Rug Burn Junky on 18/9/2011 at 18:33
Quote Posted by Aja
RBJ that was an excellent post (on page 5). My problem is that I don't know any of the buzzwords that comprise most of the discussions I see on this subject, but the fact that it can be discussed in English, as you demonstrate, gives me hope. What publication were you writing it for?
It's a spec piece, and even knowing a couple of well-connected editors, the likelihood of publication is fairly remote. Most of the writing I've done to date has been for technical professional publications - targeted at lawyers and finance types. This is part of my attempt to broaden that and get some wider bylines.
As for the plain English aspect, it's fairly simple. My writing process has developed such that my first rough draft usually consists of me saying to myself "How would I explain this on TTLG?" Since you guys know my writing personality, I need that mental crutch to keep from overly censoring myself. Obviously for publication, I rework things conceptually, and take a couple of passes at the spelling/grammar/profanity. But, since this was an early draft, it retained that spirit.
Fafhrd on 18/9/2011 at 22:02
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
What do futurists say about the ongoing progress in the areas of Robotics, AI, Biotech and Nanotech?
(
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/06/reality-check-1.html) That it's not going to lead to the tech-utopia you imagine.
You've outed yourself as a Kurzweilian Singularitan here, so I don't imagine anything will get through to you, but your utopian future isn't going to happen. Nanoscale manufacturing? Not going to happen. The most promising nanotech research at present is in the medical field, and even there it's predominantly being used diagnostically in controlled circumstances. Nanomachines building themselves, or building other things? Not within our children's children's lifetimes.
Human level (or even super-human) AI? Not going to happen. See my link.
Matthew on 18/9/2011 at 23:00
Well, shit.
nbohr1more on 18/9/2011 at 23:35
That article refutes conscience AI. It does not refute the simpler AI that can, say, eliminate an office secretary. (In fact, even sub-AI can and has done so in many cases).
The 3D printing revolution disagrees with your dismissal of self-assembly.
You don't need nano-tech or fully conscience AI to make 99.99999% of human labor obsolete. We are almost there now. The end-game in the future is much worse.
Rug Burn Junky on 19/9/2011 at 00:39
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
Are their predictions less valid than those forged by economists' ?
Well, yeah, ignoring for the moment the content, speculative predictions about the future, based on new-thing-which-has-never-happened-before, umm, happening, is less valid as a predictive measure than this-is-how-it-happened-the-last-time-so-it's-likely-to-happen-again, especially when the observed repetition is based on rigorous mathematical models.
This should be simple. Fuck.
Ghostly Apparition on 19/9/2011 at 00:50
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
As for the plain English aspect, it's fairly simple. My writing process has developed such that my first rough draft usually consists of me saying to myself "How would I explain this on TTLG?"
I knew it, we're all just RBJ's Guinea pigs
nbohr1more on 19/9/2011 at 01:09
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Well, yeah, ignoring for the moment the content, speculative predictions about the future, based on new-thing-which-has-never-happened-before, umm, happening, is less valid as a predictive measure than this-is-how-it-happened-the-last-time-so-it's-likely-to-happen-again, especially when the observed repetition is based on rigorous mathematical models.
This should be simple. Fuck.
The Industrial Revolution never happened?
Mass Manufacturing never happened?
The Information Tech boom never happened?
See a pattern?
More automation = Less employable labor force.
Shug on 19/9/2011 at 01:26
Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition
I knew it, we're all just RBJ's Guinea pigs
Only some of us can be his hamsters :cool:
nbohr: the tech boom was meant to prompt humans working less while computers did the job. That obviously didn't happen, and there's little evidence yet to suggest that it's going to happen in the future, only theory about exponential development
Aerothorn on 19/9/2011 at 01:55
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
The fact that economic models may lack precision at a granular level doesn't mean that they lack insight altogether. It's like saying that meteorology is a sham because it can't predict the exact temperature a month from now.
And yet I've met a number of really smart people who tow the same line. Inevitably, they are all engineers or scientists who view science as a sort of binary, and make no distinction between a "soft science" and voodoo. The other day I mentioned to a friend of mine that I really wish I'd taken an econ class in college, and he dismissed economics as useless.
There is such a thing as an empirical fundamentalist.
P.S. Can I point out that it seems INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS that Forever420 is a sockpuppet? I mean, read his posts, guys. The man is not serious.
Fafhrd on 19/9/2011 at 02:34
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
The Industrial Revolution never happened? Followed by a massive employment boom
Mass Manufacturing never happened? Followed by a massive employment boom
The Information Tech boom never happened? Followed by a massive employment boom
See a pattern?
Fixed for you.
