Saturday, January 28, 2023

Myrmidons

 

Byung-Chul Han, "Heidegger's Hand"

Heidegger is strongly dedicated to work and to the hand, as if he sensed that the human being of the future would be handless and inclined to play rather than work. One of his lectures on Aristotle begins thus: 'Aristotle was born, worked, and died.'57 Thinking is work. Later, Heidegger called thinking handwork: 'Perhaps thinking, too, is just something like building a cabinet [Schrein]. At any rate, it is handwork.'58 The hand makes thinking a decidedly analogue process. Heidegger would say: artificial intelligence does not think because it does not have a hand.

Heidegger's hand is determined to defend the terrestrial order against the digital order. Digital is derived from digtus, meaning finger. With our fingers, we count and calculate. They are numerical, that is, digital. Heidegger explicitly distinguishes between the hand and the fingers. The typewriter, requiring only the use of the fingertips, C withdraws from man the essential rank of the hand'.59 The typewriter destroys the 'word' by degrading it; the word becomes 'a means of communication', that is, information.60 The typewritten word 'no longer comes and goes by means of the writing hand, the prop- erly acting hand'.61 Only 'handwriting' approaches the essential realm of the word.62 The typewriter, Heidegger says, is a 'signless cloud [Wolke]',63 that is, a numerical cloud [Wolke], a Cloud that conceals the essence of the word. The hand is a 'sign' because it points towards what 'awards [zusprechen] itself to language'. Only the hand receives the gift of thinking. For Heidegger, the typewriter is the precursor of the computer. It turns the 'word' into 'information'. The typewriter foreshadows the digital. The construction of the computer is made possible by the 'process in which language increasingly becomes merely an instrument of information'.64 The hand does not count or compute. It represents the non-countable, the non-calculable, the 'singular as such, which, as one in its singleness, is uniquely the uniquely unifying One that precedes all number'.65

Heidegger's analysis of equipment in Being and Time shows that the hand is what discloses to us the environment in its original form. A thing appears initially as something available to our hands, as 'ready-to-hand'. When I reach for a pen, it does not appear to me as an object with certain qualities. If I want to imagine the pen as an object, I have to draw my hand back and purposefully stare at the pen. The grasping hand experiences the thing at a more primordial level than the representing intuition:
the less we just stare at the hammer-Thing, and the more we seize hold of it and use it, the more primordial does our relationship to it become, and the more unveiledly is it encountered as that which it is — as equipment. The hammering itself uncovers the specific 'manipulability' [Handlichkeit] of the hammer. The kind of Being which equipment possesses — in which it manifests itself in its own right — we call 'readiness-to-hand' [Zuhandenheit].66
The hand anticipates [greift vor] every representation. Heidegger's thinking always attempts to advance to a sphere of experience that precedes but is blocked by representational and objectifying thinking. The hand has special access to the primordial sphere of being that precedes all forms of objectification.

In Being and Time, the thing, as equipment, is experienced as useful. In his second analysis of equipment in The Origin Of the Work of Art', Heidegger tries to advance to an even deeper sphere of the thing's being, one that precedes even usefulness: 'The equipmentality of equipment consists indeed in its usefulness. But this itself rests in the fullness of an essential being of the equipment. We call this reliability.'67 'Reliability' is a primary experience of the thing that precedes its usefulness. Heidegger illustrates 'reliability' through the example of a painting by Vincent Van Gogh of a pair of leather shoes. Why does Heidegger choose these shoes as an example? Shoes protect the foot, which is in many respects akin to the hand. Interestingly, Heidegger explicitly draws attention to the foot, which, given that everyone knows what shoes are for, is not necessary: 'We will take as an example an everyday piece of equipment, a pair of peasant shoes.... Equipment of this kind serves as footwear.'68

