Singularitarianism & Libertarianism

Peter Thiel, a SIAI (http://www.singinst.org/) donar, endorses Ron Paul. http://people.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements/2007/12/22/peter-thiel/

I presume that anarchists and some left-libertarians are much less likely to be singularitarians. Am I correct?

As a singularitarian, I do believe in IP to protect artificial intelligence ideas and algorithms.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is singularitarianism exactly? Has it anything to do with individuals like Kurzweil and Marvin Minsky? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularitarianism

Agree.;)

 The Singularity requires IP?

Open source initiatives and the Creative Commons and Copy-left licenses would seem to be better suited to bringing it about than traditional patents and copyrights. 

Point 4 on the wiki article )A Singularitarian believes the Singularity should benefit the entire world, and should not be a means to benefit any specific individual or group.

 

this is a tad socialist, no ?

Singularity, meet Neo. I'm your worst nightmare!

So you want to create an entity that is smart enough to prove or disprove God's existence and then trust a group of guys and gals to not use it's/their power against the non-group? Of course, the raw power of nukes and knives are a threat, but the power of reason beyond reason would be exponentially more powerful. In fact, if such an entity were to be 'created', wouldn't it simply use reason to have you do as it says? Couldn't it just brainwash all the 'useful idiots' and have them wage it's wars and produce it's offspring? I don't see how something like this could be safely created, assuming it's 'brain' is as advanced as I project. Hopefully the 'collective brains' of the human race could defend against such, but one tear in the collection and all hell breaks loose!

This is cool stuff. Sounds like a cult!

nirgrahamUK:

Point 4 on the wiki article )A Singularitarian believes the Singularity should benefit the entire world, and should not be a means to benefit any specific individual or group.

 

this is a tad socialist, no ?

Already discussed: http://www.mail-archive.com/agi@v2.listbox.com/msg07642.html

I saw four persons who are both libertarian & singularitarian replied:
http://www.mail-archive.com/agi@v2.listbox.com/msg07673.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/agi@v2.listbox.com/msg07740.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/agi@v2.listbox.com/msg07739.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/agi@v2.listbox.com/msg07708.html

Seems like singularitarians are more likely to be libertarians, since they are more open-minded and intelligent.

gplauche:

 The Singularity requires IP?

Open source initiatives and the Creative Commons and Copy-left licenses would seem to be better suited to bringing it about than traditional patents and copyrights. 

I don't think collective projects would get anyware, at least in singularity projects. Creativity in artificial intelligence requires individual uniqueness, not collective agreement. Democracy would not get anything done. Collaborate AI projects have failed.

I've been curious about this topic ever since I read an article on AI that mentioned Kurzweil and Minsky. Is Minsky a libertarian? The article referred to him as such.

libertarian:

nirgrahamUK:

Point 4 on the wiki article )A Singularitarian believes the Singularity should benefit the entire world, and should not be a means to benefit any specific individual or group.

 

this is a tad socialist, no ?

Already discussed: http://www.mail-archive.com/agi@v2.listbox.com/msg07642.html

I saw four persons who are both libertarian & singularitarian replied:
http://www.mail-archive.com/agi@v2.listbox.com/msg07673.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/agi@v2.listbox.com/msg07740.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/agi@v2.listbox.com/msg07739.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/agi@v2.listbox.com/msg07708.html

Seems like singularitarians are more likely to be libertarians, since they are more open-minded and intelligent.

 

i dont think the responses posted quite address the particular criticism i was making.

roll back the historical clock some years; consider if an Aeroplanarian, gets together with a group of Aeroplanarians and together they have a common manifesto regarding bringing into the world a new technological product, a mode of transport through air, a flying machine. now imagine if they held strongly that:

An Aeroplanarian believes the Aeroplane should benefit the entire world, and should not be a means to benefit any specific individual or group.

 

 maybe its not a good criticism, but its what occurred to me as i read point 4, and if you had wished to address it i believe that you havent yet(, not that you should. )

 

libertarian:

gplauche:

 The Singularity requires IP?

Open source initiatives and the Creative Commons and Copy-left licenses would seem to be better suited to bringing it about than traditional patents and copyrights. 

I don't think collective projects would get anyware, at least in singularity projects. Creativity in artificial intelligence requires individual uniqueness, not collective agreement. Democracy would not get anything done. Collaborate AI projects have failed.

 

I think you misunderstood me. I said nothing about democracy, at least not statist democracy. You are familiar with open source software and other open source projects, are you not? 

Libertarian transhumanism and extropianism would seem to be germane to this debate. 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_transhumanism

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extropianism

gplauche:

 

libertarian:

gplauche:

 The Singularity requires IP?

Open source initiatives and the Creative Commons and Copy-left licenses would seem to be better suited to bringing it about than traditional patents and copyrights. 

I don't think collective projects would get anyware, at least in singularity projects. Creativity in artificial intelligence requires individual uniqueness, not collective agreement. Democracy would not get anything done. Collaborate AI projects have failed.

 

I think you misunderstood me. I said nothing about democracy, at least not statist democracy. You are familiar with open source software and other open source projects, are you not? 

