Bill Joy suggests limits to freedom and research.
At 10:54 PM -0500 3/15/00, Duncan Frissell wrote: At 04:38 PM 3/15/00 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: Bill thinks - and I think he may well be right - that we are approaching the point where a single individual could build a lethal, virulent disease, or (somewhat later) an unrestricted nanotech self-replicator. What then? My problem with the argument is that we were dealing with it on the extropian list in '92 and others were dealing with it long before that. The term "singularity" was applied to the case where change becomes a vertical asymptote (1/x). Novels like "Blood Music" have discussed it as well. Why did it take until 1998 for this to occur to Bill? Nuclear annihilation provided lots of fodder for the identical discussion in '50s SF and "The Shape of Things to Come" deals with it as well. That's what I meant by it being an old discussion. This is exactly right. It's exasperating to see neo-journalists pick up on recycled discussions as being revealed wisdom. Old beer in new bottles. Bill Joy has done some fine work, but he is no more insightful about the future than various Nobel Prize-winning scientists were in the 50s, 60s, and 70s about nuclear war, one world governments, or running out of resources. No need to waste time on him. BTW, far more detailed scenarios for nanotech general assemblers were covered in exhaustive detail at the "Assembler Multitudes" fora every two weeks in the early 90s. Organized by Ted Kaehler, one of the original developers of Smalltalk, the gatherings were stimulating, detailed, and thoughtful. We had about 15-25 regular participants, and many specialists also dropped in. Eric Drexler, Mark Miller, Marc Stiegler, Ralph Merkle, Howard Landeman, Markus Krummenacker, and many others. We even covered scenarios about attemping to stifle research...I was overjoyed--no pun intended--to describe to them just how pointless stifling research would be, because of strong crypto, data havens, etc. It was at one of these meetings, in 1993, that I presented BlackNet. I did this by literally soliciting members of the Assembler Multitudes seminar to sell bootleg nanotech research, untraceably. At the actual physical meeting, I revealed that I done this to demonstrate the tip of the iceberg on such approaches. Bill Joy's essay is just not very deep. As I said, old beer in new bottles. --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: Bill Joy suggests limits to freedom and research.
At 11:20 AM 3/15/00 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: I'd like to suggest that people take a serious look at Bill Joy's "Why the future doesn't need us", the cover article in the current Wired magazine. It can be found online at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html. I printed it out and will be working my way through it. Sounds like 50's SF films vs. 50's written (US) SF. "There are some things man was not meant to know" vs. "men as gods". Traditional fight. As to future risks to freedom - we weren't thinking of asking permission in any case. DCF "They can attempt to outlaw weapons but they can't outlaw the Platonic Ideal of a weapon and modern technology makes it absolutely trivial to convert a Platonic Ideal of a weapon into an actual weapon whenever one desires."
Re: Bill Joy suggests limits to freedom and research.
Bill Joy certainly has reputation capital to burn, but it is in the domain of computer science (as he himself says) and not philosophical inquiry. This article contains opinions and book reviews, not deep thinking into the issues it merely suggests. It if *were* deep thinking, Wired would never publish it. The article is a swiftly moving river of name-dropping and a list of "books I have read." The books are invoked in serial fashion from popular Silicon Valley culture, but the critical implications and ideas are not integrated into a synthesis, that is, these ideas are not digested and integrated into a comprehensive insightful exploration. Yes, Bill Guy has done some great work, but his critical thinking could use an assist from other disciplines like the humanities with which he is not very familiar. One added quote from Nietzsche does not count. Why? Because an inquiry into what it means to be human requires an understanding of culture and how symbols define our identities and very selves, and a historical perspective that shows awareness of how identities have shifted in the past, how values and cultures function in the human equation, and how the older word for psyche - "soul" - can still play a part in illuminating the possibilities for being human. I do not mean that in any simplistic sense but as a distinction or domain that refers to a distinctly human field of subjectivity. Joy may have had a drink with John Searle (in one of the earlier meeting-dropping party-dropping name-dropping indulgences) but he does not seem to have understood his analysis of artificial intelligence. So I disagree with your assessment of this article. It is very shallow and continues the New Wired tradition of righteous Silicon Valley name-dropping a la People magazine as a substitute for deep thinking and clear exposition. Richard Thieme At 11:20 AM 03/15/2000 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: I'd like to suggest that people take a serious look at Bill Joy's "Why the future doesn't need us", the cover article in the current Wired magazine. It can be found online at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html. Bill (one of the Great Old Men of the Internet, with vi, BSD, Java, and Jini to his credit) it not a nut. He has reputation capital to burn. He's talking about the possible imminent end of the human species. Briefly, he argues that current advances in biotech, computers and robotics are creating such powerful instrumentalities that either we'll make machines smarter than ourselves, which will take over, or some nut will unleash a nanotech self-replicator or an engineered micro-organism to doom the human race. Bill suggests that perhaps we need to consider if there are technological areas where we should not venture, because of the potential danger of the knowledge. This article is important, not only for what it says, but also how people are going to use it. It is manna from heaven to those who would further centralize and tighten control over people, and will undoubtedly be cited by those who would restrict privacy and anonymity. This article is partially a dystopic response to Kurzweil's "In the Age of Spiritual Machines", a book which I found provocative, if flawed. Peter Trei Richard Thieme ThiemeWorks ... professional speaking and business consulting: ThiemeWorks P. O. Box 170737the impact of computer technology Milwaukee Wisconsin on people in organizations: 53217-8061 helping people stay flexible voice: 414.351.2321 and effective fax: 414.351.5779 during times of accelerated change. cell: 414.704.4598 http://www.thiemeworks.com http://www.richardthieme.com - for information on Professional Speaking
Re: Bill Joy suggests limits to freedom and research.
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Trei, Peter wrote: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html. Briefly, he argues that current advances in biotech, computers and robotics are creating such powerful instrumentalities that either we'll make machines smarter than ourselves, which will take over, or some nut will unleash a nanotech self-replicator or an engineered micro-organism to doom the human race. It would have to compete with these already highly competitive nanotech self-replicators we call 'bacteria'. -Bram Cohen