The Van Gogh painting actually seems to show the artist's own shoes. They are apparently men's shoes. But Heidegger makes idiosyncratic decisions in his reading:
The peasant woman wears her shoes in the field. Only then do they become what they are. They are all the more genuinely so the less the peasant woman thinks of her shoes while she is working, or even looks at them, or is aware of diem in anyway at all. This is how the shoes actually serve.69
This passage is reminiscent of the analysis of equipment in Being and Time. As soon as I take the hammer-Thing into my hand and hammer, instead of just staring at it, it appears to me for what it is, that is, as equipment. Similarly, the shoes actually serve as shoes when the peas- ant woman walks and stands in them. But the essence of the shoe-Thing is not usefulness. In a pictorial language, Heidegger points to a level of experience that precedes usefulness :
From out of the dark opening of the well-worn insides of the shoes the toil of the worker's tread stares forth. In the crudely solid heaviness of the shoes accumulates the tenacity of the slow trudge through the far-stretching and ever-uniform furrows of the field swept by a raw wind. On the leather lies the dampness and richness of the soil. Under the soles slides the loneliness of the field-path as evening falls. The shoes vibrate with the silent call of the earth, its silent gift of the ripening grain, its unexplained self-refusal in the wintry field. This equipment is pervaded by uncomplaining worry as to the certainty of bread, wordless joy at having once more withstood want, trembling before the impending birth, and shivering at the surrounding menace Of death. This equipment belongs to the earth and finds protection in the world Of the peasant woman.70
The 'reliability' of things consists in the fact that they embed human beings in those relations to the world that make life stable. With its 'reliability', the thing is a world-thing. Its reliability is part Of the terrestrial order. Today, the thing is decoupled from this world-founding wealth of relations and exhausts itself in pure functionality. Thus, it is no longer reliable:
The individual piece of equipment becomes worn out and used up. ... In this way equipmental being withers away, sinks to the level of mere equipment. Such dwindling of equipmental being is the disappearance of its reliability. ... Now nothing but sheer utility remains visible.71
Human Dasein has its footings on the earth. Heidegger's foot stands for being grounded on the soil. It connects human beings with the earth, which gives them stability and abode. Heidegger's country' path 'quietly escorts one's Steps along the winding trail through the expanse of the sparse landscape'.72 The thing and its reliability take care that human beings establish a firm footing on the earth. The foot provides another clue as to why Heidegger holds on to the hand with such determination. Hand and foot point to the site of Heidegger's thinking. They embody the terrestrial order. The handless humans of the future are also footless. They hover above the earth in the digital Cloud.

Heidegger's thing is a world-thing: 'The thing things world.'73 The verb 'thinging', belonging to the thing, means 'gathering'. The thing 'gathers' the meaningful relations in which human Dasein is embedded. The world structure that founds meaning Heidegger calls the 'four- fold'. The world consists of four elements that provide meaning and stability: 'earth' and 'sky', the 'divinities' and the 'mortals'.74 For Heidegger, things include 'brook and hill' [Bach und Berg], 'heron and roe' [Reiher und Reh], 'mirror and clasp' [Spiegel und Spange], 'book and picture' [Buch und Bild] and 'crown and cross' [Krone und Kreuz].75 The consistent alliteration suggests a simple world order that has to be reflected in the things. Heidegger asks us to rely on the metre, on the rhythm, of the terrestrial order to place ourselves in the hands of the weight of the world.

Heidegger insists on the intrinsic measure of the earth. His belief is that there is an 'approval or ordering' beyond the human will, and that humans need to obey this ordering.76 An abode is not produced but approved. The later Heidegger had in mind a care-free Dasein, a 'safebeing' that is, however, beyond human influence:
Safe, securus, sine cura means: without care. Care has here the nature Of deliberate self-assertion along the ways and by the means Of absolute production.... The safebeing is the sheltered repose in the attraction-nexus of the whole attraction.77
Humans, Heidegger says, are the 'be-thinged'.78 The 'thing' shelters the 'attraction-nexus of the whole attraction' that takes care of the stabiliw, the 'safebeing'. Heidegger sets himself against the beginnings of the dig- ital order, in which the world 'remains orderable as a system of information'.79 The digital order strives for the un-thinged [das Un-Bedingte], whereas in the terrestrial order humans are the be-thinged:
Man is about to hurl himself upon the entire earth and its atmosphere, to arrogate to himself the hidden work- ing of nature in the form of energy... This same defiant man is incapable of saying simply what is; of saying what this is, that a thing is.80
Heidegger's hand is tied to the terrestrial order. Thus, it does not grasp the human future. Human beings have long since stopped dwelling between 'earth' and 'sky'. On the way towards the un-thinged [Unbedingtheit], they will also leave the 'mortals' and the 'divinities' behind. The last things (τὰ ἔσχατα) will also have to be elimi- nated. Human beings soar up towards the un-thinged, the unconditioned. We are headed towards a trans- human and post-human age in which human life will be a pure exchange of information. Human beings shed their being be-thinged, their facticity, even though this is precisely what makes them what they are. 'Human' is derived from humus, that is, soil. Digitalization is a resolute step along the way towards the abolition Of the humanum. The future Of humans seems mapped out: humans will abolish themselves in order to posit themselves as the absolute .
Notes

