Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[HamburgerBoy]

That underlined portion describes the earlier definition they don't use, right? Simply listing the use of those "Big Five" doesn't say much without knowing precisely how the combined term of those five inputs is calculated.

 

[Dak]

That underlined portion describes the earlier definition they don't use, right? Simply listing the use of those "Big Five" doesn't say much without knowing precisely how the combined term of those five inputs is calculated.

Well, no it doesn't say how the calculation is run. It does give high/lows.

 

[Dak]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/06/29/google-city-technology-toronto-canada-218841

At one of the series of roundtables Sidewalk Toronto has held, Doctoroff responded to a question about data management by saying, “There are cameras everywhere anyway. There’s chaos out there. Together we can bring order.” Whose “order” will it be? That’s what worries people.

If there's enough diversity among cities, this issue would theoretically resolve itself......but then my hunch is that the cities populated by people I adamantly disagree with would struggle in a variety of ways, either economically or "morally".

 

[Einherjar86]

I have admittedly not had time to read that closely, but the discussion of privacy is really confusing to me.

Aggarwala says that over time Sidewalk has come to appreciate “how deeply different” the Canadian view of privacy is compared with that in the United States. Canadians tend to see privacy as a fundamental human right; Americans have historically been more willing to see it as something that should be protected, with abuses punished after the fact, but which can be traded away in exchange for some benefits, like free Gmail.

This is absurd. The average American almost certainly views privacy as a fundamental right, they simply don't understand how participating in online social media and other virtual platforms is at odds with nose-length notions of privacy. The average Canadian probably doesn't understand this either; in fact, the average human with access to modern technology probably doesn't understand this. I'm perpetually vexed by those who advocate the idea of the virtual, information-based society, yet insist that such a society must protect the privacy of individual citizens. Privacy is not compatible with the freedom of information.

 

[Dak]

This is absurd. The average American almost certainly views privacy as a fundamental right, they simply don't understand how participating in online social media and other virtual platforms is at odds with nose-length notions of privacy. The average Canadian probably doesn't understand this either; in fact, the average human with access to modern technology probably doesn't understand this. I'm perpetually vexed by those who advocate the idea of the virtual, information-based society, yet insist that such a society must protect the privacy of individual citizens. Privacy is not compatible with the freedom of information.

You're probably right about the average person not understanding the situation now. Just read this related piece, and this is legitimately concerning:

https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2018/07/what-cyber-war-will-look-like.html

 

[rms]

For @Dak

 

[Dak]

tl;dr version: Coates is an ignorant sycophant.

I liked the "Parable of the Pedestrian" portion. This is precisely the issue presenting itself in pretty much any therapy or rehab case. Also this:

cash transfers cannot solve a problem that the absence of cash didn’t cause. Herein lies one of the many issues with reparations: it would not address the root causes of black underachievement. Fans of the concept should ask themselves: what will happen the day after reparations are paid, when black students still spend less time on homework than their white peers, blacks are still making poor financial decisions, and two out of every three black kids are still living in single-parent homes? On that day, I’d hope to see progressive scholars acknowledge that they had been asking the wrong question for 50 years. But I would not be shocked to hear them insist that, if only the reparations checks had been a bit larger, black America’s problems would have been solved.

EG:



Of course, his extensive citing from Sowell will get all this handwaved by anyone not in the proverbial choir.

 

[Einherjar86]

Spec-tac-ular piece by Bakker.

So long as the residue of traditional humanistic philosophy persists, so long as we presume meaning exceptional, this prospect cannot even be conceived, let alone explored. The “evacuation of interiority,” as Scranton calls it, is always the other guy’s—metacognitive neglect assures experience cannot but appear fathomless, immovable. Therein lies the heartbreaking genius of our cognitive predicament: given the intractability of our biomechanical nature, our sociocognitive and metacognitive systems behave as though no such nature exists. We just… are—the deliverance of something inexplicable.

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2018/08/11/were-fucked-so-now-what/

 

[Dak]

Yeah decent read, saw it the other day when it popped up on my RSS. This plus some other things (no one thing in particular) are germinating the idea of a book. I may never follow through on it but I finally have an idea that I think might be worth pursuing if I can ever force the time.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, I'm intrigued to say the least. Admittedly, Bakker's basic premise informs a significant portion of my approach to literature. He can't fully claim originality in this line of thought, although he's probably done more than most in pressing these ideas to their logical conclusion. The only others who can match him, I think, are Ray Brassier, Peter Watts, and maybe a few other speculative thinkers.

