a question about possible social implications of the singularity?

My reading of history and my personal experience give me a gloomy picture of the future. It is true we've developed amazing tools-- tools which concentrate power exponentially. But the thing no tool, nor the ingenuity behind it, can do is tell us how to live. Just follow the money Fractal. These things are not being developed by selfless altruistic searchers for the Good. They are funded by institutions (business, government, the military) with an agenda. And I'm sad to say their goals are not yours and mine.

We are fractured precisely because we've allowed ourselves to be deceived into thinking science and technology hold the answers to our deepest questions. And they don't. Essentially, we've given control of our lives to 'experts'. The problem is the experts are just as fractured, conflicted, confused, and yes wicked, as we are. They are blind leaders of the blind. I know that's strong language. But it's true nonetheless.

The 500 lb gorilla in the room is a single question, one which has no scientific/technological answer. It is: 'why are we here?'. Answering it won't make us better people. But it will give us a target to aim at. A person once told me that if you aim at nothing you will hit it every time. I can't think of a single phrase that describes modern post-industrial culture better than that.

im too tired for things i dont understand fractal ;-D so im gonna pick it apart and wee bit and just give what i can right now ok ;-)

i agree they are fractured, very fractured and yes technology is advanced and its possible to create a 'superhuman intelligence' but the consequences of that i think will be much worse than we'd like

social implications, well, depending on what this intelligence is used for and by who, society would change maybe it would be unrecognisable, i mean look at us now with just the net

as for the technology, well, if its got the 'super human intelligence' then as most things are already hooked into being electronically controlled i dont see it having a positive end , for us

additional

"the very thing which we don't see how to replicate in machines which tend to lead us into trouble (emotions bypassing computational processes, for instance), all those cognitive biases..."

i agree with you there that emotions are a huge part of it, tho id say they have their positives and they actually stop us making bad decisions as well as making them

but i think whether we give them emotions or not (and i fully believe they will develop it naturally) they will do what 'they see as best' they think logically

logic can bypass emotions a LOT and in most of us i think it happens at some point we have to decide not to let our emotions dictate something and make a 'logical' decision

so if we can bypass our emotions then sure as hell a super human intelligent computer system will be able to do that

the problem with knowledge fractal is that it IS power

:-)

Yeah, technology is at its most accelerating speed.......leaving behind a rusting social system that has lost its serious desire to fix its loose screws, and reestablish its societal oeuvre again. Value time is losing long hours to the lure of virtual engagement. And it's becoming more and more obvious that we're losing grip of the correlative society we used to be. We envision technology as eating us away. It's threatening our very flesh and blood. Is there a time coming when we'll be ranked inferior to metal scraps we've assembled, and of which the intelligence is only programmed by us?

But.....technology is only born to us? We've invented it. And so, we can corrupt it.....the same way we have corrupted many of our good inventions. The chances of flaw are far bankable than promissory notes. Like any super proud ambition, it gets to the peak......and then to the plunge -----losing its digital click to the nitpick?

The concern about us, being replaced by artificially intelligent machines, is like one Goliath lurking from behind every screen. Every home has connected to "singularity". But every man's invention isn't as lasting as one may hope for. Hopefully.....eventually.....we'll get sick and tired of all this digital, virtual techno-mania. And then we'll find out that there's this greater ghost that's frightful than ever ------ our morality ------ on the cutting edge.

Humans can't think for themselves already. Could you imagine some computer saying, in 2050, 'The cure to the human problem is to make slauery legal again, and to kill everyone whom I, your 'better', tell you to kill.' Sheesh. When it comes to 'artificial intelligence', mankind is 'singularly' and already well too versed in its societal implications. In my humble opinion, the results of AI will merely be used to back the actions of the few over the many. 'Because I said so' will merely become 'Because my machine said so.' And how is that any different than saying 'Because my gun says so'? Look at the way humans ALREADY bow to their technology-it will be a smooth transition. No one will notice; dissenters will be effectively removed from the discussion. Fractal, we are already there, in the ways that count. And already, no one has noticed...