57. According to Hannah Arendt: Hannah Arendt — Martin Heidegger: Letters 1925-1975, Orlando: Harcourt, 2004, p. 154.
58. Heidegger, What is Called Thinking?, p. 16 (transl. amended).
59. Martin Heidegger, Parmenides, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998, p. 85.
60. Ibid., p. 81.
61. Ibid.
62. Ibid.
63. Ibid., p. 85.
64. Martin Heidegger, 'Johann Peter Hebel', in Reden und andere Zeugnisse eines Lebensweges, 1910—1976, Gesamtausgabe, vol. 16, Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 2000, pp. 530-3; here: p. 532.
65. Martin Heidegger, 'Anaximander's Saying (1946)', in Off the Beaten Track, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp. 242-81; here: p. 260.
66. Heidegger, Being and Time, p. 98.
67. Martin Heidegger, 'The Origin of the Work of Art', in Off the Beaten Track, pp. 1—56; here: p. 14.
68. Ibid., p. 13.
69. Ibid., p. 13f.
70. Ibid., p. 14.
71. Ibid., p. 15.
72. Martin Heidegger, 'The Pathway', in Heidegger: The Man and the Thinker, ed. Thomas Sheehan, Chicago: Precedent Publishing, 1981, pp. 69—71; here: p. 71 (transl. amended). Note that the text is not included in the book's table of contents.
73. Martin Heidegger, 'The Thing', in Poetry, Language, Thought, New York: Harper & Row, 1971, pp. 164—84; here: p. 178.
74. Ibid, p. 177.
75. Ibid, p. 180.
76. Martin Heidegger, 'Anaximander's Saying (1946)', p. 276 (transl. amended).
77. Martin Heidegger, Why Poets?' , in Off the Beaten Track, pp. 200—41; here: pp. 223f.
78. Martin Heidegger, 'The Thing', p. 179
79. Martin Heidegger, 'The Question Concerning Technology', in The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, New York: Garland Publishing, 1977, pp. 3—35; here: p. 23.
80. Martin Heidegger, 'Anaximander's Saying (1946)', pp. 280f.

 Salvador Dali, "Archeological Reminiscence of Millet's Angelus" (1935)

88 comments:

  1. And... nothing. I collect and save all articles I can find written by or largely about Slavoj Zizek and now Byung-Chul Han to learn why they think the way they do, and their influences. Han seems to have been greatly influenced by Heidegger.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I understand that much.

    U meaned -- what's the point?

    Are you biographer of his/them? Wannabe?

    ReplyDelete
  3. And how's your homework? Then.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Learning... that is not about seeking. AFAIK. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Slavoj Zizek has been called "the most dangerous philosopher in the West". as he calls himself a communist, I wanted to know if he was.

    "Know thy enemy as thyself." Sun Tzu.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Byung-Chul Han is a German/South Korean philosopher who IMO, understands the West better than the West understands itself.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If you wanted to know "Russia"... you would know Aleksandr Dugin.

    I do not find Dugin very "dangerous".

    ReplyDelete
  8. \\I do not find Dugin very "dangerous".

    Of course.
    Because he is nobody. Kind of your tinfoil conspirologists... those who have own auditory, can sell books to them, have lectures.


    \\Byung-Chul Han is a German/South Korean philosopher who IMO, understands the West better than the West understands itself.

    Yep.
    It's easier to discern things from afar.
    That's why I lurking here... ;-P



    \\Slavoj Zizek has been called "the most dangerous philosopher in the Wes

    Russian jokes - Wikipedia
    en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Russian_jokes
    Russian jokes are short fictional stories or dialogs with a punch line, which commonly ... "Oh, that's Uncatchable Joe. Nobody has ever managed to catch him ...

    ReplyDelete
  9. If I were a Ukrainian or American Intelligence Analyst, I'd be running ChatGTP on their works developing attack and defense strategies.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ...but as I am not, I must do my work the old fashioned way. Learning.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ...and if Dugin was a "nobody"... why was he on Ukraine's hit list and his daughter accidently killed in a bombing of his car?

