest of society.

[rickballance]

One of the most demanded things in society is justice. To provide this justice there can only be one law that applies to everyone.

This law has to come from somewhere. This somewhere IS heavily centralized... but how else could laws be passed and updated?

At some level there has to be an entity that has the final word and gets things done (occasionally).

The same goes for police service. Private security companies would surely have different standards which undermines the justice we crave.

[Jcolinsol]

Anarchy, society without rulers, is what we want.

You are confusing the means of service provision with the service itself. Just because we need police services doesn't mean we need the state to provide them. Indeed, where else in industry do we expect a violent monopoly to be the most effective provider of services?

[rickballance]

No politics and no state will produce anarchy.

The executive (police) needs clear laws and as long as humans are the only ones who are capable of making reasonable laws we will need to cope with human incompetence in politics.

[Jcolinsol]

Just do away with politics, do away with the state.

By removing the attempt at centralized organization, you allow for diverse reactions to conditions.

If there is a "desirable" outcome, it can only be defined and pursued by each individual.