6 replies to this topic

[MichaelAnissimov]

Eliezer made it onto the front page of business in the San Francisco Chronicle today, in an article that covered him and the Singularity Institute in a positive light:

http://www.sfgate.co...G9IIMG1V197.DTL

What does this mean? Will Singularitarianism go mainstream?

[Live Forever]

What does this mean?  Will Singularitarianism go mainstream? 

Hopefully! [thumb]

[kraemahz]

If they really wanted to sound positive, they probably shouldn't be drawing a parallel to Huxley in the title.

[MichaelAnissimov]

Seriously... "brave new world" is becoming so frequently used and abused to refer to any significantly changed future world - most often it has a negative connotation, but in this article it doesn't seem particularly dystopian. The whole article focuses on how Eliezer is going for good AI rather than bad AI. To the SL0s of today, both are a "brave new world".

If you think about the phrase itself, minus its connotations, it doesn't sound that bad either.

[John Schloendorn]

What does this mean? Will Singularitarianism go mainstream?

I would say it suggests a strategy how to make it so: Stay close to the alpha-wolf and you'll be safe... It should not be a surprise that *no* pop-science commentator can afford to cast any negative light on an event happening at Stanford University, completely irrespective of its content. It may be frustrating, but that's how most of the people out there seem to work. The organizers did very well to utilize this psychology.

[bgwowk]

From the article:

"As soon as you take issue, you're quickly labeled a Luddite,'' said Jennifer Lahl, national director of the Center for Bioethics and Culture Network in Oakland. "But transhumanism begs the question: What needs to be improved upon, who gets to decide and where does it end?"

The answer to all three questions is the same: Individuals decide for themselves. How did such an elementary concept become expunged from professional ethics?

---BrianW

[Mind]

Excellent point Brian.