    ReplyDelete
  12. After my ChatGTP developed my attack/defense strategies, I'd use those as a basis for another ChatGTP analysis pitting my Dugin expert against the Han and Zizek experts and generate probable scenarios of conflict and likely outcomes.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The bigger the "curated" databases used, the more accurate the results... IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have a feeling if we were all "that" smart, there'd be no need for any "battles" other than in government and corporate boardrooms.

    ReplyDelete
  15. ...but then, what am I saying, its' most likely already been done. Thanks for volunteering to be the CIA's meat for this "real world" simulation verification. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  16. \\...and if Dugin was a "nobody"... why was he on Ukraine's hit list and his daughter accidently killed in a bombing of his car?

    Just make it a lesson in tracking of disinformation -- where and from who you know that "Dugin was in Ukraine's hit list". ;-P

    Bonus question: Why FSB (Russia's specops) was so eloquent about "definite killers", they knew everything about... but was unable to prevent? ;-P

    And most important: Where's body of that "daugther"?? ;-)



    \\I have a feeling if we were all "that" smart, there'd be no need for any "battles" other than in government and corporate boardrooms.

    Really. You know too little of Lem. (only phylosopher worthy of learning from... but that, my biased delusion, yeah :-P)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Please. I'm just spinning "conspiracy theories". What do I know? I'm just a humble salaried bourgeois amateur philosophy student.

    Maybe we should develop a Stanslaw LEM ChatGTP expert and see how he does in the simulations...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Poor me, I must dream like an old fashioned Kwisatz Haderach... not a legendary Lisan al Gaib.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sorry for pushing you to an edge. That is what I learned from Lem. Or... that is just my natural nastiness shows itself. ;-P
    I beg myself a pardon here, and will leave it for you to decide -- what else topic/sphere/person(?) to discuss next. Or... for me to shuddup.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Don't apologize. It's half the fun. Pushing boundaries.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Well... I'd like to find somebody else. An par with Lem. One who can be a lanthern into the future.
    But AFAIK I know noone more.

    So, only other chance I see -- is to embark on my own.
    Through that new tech I tryed to explain and adverise here...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sorry, I will never be what you'd like me to be. It's up to you to surpass Lem.

    ReplyDelete
  23. There's some implicit leyer that I do noy phatome AT ALL.

    Where this "I will never be what you'd like me to be" coming from, for example?

    Where I tryed to impose my values on you? Is it so obvious in your culture -- if one hear about someone talking about OWN ideas and preferences -- to assume that that MUST MEAN some push to take it as yours???

    I really dunno.

    But, if the answer is YES... it can explain to me something about USAians...

    ReplyDelete
  24. Yes, I sensed from your statement that you wished you were discoursing with someone with a greater knowledge and appreciation of Lem. I was just telling you that I would likely never be that person. I'm sure that Lem is a great philosopher and writer... but I am not a futurist and sci-fi lover so much as a student of psychology and ancient history. You look forwards. I look backwards like Klee's "Angelus Novus" and as Walter Benjamin's "Angels of History" to see forward.

    ReplyDelete
  25. \\Yes, I sensed from your statement that you wished you were discoursing with someone with a greater knowledge and appreciation of Lem.

    We-e-ell, in a sense, yes. :-)
    But more-less jockingly/friendly.
    Like wink-wink, nudge-nudge. :-P

    But more directly (and seriously) it was reaction to your "...and going beyond."

    As proposal of a game -- "Well... I'd like to find somebody else. An par with Lem" -- to share other instances of "lantherns into Future" with me.
    Lem -- was just an example of such, in this case. And... do you really think that I am SO small-minded,,, and zealous??? :-)))

    Well, I was proposing one in our prev converstions -- Stephan Wolfram.


    \\I was just telling you that I would likely never be that person.

    Do I really look like that to you.
    While having such a rare chance of meeting with someone who seems like live and kicking (in sense of intelligence), and waste it in such a stupid way? (shy)


    \\I'm sure that Lem is a great philosopher and writer... but I am not a futurist and sci-fi lover so much as a student of psychology and ancient history. You look forwards. I look backwards like Klee's "Angelus Novus" and as Walter Benjamin's "Angels of History" to see forward.

    Think Different! ;-P

    I feel no problem.... as far as you'd feel yourself interested. Right?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Right.