But the theoretical implications of this line of thought have been around for decades now, in literature as well as in philosophy. In fact, I'd say they made it into fiction before they made it into philosophy; but then, many philosophical ideas tend to show up in fiction first. Ever since the novel emerged as a genre, writers have known about the formal paradoxes that accompany things like meaning and narrative. From Sterne to (Tom) McCarthy, it's been a long process of exposing the artifice of meaning. I suppose this is why Bakker thinks we're on the brink of the semantic apocalypse.

I think he still has some work to do though if he really wants to combat the meaninglessness of meaning. It'll be fun to watch him try to crack that nut, if he tries.

 

[Dak]

I think he still has some work to do though if he really wants to combat the meaninglessness of meaning. It'll be fun to watch him try to crack that nut, if he tries.

I think to some degree, on this issue, one either takes the Nietzschean or the Schopenhaurian route.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/06/29/google-city-technology-toronto-canada-218841

If there's enough diversity among cities, this issue would theoretically resolve itself......but then my hunch is that the cities populated by people I adamantly disagree with would struggle in a variety of ways, either economically or "morally".

I assume you mean most big cities, as they tend to be left wing? From my experience with city life, cameras in public are a worthwhile privacy tradeoff for controlling violent crime.

Google is under heavy regulatory pressure to anonymize most of the data it collects, so if you're going to have cameras/sensors everywhere, they're probably safer in Google's hands than in most others.

It could turn out a disaster for privacy, of course, but right now it's a one-off experiment so I'm not too worried about it "taking over the world". I'm looking forward to seeing the results for Toronto.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think to some degree, on this issue, one either takes the Nietzschean or the Schopenhaurian route.

Well, neither Nietzsche nor Schopenhauer predicted the rise of advanced artificial intelligence. I have a feeling that Bakker's planning some route through that.

(by "advanced" I merely mean the hyper-automated intricacies and routines of complex algorithms--not Skynet)

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Spec-tac-ular piece by Bakker.

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2018/08/11/were-fucked-so-now-what/

This is fucking mindblowing!

I'm skeptical of two of the author's claims:

1) "AI will destroy human society by destroying meaning": While I appreciate the exploration of this as a possibility, the author strikes me as overly certain that AI will develop this capability, and therefore overly certain of this destructive outcome. If his argument is that this is already happening, my anecdotal experience suggests that so far we're not necessarily more mired in cognitive dissonance/conflict today than at other points in time since the Enlightenment, if you factor out other developments like globalization, industrialization, and runaway depletion of natural resources.

2) "Civilization was doomed from the start due to the intractability of our biomechanical nature": It's easy to make this claim today in the context of environmental destruction and natural resource depletion, but I think this oversimplifies things unless we look at individual nations/cultures, as there are some (i.e. the Germanic ones, if we focus on the easier-to-evaluate developed nations) which have a much better track record for sustainability than others.

Aside from that, I thought this was a brilliant articulation of the limits of human cognition, and it looks at our social/political problems in a deeply atomic way that I haven't seen before. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Dak]

This is fucking mindblowing!

I'm skeptical of two of the author's claims:

1) "AI will destroy human society by destroying meaning": While I appreciate the exploration of this as a possibility, the author strikes me as overly certain that AI will develop this capability, and therefore overly certain of this destructive outcome. If his argument is that this is already happening, my anecdotal experience suggests that so far we're not necessarily more mired in cognitive dissonance/conflict today than at other points in time since the Enlightenment, if you factor out other developments like globalization, industrialization, and runaway depletion of natural resources.

2) "Civilization was doomed from the start due to the intractability of our biomechanical nature": It's easy to make this claim today in the context of environmental destruction and natural resource depletion, but I think this oversimplifies things unless we look at individual nations/cultures, as there are some (i.e. the Germanic ones, if we focus on the easier-to-evaluate developed nations) which have a much better track record for sustainability than others.

This is my general opinion as well. A conceit of high level thinkers is that everyone else is struggling with the same existential crisis presented by specifics of the era. More accurately, high level thinkers of the 21st century are identifying the same issues as other high level thinkers of the Enlightenment hence, while the average person is still concerned with whatever routine hedonistic and social pressures of the times.

AI's influence will be so imperceivable to the average person, that someone like Bakker screaming about meaning will seem mad. This is something that more advanced psychologists have to deal with in the room on a daily basis in a different way. Most problems presented in the therapy room are very fundamental human condition type issues. The day I have someone come in with an existential crisis because of AI penetration will probably be the day I post in this thread with a DOOM PAUL meme and a laugh emoji.

