singularity – Page 16 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Overabsolute Majority Report

On this sad day (in NL), only a hint of a mer à boire on our future that will be – not so happy. Possibly.
Where the dystopian future scenarios are more right than the on the surface by and large generic tending-to-rosy robot movies predict. With Ex Machina having some interesting thoughts (again) on AI and what it is to be human but in the end also falling back to common standards. And with the similalry common flaw of expecting ‘robots’ to become near-human possibly to the point of indistinguishability [nice word] – that will then operate in a world where ‘individuals’ would be the unit of existence-currency. With no ‘government’ in sight, at least not in today’s sense where even the largest governments (agencies) are still made up of human elements. There is something, but it doesn’t matter too much for the discourse. Where the dystopian worlds we’ll live in (big question marks all around) may have quite a different set of physical media, e.g., all-digital.

Which makes it possible to see today’s (supra-)governments, the largest of them in particular and including the globally biggest private companies, where ‘company’ isn’t between a platoon and battalion of men anymore, as supra-national organisation forms in the abstract.

This already causes problems when one would want to get redress from e.g., the ‘financial industry’ and before, to tackle the military-industrial complexes that were (are?). This will cause problems now that the complexes are informational-industrial-military, with the middle part in the driver’s seat and the two others as wingman, protecting.

In the future further out, the global complex may be beyond the Singularity (negative view), about which I posted quite a bit before. How will we approach such overlord(s) when completely abstracted, sublimated ..? Hm, gotta read up on Negri&Hardt a bit more…

But for now:

[When centres/seats of power were only this big; Madrid]

Unpersonal AI

… a trope worth extending: How we still (apparently want to ..!?) see the future of AI and robotics merged into android (no capital) forms… As in Ex Machina and many others: ‘Intelligent’ (like linked here) human-shaped robots taking over, or not.
Whereas of course ASI will strike us through its supra-individual form it already almost has. Not as the military-industrial complex that was already a common-form supra-individual thing, but as a really medium-/materialisation-independent form. With room to spare for all sorts of ‘dysfunctional’ behaviour and ‘thoughts’, and still hands(?) down being our overlords and usurpers that undo us in a blink.
Or maybe we’re halfway there already. With maybe still some select group at the wheel, behind some veil, pulling off some shady trickery with constitutions (multiple). To off themselves, by a glitch.

Dystopian, eh? Well, for now, there’s:
DSCN6248
[’cause we love the quaint, old … Strasbourg or so]

Your Things’ Id, Ego, Super-Ego

Just putting it out there; my pres at the very successful IDentity.Next conference last week in Noordwijkerhout. Though it is without any actual speaker notes, you may still get the points – or we may have a discussion about certain uncertainties therein.
I’ll stop now; too much in the unwind mode still, due to the great discussions on the spot.

So, here it is. And this:

[Things creeping up on you; Zuid-As]

Progress (cont’d)

In the series of updates on where actual rpogress is, beyond (or in undertow of) the hype, herewith another shining example: This. [Huh that ‘typo’ was on purpose]
Good to see that there’s more to exo than plain mil or med applications – b/c now, the ocean between the two may be explored iso falling back to these sectors every time when some new idea comes along.
OK, for now:

[Meanwhile, static, old London]

Morozov’s no joke

Just a vey few:

“The fear of appearing inauthentic, of being a fake, has propelled nearly as much technological innovation as pornography.”

“But Adorno does have a point: authentic things are not necessarily morally good, and morally good things are not necessarily authentic.”

“In this, the authenticity rhetoric of Facebook is strikingly similar to the public debates in 1950s America over whether uniformity (everyone living in mass society is essentially the same) was a greater sin than conformity (some people adopt ideas, habits, and beliefs only to get along). The latter, the conformists,were seen as phonies who chose to be someone else; the former, those who were uniform by design, were seen as the real phonies – as people who thought they were making choices and being their unique selves, when in fact they were anything but.”

Worrying about usability – the chief concern of many designers today – is like counting calories on the sinking Titanic.”

The goal of privacy is not to protect some stable self from erosion but to create boundaries where this self can emerge, mutate, and stabilize.”
“Digital technology has greatly expanded the windows and doors of our own little rooms for self-experimentation – but we are now at a point where those rooms are on the verge of turning into glass houses.”

“Given the complexity of the self, trying to reduce the privacy concept to a purely utilitarian framework is like steamrolling a statue to capture its essence in the simpler space of the two-dimensional plane.”

Oh how many more such insights are there, to Learn. And weep. For that:

[Yes, Gettysburg battlefield. Ominously.]

Your ASI-MBTIFuture

With all the discussion on the future of work, and how finally! we would be able to do ‘only’ creative, (physically/mentally!) non-repetitive work and/or where and how jobs for that could be craeted or would we all be doomed to be some (un/underpaid) Leisure Class, I suddenly realised:
The future of work depends very much on your myopia of what all ‘workers’ would want.