    And as for adding luminaries other than Lem to your list, that is difficult. My habit has always been to progress one philosopher at a time. I'm pretty well done w/Zizek now... and have just started on Byung-Chul Han. My "method" is to explore an entire ouvre before moving on. I may be a while sucking the marrow out of Han's bones. Perhaps we can agree upon the "next" steps (beyond Han) or you can select someone, and we can cross-pollinate and audit each other's thoughts. I prefer to progress chronologically, but we don't have to. Perhaps someone writing after 2000?

    Or we can just go as we have been, you contributing Lem's thoughts to subjects as they strike you? Your choice. Strictly voluntary.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Stephen Wolfram might be a good choice. I admit to knowing very little about him other than he's some kind of mathematical genius.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'm probably way too dumb to even attempt Wolfram though. His bio tells me he's way out of my league (reading his books). Zizek and Han are good at "dumbing it down".

    ReplyDelete
  29. I'd bet that Stephen Wolfram and Rhawn Joseph would make great college roommates.

    ReplyDelete
  30. \\And as for adding luminaries other than Lem to your list, that is difficult.

    And we'll do it "not because they are easy, but because they are hard;"? ;-)

    I have same problem.
    But, it makes it valuable... I think.


    \\Or we can just go as we have been, you contributing Lem's thoughts to subjects as they strike you? Your choice. Strictly voluntary.

    Problem is... Lem is not like other phylosophers.
    Well, he laughed at all of them, merrily.
    He did not profuced corpus of text directed at our mundane world problems (like, how to venerate and suck up to those who have power... and etc).

    And... I meaned not only, or not mostly phylosophers.

    Do you know Lenat for example?



    ReplyDelete
  31. \\I'm probably way too dumb to even attempt Wolfram though. His bio tells me he's way out of my league (reading his books).

    I'm going through short summary and rebuff of his NKS now. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  32. Douglas Lenat? He's another AI guy. Not my field. I'm more philosophy and psychoanalysis.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Excellent.

    I would like to psycoanalyse him. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  34. Well... there's more coloquial choice -- Elon Musk. With his ideas of Conquering Mars. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  35. So? Does one need to be crazy to be successful? ;-P


    Well, Lenat sounds cheerful. And his ideas are compelling... at least technically, for me.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Willing to "use others" to achieve goals? Pre-Requisite, hence sociopath.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ok.

    Next question then. ;-P

    How to became crazy? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  38. Roughly 4% to as high as 12% of CEOs exhibit psychopathic traits, according to some expert estimates, many times more than the 1% rate found in the general population and more in line with the 15% rate found in prisons.

    ReplyDelete
  39. btw - A corporation is an entity best operated within a Disciplinary Society, but also amenable to a modern Society of Control. :P

    ReplyDelete
  40. How to became crazy? This will sound overly simplistic but all you need to do is achieve more power and it will develop "naturally". Crazy people w/o power are ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The herd will follow the rest, and "normalize" their craziness.

    ReplyDelete
  42. \\Roughly 4% to as high as 12% of CEOs exhibit psychopathic traits, according to some expert estimates, many times more than the 1% rate found in the general population and more in line with the 15% rate found in prisons.


    Or... that is acqured traut. ;-)

    Imagin only -- need to talk day-to-day with people like TC or Derpy. ;-P



    \\btw - A corporation is an entity best operated within a Disciplinary Society, but also amenable to a modern Society of Control. :P


    I need Skunkworks Workshop, not corporation. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  43. I would be concerned that he is a fraud.

    from Wiki:

    Sharing an office and working closely with the Centre for Effective Altruism, the institute's stated objective is to focus research...

    The Center for Effective Altruism is a scam of Sam Bankman-Fried, the crypto currency scammer.

    ReplyDelete
  44. SBF's brother just resigned from its' board... and his shady family has lots of ties to it.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Yeah... destiny of "lantherns" who are TOO premature.

    You must be heared about Tesla. Nicola Tesla. Aslo a fraud?


    Well, that what about Yudkowsky?
    Closest to a phylosopher I can propose.


    Or.. you cans trart proposing your bunch. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  46. What can I say, his "funding source" was a fraud, it doesn't mean his tech is. SBF could have been using his Institute to provide a cover of "respectability" for his fraudulent enterprise.

    ReplyDelete
  47. He... victim of his promices. :-(((

    Warning for people like me.



    \\...and yes, Yudokowski is affiliated with the same Institute as Drexler.

    What about his ideas? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  48. Like I said, SBF might have been using them as a cover for his fraud.

    But let me say this, Elon Musk seems to be sponsoring this Institute at Oxford, along with its' American twin at MIT.