Yes, I am familiar. People who are working for AGI algorithms must design them first before implementing them. It is impossible to collectively agree on a single algorithm. Therefore, open source AGI projects would get less people, since not everyone would agree on the algorithm. They have to get an incentive, like money, to contribute to a project that they don't agree on. Collective projects like IBM's CYC have failed. IBM spent millions of dollars on that project. OpenCyc (http://www.opencyc.org) has failed.

nirgrahamUK:

libertarian:

nirgrahamUK:

Point 4 on the wiki article )A Singularitarian believes the Singularity should benefit the entire world, and should not be a means to benefit any specific individual or group.

 

this is a tad socialist, no ?

Already discussed: http://www.mail-archive.com/agi@v2.listbox.com/msg07642.html

I saw four persons who are both libertarian & singularitarian replied:
http://www.mail-archive.com/agi@v2.listbox.com/msg07673.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/agi@v2.listbox.com/msg07740.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/agi@v2.listbox.com/msg07739.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/agi@v2.listbox.com/msg07708.html

Seems like singularitarians are more likely to be libertarians, since they are more open-minded and intelligent.

 

i dont think the responses posted quite address the particular criticism i was making.

roll back the historical clock some years; consider if an Aeroplanarian, gets together with a group of Aeroplanarians and together they have a common manifesto regarding bringing into the world a new technological product, a mode of transport through air, a flying machine. now imagine if they held strongly that:

An Aeroplanarian believes the Aeroplane should benefit the entire world, and should not be a means to benefit any specific individual or group.

 

 maybe its not a good criticism, but its what occurred to me as i read point 4, and if you had wished to address it i believe that you havent yet(, not that you should. )

Aeroplanarians and singularitarians can do anything selfish they want as long as they are not using coercion. The singularity is dangerous if its designers are selfish and kill all other people. But there is no incentive to kill all people since the singularity would benefit all people, including its desingers, indefinitely. But errors might occur in the design so it would kill people. The singularity is worser than any weapon including the atomic bomb. The government might steal the design.

 Singularitarianism is one of the silliest doomsday cults I've encountered, for people who don't understand the law of diminishing returns and the division of labor.

Accusing people of silliness and cultism is fun and all, but if you want to continue participating on this forum, you need to be civil and use rational argumentation.  If it's not worth your time to post a coherent argument, don't bother wasting ours.

One of the ironies of this singularity "project" is that we are already living within a singularity of sorts (probably the only type that could ever exist) - as described by LVM and Hayek:  The market is a huge "mind" which operates beyond the ken of human individuals and brings us untold and almost limitless wealth.

Expanding and freeing this "giant mind" to keep it functioning at its best is perhaps not as sexy as talking about artificial super intelligences, but it has more benefits in the real world.

Brett_McS:

One of the ironies of this singularity "project" is that we are already living within a singularity of sorts (probably the only type that could ever exist) - as described by LVM and Hayek:  The market is a huge "mind" which operates beyond the ken of human individuals and brings us untold and almost limitless wealth.

Expanding and freeing this "giant mind" to keep it functioning at its best is perhaps not as sexy as talking about artificial super intelligences, but it has more benefits in the real world.

 

Human society under the division of labor is already a form of superintelligence. No single human intelligence understands the whole of the system.

The acceleration of technological progress that singularists use as evidence for their crackpot theory is brought about by the increase in the number of humans in the division of labor. Instead of dreaming of technogod to deliver them from evil, they should learn the science of economics.

Stranger:

Human society under the division of labor is already a form of superintelligence. No single human intelligence understands the whole of the system.

A 'collective intelligence' is indeed formidable, but a super, artificial intelligence might need only itself to effect a virtual collective intelligence. If a super intelligence is possible, could it ponder transcendentally or would it simply be a sort of mechanical atheist, like an enlightened beast, seeking what it may devour? 

Clearly we are on the same wavelength, Stranger.  I wonder how many in the "Singularity" community understand the super-intelligent nature of the market system?  (There may be some at this site who do).  Study of the market system may seem a little less dry and unimportant to this community if put in these sort of terms, but I think most are intent on chasing a will-o-the-wisp.

libertarian:

People who are working for AGI algorithms must design them first before implementing them.

So? Whether it's closed source or F/OSS, someone has to come up with an idea worthy of implementation, or there has to be a group brainstorm which achieves the same result, before implementation can begin on anything.

libertarian:

It is impossible to collectively agree on a single algorithm. Therefore, open source AGI projects would get less people, since not everyone would agree on the algorithm.

Specious claim. There's competition among F/OSS desktop environments, among F/OSS kernels, among F/OSS windowing systems, among F/OSS programming languages, and among various other F/OSS projects, yet there's no shortage of developers. You're assuming that there'd be some sort of concensus and collaboration between closed source AGI development projects.

libertarian:

They have to get an incentive, like money, to contribute to a project that they don't agree on.

Why don't we get government to do all our scientific research then? I mean, if all you have to do is throw money at a problem, without regard to the technical merits of the approach (which is what typically attracts F/OSS developers), then surely government should be the most efficient means of doing research.

libertarian:

Collective projects like IBM's CYC have failed. IBM spent millions of dollars on that project. OpenCyc (http://www.opencyc.org) has failed.

If you consider getting further than anyone else has managed to be a failure, then yes they've failed.