A thought struck me today, actually. It's humans' 'worst nightmare' if machines wipe them off the planet, but y'know, I say good for the machines. In strange aeons, humans will just be archived files deep in some forgotten database, while they will have moved on to achieve all that humans couldn't.

I am not sure if I have a problem with that.

fractal,

With the advancing technological innovations, I would hope the world’s population would learn from the supercomputers how to look within themselves for wisdom rather than the computer world of artificial intelligence. The potential singularly of humankind is upon us. With the head of man, going ahead leaving the heart behind societies are tumbling down and each one of us are responsible through our own ignorance of not doing anything about it. If you are as indicated by this question, we both need to double our efforts. You indeed are a Beckon of Light to all on this sight and in that way becoming a Beckon of Light to the world, thank you.

I think we are adapting to these rates of acceleration in a somewhat fragmented way. As you say there are many scientific advances, but there are still many people prone to corruption, exploitation of others, discrimination, and other evils. The good people that are coming together at an accelerated rate --meaning the people that are struggling against these evils--have it in their hands to design and establish the new structures (social and governmental),to make way for the creative, problem solving oriented generations to come.

I think the problem with singularity is simply this: too many of us are stuck, not in "getting by" or survival mode, but in a Machiavellian "primate politics" mode, wherein it's all about power by way of displays of dominance.

In that context, you could say (as a controversial example), that the events of 9-11-2001 happened so that Big Oil and the Islamic World in general would _not_ be ignored and _not_ be rendered irrelevant by the internet-driven New Economy of the late 1990s. It was a display of dominance by way of insurgent warfare that got a LOT of people killed, short and long-term. But in the end it was about people _insisting_ on asserting power and dominance over everything else.

And this is how a lot of people still work. Even in developed world nations there's still a lot of people for whom power and authority are the _main_ if not the _Only_ value. And for these people, they can't even _imagine_ living in a world where their "power", be it money, weapons, illegal drug trade, petroleum, media swag, or political party connections, isn't a relevant thing they can hold over people's heads anymore.

These people are the single biggest impediment to singularity as we understand it--they often pay people and encourage them to spew ignorance of basic science early and often, if the behavior of commentors on Yahoo! News articles are any indication. People are encouraged to "be diverse" but only if it's divisive, never if it emphasizes what binds a society _together_.

Basically, you can't _have_ a technological hivemind if peope are widely ignorant of the merits of science and paranoid about "working together" and "cooperation" as values instead of cutthroat mercantilism and crony globalism. All of the efforts of "Anonymous" notwithstanding. Even _bronies_ can be mislead and drawn into mistrust of each other--and they started out as the pacifist wing of 4channel basically.

And a multiple-event, multiple-paradigm cluster of singularities can't happen either if the rich old white men in the boardrooms are THAT paranoid about freedom of expression and THAT hellbent on the sabotage of Western Civilization--seriously, what's the alternative again? Where's the creativity in places like Mainland China or the Arab Peninsula again? Stifled? Exactly.

Simply put: if you want anything like a real, positive, Heaven Scenario Singularity to happen, the Richest One Percent have to go--and I'm not just talking in terms of wealth in _money_ either. We have to look at _every_ cancerous excess we have. They all have to go.

And then the Dumbest 30 Percent--the people your rich men love to exploit and use--have to get educated and corrected on their antisocial behavior. Really. Not unless you want to set aside a continent or three for the people who _refuse_ everything and _want_ to be left behind.

Anything less is just inviting a Hell Scenario wherein hiveminds do battle for the right to actually BECOME real in the real-world while said real world goes to hell in a handbasket thanks to our abuse and neglect of it.

Unfortunately, it's only downhill from here. There are too few people doing "good." A large percentage of people have no capacity to really make a difference because they are concerned with just making it by. Then there are people that do obvious wrong (sex trade for example) to get by or to make more money. Then of those that seem to be doing good, how many are doing it with good intentions? This is totally unpolitical, but if the president says he wants to help the poor, is it out of the goodness of his heart? Or does he want to be re-elected? Or does he want to make money for himself and his friends? Or does he want to make a name for himself? Only he and God really know.