    All roads lead to Musk.

    ReplyDelete
  49. It's as if nothing's changed since the 1750s when the "Royal Society" ran everything, before the APS was founded.

    ReplyDelete
  50. \\...and that's pretty scary, if you ask me.

    And Chinese trying to teach their people to be inventive -- do not scare you? ;-P

    So, what is in your list?

    I pretty much exhausted my... who else I can point out to... to share for us both?

    ReplyDelete
  51. I suppose I don't have a list. Byung-Chul Han is the line of thought I'm following now... and I haven't uncovered a new line worth persuing yet.

    AI doesn't really float my boat. It lacks a "human" element... a psychology, so to speak. What is the psychology of a computer? Is it the same as a human? Or is all the psychology in the "program" that the human puts into it?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Than you should look into "chinese room argument" of Chomsky. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  53. Chomsky's a fraud. But that doesn't make him wrong about this.

    Do you follow RCS? They occassionally post interest new stuff...

    ReplyDelete
  54. AI is so 2D FLAT. It has no "depth" (3D+) It can only calculate with the "depth" its' been given to learn from. Chinese.

    ReplyDelete
  55. \\https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy_of_the_divided_line

    Well... isn't that Theory of AI... well, natural intelligence -- but is it possible to build anything artifical... without studing *natural* thing first?

    ReplyDelete
  56. \\Chomsky's a fraud. But that doesn't make him wrong about this.

    Well... you can try to protect his Tower of Thought in his absence? ;-P

    Like in showdown between Intlligence is Pre-engineered VS Inteligence is Emergent...

    But... I think both are wrong. Like that ancient phylosophers that discussed which "type of matter" are primal and most imortant. ;-P

    There is level of discussions -- on which Truth CANNOT be achieved.
    That is MAIN idea I learned from Lem. (Not sure if that is what he'd like to teach ;-P)
    I apply to his ideas too. ;-)


    \\Do you follow RCS? They occassionally post interest new stuff...

    For my regrets, I stoped tracking sci and tech news... by obvious reason.


    \\AI is so 2D FLAT. It has no "depth" (3D+) It can only calculate with the "depth" its' been given to learn from. Chinese.

    Yep.
    But the same as with DNA... mutations happen.

    And China itself is damn big pot for that mutations to brew (as we know it today even with our coughing ;-P)

    Yearlier... that is USA, which was that Biggest Pot...
    but YOU want it to be NO MORE, with your isolationism ideas.

    That's what makes me puzzled to no end -- WHY would one cut off oneself from one's biggest advantage.
    But well, answer is too damn obvious -- self preservation. Which makes one uneasy to take risks, beware of changes.

    ReplyDelete
  57. So what's about Yudkowsky's idea of Rationality, still? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  58. \\Synthetic intelligence (SI) is an alternative/opposite term for artificial intelligence emphasizing that the intelligence of machines need not be an imitation or in any way artificial; it can be a genuine form of intelligence.[1][2] John Haugeland proposes an analogy with simulated diamonds and synthetic diamonds—only the synthetic diamond is truly a diamond.[1] Synthetic means that which is produced by synthesis, combining parts to form a whole; colloquially, a human-made version of that which has arisen naturally. A "synthetic intelligence" would therefore be or appear human-made, but not a simulation.

    That is... just words.
    To that have a TECH... or idea of a tech, that would allow to make it???

    ReplyDelete
  59. “I’m you from the future! I don’t have much time so you need to listen to this!! It turns out it’s really, really important not just for you to worry about other people steel-manning you, but for you to steel man–” then the portal closed up.

    Then a boy’s voice said, calmly and quietly, “Steel man? Like… robots?”

    ReplyDelete
  60. \\I think I like Yudkowsky...

    Yap.
    But I don't like revisionism. So I never read updated versions.

    What they'd do they? Harry and Malfoy already married? As gay, or TG couple? ;-P


    ReplyDelete
  61. \\https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2023/01/19/duolingo_is_probably_a_better_alzheimers_treatment_than_the_newest_breakthough_drug_876476.html

    ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  62. https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/03/whats-wrong-with-string-theory.html

    At least read the end. Conclusion. Priceless. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  63. Aha... like in broken calculator. :-)))

    ReplyDelete
  64. Well... there was more detailed report from arstechnica. ;-P

    But, would you care to read it. Some actual info... that not on YouTube. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  65. Still, text is more comprehensive, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete