Incorrect comments on SingInst bloomberg coverage [link] - Less Wrong

5 Post author: Dr_Manhattan 19 December 2011 07:31PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (16)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Incorrect 19 December 2011 09:14:30PM *  13 points [-]

They're adherents of the Singularity, a sort of nerd rapture that will occur when machines become smarter than people and begin advancing technological change on their own, eventually outpacing and - in a worst-case scenario - enslaving people before getting bored and grinding us up into fleshy pulp. This, as it happens, resembles the prospect that had the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, all worked up.

Well that's a strawman if I ever saw one. This is past the point where embellishment becomes deception.

Comment author: David_Gerard 19 December 2011 11:01:12PM *  22 points [-]

The stuff about SIAI is pretty positive in the context of the rest, but that paragraph reaches actually quite daunting levels of not giving a shit, and I speak as someone with experience in being paid badly enough for journalism not to give a shit. I almost admire the writer's ability to wreak such epistemological violence in so few simple sentences, in a manner that it would be hard to complain effectively to her editor about. And I thought I hated tech journalism.

Comment author: Karmakaiser 20 December 2011 03:36:15AM 10 points [-]

It was elegantly, and concisely wrong. It was like Nega-Prachett.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 22 December 2011 11:37:38PM 1 point [-]

I am going to steal that description.

Comment author: Kevin 20 December 2011 01:40:40AM 4 points [-]

Regardless, this is still one of the best mainstream journalism pieces of existential risk, ever.

Comment author: David_Gerard 20 December 2011 11:17:33AM 7 points [-]

That's really not saying a lot.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 20 December 2011 04:04:29AM 2 points [-]

Have you read Kaczynski?

Comment author: David_Gerard 20 December 2011 11:14:53AM 6 points [-]

That the sentence fragment is technically accurate does not somehow make it not poisoning the well.

Comment author: fetidodor 20 December 2011 06:58:29AM 1 point [-]

Personally, no, is that what he really talks about?

Comment author: saturn 20 December 2011 09:58:36AM *  4 points [-]

He does touch on the idea of a singleton that enslaves humanity, as one of several possible negative outcomes of our not renouncing technology and destroying modern society.

(It's been about 10 years since I read his manifesto, so I'm not very confident that I remember it accurately.)