As about 60%+ of ‘workers’ at all levels of intelligence at/of work including pure mental, knowledge workers, would prefer simple 9-to-5 type jobs, with the predictability and security it brings (requirement…). Established per hard science. Only 40% or less actually wants the wild, the change, the uncertainty-is-beautiful.
So, will 60%+ not be able to make the transition or only not want to and maybe be able to after sufficient pressure is applied ..?

Which brings me to the find I did. Myers-Briggs.
Yes, yes, it indeed is discredited by some, to some extent. But it’s still the most recognised, most recognisable and easily applicable method to establish one’s own interests [with inclusion of the caveats and recognition of its time dependency and outcome variability]. I mean,
MyersBriggsTypes
Is easily assessed (though I’d recommend the more extended questionnaire versions, e.g., from some books). And personally attempted-falsified.

Some take it to the limit. Resulting in:
myersphilo
but really I’d say that’s pushing it, and why?

To which above type ‘scores’ there’s also career advice, also in books and on-line. Like:
MBTIjobChartSmall
Note the remarks at the bottom. Variants apply, like this one which is skewed to sales/marketing business, I think..

But nevertheless, the overall trend is clear: When you’re an I, and/or S type in particular, and maybe too much of the T and J into the mix, you may find it harder and harder to adapt to the on-going exponential (?) fuzzification of work. If you’re in any of the ‘typical’ trades, you may either become the Expert of Experts, retreating into an ever smaller corner until retirement, if you can hold out that long, or bring your characteristics to other trades (remember, yin and yang both have an element of the other within them – this applies here as well), or retrain yourself psychologically to better fit the trades that may be left until ASI overtakes us. [As in this post]

If you can …

I’ll leave you with:
DSCN6848
[For no reason – or, how many trades have come and gone in this environ… Sevilla]

Tip: Morozov’s Click Here

Ah, maybe I’m the one not having paid attention, but I see so little response (which would be: digesting and repeat) of the ideas of the great Morozov in his To Save Everything, Click Here, as e.g., here (to be clicked).

Which is quite a contrast with his content, having a major discussion area in itself, about every other paragraph throughout. Yes, that makes it just a little bit harder to retain the main plot (?) line and the ‘details’ as well; it seems a bit like the asymmetry in information security where the defence will have to fight (? debate, rather) on all sides when attackers (the ones with the blindingly large blinds/blinkers on, headless chickens) can move their individual spearhead attacks forward anywhere – but in this Morozov case, one can count on the defense having the much more and more importantly, much better, arguments on its side. One should not count arguments, but weigh them (Cicero).

“Huh, no content of the book here …” Indeed not. Get it and read! I’m off now to finish reading, leaving you with:

[Ah, the one little part where The Hague is somewhat like a big Milanish / Parisian city; unedited hence the off light conditions]

Positive: Singular Golden Age

In the Utopian versus Dystopian post-Singularity discussion, two additions.

One; some folks said that once humanity would figure out how the world turns, one/some deity/deities would immediately replace the world with an infinite more complex one. Some claim this has happened already. [Dunno how many times, can’t tell.]
Would it be possible that this happened during the Age of Aquarius (yes), with its Egyptian sphinx riddles, and/or the phase shifts of the Greek Golden Age (et al.) mythology, as here ..?

Two; Clark’s Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. How far on this path are we, with our Singularity thinking ..? And, there’s talk about talking to gods here.

Three (for logic); can we mix the two ..? What are the third-dimensional discussion directions ..?
It seems to become ever more a mer à boire …

Hence:

[Feels relevant; London 2007 – shiny, no crisis in sight]

Hegel’s Chaos

… Just as I posted on Hegel’s future or not (recently here and there; errr…), it struck me: Did the He man know about Newton’s Second ..?
Because, if everything in the universe devolves to Chaos (assuming it’s closed or at least confined), and He man thinks the universe in the end will realize/become ultimate Reason, then the one equals the other, or what ..?

So much for the Singularity (…?). And:
005_21 (2)
[Yes Rietveld-Schröderian suppliers ring here, Utrecht (analog)]

Sing-Singularity, and/or Shannon

Though we know Shannon for his contributions to ‘computer science’ (Don’t we!? If not, go study. And wash your mouth with green soap or so) – the field would hardly exist without his groundbraking concepts, on par or lower (sic) than Turing maybe – and we all do remember log2 measurements as minimum to reconstruct a signal don’t we? – I rediscovered this piece and wondered … how well you’d know it, and how fundamental to even the IoT now springing up, and … most importantly, what would the ramifications be for all of the discussions regarding the Singularity, pre-, midst of and post- ..? I mean, the discussions will tilt once the profundity of the Work is taken to heart.
I think. Now will go and study. Hard. And:

[Old analog (log2!) Zuid-As indeed]