I would push back on the Malthusian tone though. We're in far greater danger of chemical poisoning than running out of the sources of the relevant chemicals (eg microplastic poisoning vs running out of oil).

 

[CiG]

This might be a low IQ point so forgive me lmao but; if "human society" were to suffer a crisis of meaning wouldn't it really only happen in the increasingly secular, increasingly irreligious west?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

This might be a low IQ point so forgive me lmao but; if "human society" were to suffer a crisis of meaning wouldn't it really only happen in the increasingly secular, increasingly irreligious west?

I'd say technology is roughly as capable of seducing and debilitating religious people. Look at the universal popularity of social media, and how it's replaced natural social interaction for so many.

 

[CiG]

I'd say technology is roughly as capable of seducing and debilitating religious people. Look at the universal popularity of social media, and how it's replaced natural social interaction for so many.

Most religious people are heavily involved in community activity and that's the west, it's way more pronounced in Africa, the middle east, Asia etc. The crisis of meaning really seems to me to be a problem for the irreligious community to worry about, and that includes me.

 

[Dak]

I assume you mean most big cities, as they tend to be left wing? From my experience with city life, cameras in public are a worthwhile privacy tradeoff for controlling violent crime.

Google is under heavy regulatory pressure to anonymize most of the data it collects, so if you're going to have cameras/sensors everywhere, they're probably safer in Google's hands than in most others.

It could turn out a disaster for privacy, of course, but right now it's a one-off experiment so I'm not too worried about it "taking over the world". I'm looking forward to seeing the results for Toronto.

Well it's possible that things are safer in a private company's hands but not necessarily. The "public/private partnership" options in this domain, with the Federal pressure involved, make me skeptical of any sort of one-off sort of protection.

 

[Einherjar86]

This might be a low IQ point so forgive me lmao but; if "human society" were to suffer a crisis of meaning wouldn't it really only happen in the increasingly secular, increasingly irreligious west?

Please don't take this as crude, but I think it's only not a problem for people who don't reflect on the ontological parameters of meaning (and as you said, you aren't a member of that group). If spiritual people remain confident in a fixed set of axioms that guarantee meaning, then they won't encounter any crisis. Of course, they will continue to encounter an unrelentingly material reality that undermines their beliefs, forcing them to rationalize their positions. As long as science keeps developing its knowledge of the Higgs Boson, neutrinos, etc. spirituality will have to answer by fortifying their assumptions about reality.

I don't think Bakker has much concern or time for spiritual people. For him, the unknown "outside" isn't the abode of a deity, but something more like the uncaring plane of the Old Ones, the "mad, black Deleuzianism" of Nick Land, the cosmic vortex that Rust Cohle stares down in the finale of True Detective. All metaphorically speaking, of course--but the basic idea is the same: that there is a reality that exceeds meaning, and spiritual people color this dark space in with the empyrean light of eternal godliness.

It may be the case that those who "believe" are able to fend off the semantic apocalypse, but only for so long; because if the outside isn't a humanist deity that crafted us in its own image, then it probably doesn't give a shit whether we "believe" or not.

To paraphrase Hemingway, we'll die like dogs, and for no good reason.

This is fucking mindblowing!

I'm skeptical of two of the author's claims:

1) "AI will destroy human society by destroying meaning": While I appreciate the exploration of this as a possibility, the author strikes me as overly certain that AI will develop this capability, and therefore overly certain of this destructive outcome. If his argument is that this is already happening, my anecdotal experience suggests that so far we're not necessarily more mired in cognitive dissonance/conflict today than at other points in time since the Enlightenment, if you factor out other developments like globalization, industrialization, and runaway depletion of natural resources.

2) "Civilization was doomed from the start due to the intractability of our biomechanical nature": It's easy to make this claim today in the context of environmental destruction and natural resource depletion, but I think this oversimplifies things unless we look at individual nations/cultures, as there are some (i.e. the Germanic ones, if we focus on the easier-to-evaluate developed nations) which have a much better track record for sustainability than others.

Aside from that, I thought this was a brilliant articulation of the limits of human cognition, and it looks at our social/political problems in a deeply atomic way that I haven't seen before. Thanks for sharing!

No prob! And I agree with your suspicions. Bakker is pretty confident in the evolution of superintelligent AI, and that seems to be a crux for his argument. He seems to speak from a certain teleological perspective that assumes history had to develop a certain way. Whether this is actually what he thinks or whether it's just a consequence of the way he talks about it, I'm not sure. But I will say that I think AI are just necessary for the semantic apocalypse (as he calls it) to come to pass. I think the conditions for which it could come to pass are still present, regardless of whether it happens.