I would have to say in looking at all the evidence we have so far, the
question of whether technology is inherently good or evil cannot be
answered until technology becomes conscious. As of right now technology
has been a utility for us to accomplish some task. I would have to agree
with Heidegger that technology, physics, mathematics, really any science,
and I would argue even art exists independent of man. We conduct
experiments to reveal truths of the world we live in and as a consequence
new technology is discovered. Man creates morality and therefore only man
can say what is good or evil, not technology. Heidegger briefly compared
technology to stars and constellations. I think that is an appropriate
metaphor for technology as a construct of morality. The stars have existed
for millions of years before man, but man connects the dots, creates the
stories, man creates the tools for navigating oceans. Suddenly, technology
reveals itself.


I've never read this essay before, but this is my favorite part:

As soon as what is unconcealed
no longer concerns man even as object, but does so, rather, exclusively as
standing-reserve, and man in the midst of objectlessness is nothing but the
orderer of the standing-reserve, then he comes to the very brink of a
precipitous
fall; that is, he comes to the point where he himself will have to be taken
as
standing-reserve. Meanwhile man, precisely as the one so threatened,
exhalts himself
to the posture of lord of the earth. In this way the impression comes to
prevail
that everything man encounters exists only insofar as it is his construct.
This illusion
gives rise in turn to one final delusion: It seems as though man everywhere
and always encounters only himself.


This is what I was talking about before with the exponential function of
technological progress. Very soon it will come to a precipice [Alan Moore
says this is human-beings becoming steam]. This could either lead to a
complete collapse or it will result in the singularity and the waking of
the machines, a new technology, a new evolution in consciousness to pickup
where we left off. Then, we will be forced to face the questions of
whether or not machines can have morals. What would be their agenda or
purpose? And would we play a role in their future? Was this our final
destiny all along?

Man becomes, as it were, the sex organs of the machine world, as the bee of
the plant world, enabling it to fecundate and to evolve ever new forms. The
machine world reciprocates man's love by expediting his wishes and desires,
namely, in providing him with wealth.

-Marshall McLuhan


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Josh Walker <josh@???> wrote:

> (High points bold, mostly to break up the text: I find myself often too
> ADD to bother scaling walls of unformatted prose, so it seemed polite to
> ask no more of my own readers. I trust you can all forgive me this
> contrivance if it doesn't suit you.)
>
> I bet some SW guys feel like their code is artful. Indeed, good* coding
> is part art*. It's art because it isn't easily made objective: Like art,
> "beautiful" code is hard to quantify, and for now, kinda requires humans.
>
> We're getting to the point where some *art can be described
> algorithmically*. Computer-generated recipes that astound food critics by
> being innovative and unconventional yet delicious are a recent example of
> this. IBM's Watson is tangentially related.
>
> As this permeates all fields of traditional "art" we will see that all *art
> is science* and all science is art. Then and only then will we be able to
> bridge the gap between tech being neutral and tech being something more:
> Because of *course* some tech has more bad uses and some more good uses.
>
> But it's the uses that count, and until we can objectively enumerate
> these, I lump it and say *tech is neutral *on its own, at least for tech
> that cannot control tech autonomously (referring to strong AI, which itself
> still had a creator, at least around earthparts). Because by the time the
> species is fully augmented and transhumanism has arrived, the argument will
> be moot, for everyone will intuitively understand the nuances.
>
> …
>
> The fact is, I cannot even say for sure *whether humans are good or bad*.
> I am one, and I think the balance of probability is that we are good, but I
> may be biased by my human-ness. This itself is a lengthy philosophical
> discussion which I'd greatly enjoy having with some of you rare breeds of
> thinkers.
>
> The summary of it is, if we assume it is preferable that the present
> iteration of our universe last longer and not shorter, before collapsing
> and beginning anew—this is our current understanding, that there is a *cosmological
> "circle of life" *where the Big Bang is both a beginning and an end—then
> the unknown purpose of our existence may be to be Neo to the universe's
> Smith. Or we may be Smith?
>
> But humanity appears no different to me than the AI we are creating. *Humans
> are the strong AI of the universe*, however we got here, and we may not
> be alone in this capacity. For me this is all fairly clear, although as the
> result of literally the entirety of my thinking years until this point
> there is no easy way to fully describe over such a short email monologue.
>
>
> On Jun 3, 2014, at 17:45, Amir Taaki <genjix@???> wrote:
>
> is art utility? is art political? is code art?
>
> On 06/03/2014 11:41 PM, Josh Walker wrote:
>
> Tech is always neutral. It's an inanimate object. It's as neutral as
>
> trees or roads or balls of string.
>
>
> People use tech, and without people, tech does nothing. People are never
>
> completely neutral. Therein lies the paradox. But tech cannot feel or
>
> think or act. (Let's ignore the looming issue of strong AI for now.)
>
>
> But yes, tech alone is just "lights, and clockwork."
>
>
> On Jun 3, 2014, at 15:52, Marvin Fernandes <marvin@???
>
> <mailto:marvin@hardopdenken.nl <marvin@???>>> wrote:
>
>
> Will tech be neutral if you take "affordance" in de equation?
>
> Some tech makes more bad them Good possible.
>
>
>
> Middelerwijl een schoon wees
>
> gegroet,
>
> Marvin Fernandes
>
> 0624559753
>
>
>
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn Sinclair Spectrum
>
>
> Op 31 mei 2014 om 07:03 heeft Josh Walker <josh@???
>
> <mailto:josh@thinkfenix.com <josh@???>>> het volgende
> geschreven:
>
>
> While I'd agree we shouldn't even BE over in the sand, I don't see
>
> evil on the forehead of the guy who founded PayPal with Elon Musk and
>
> the rest, and did whatever Palantir does which seemingly includes
>
> detecting IEDs.
>
>
> Some of you guys lean a *lot* more toward what I'd call AnCom. I'm
>
> pretty squarely an AnCapper. The guys who build the A-bomb aren't
>
> responsible for its misuse. Tech is tech. If bad shit happens with
>
> Palantir tech without Thiel's approval or knowledge, it's not Thiel
>
> I'm coming for. He's only responsible for his actions, and to the
>
> degree he can estimate the future, his lack of action as well.
>
>
> The balance of where that lies―how much of the future can one be
>
> reasonably expected to foresee―is indeed the sticking point. Should
>
> the A-bomb have never been made, because of that? It seems that it
>
> would be made sooner or later anyway; and, there are innumerable
>
> legitimate and beneficial uses for the tech too.
>
>
> I'd be curious to know what your take on the plot of Iron Man was.
>
> And if you liked the message, I'd recommend you contemplate where you
>
> fit on the Anarchist spectrum, and whether you're consistent about
>
> your values.
>
>
> If guns and gun manufacturers are neutral, and all the other stuff we
>
> generally believe around these parts, I don't see how you can say
>
> Palantir itself is anything but neutral without being hypocritical.
>
> The other side says the same shit about Cody making 3D-printable
>
> guns. Either individuals are responsible and tech is neutral, or not,
>
> but you've got to pick one.
>
>
> ―J
>
>
>
>
> On May 30, 2014, at 22:02, Kristov Atlas
>
> <author@???
>
> <mailto:author@anonymousbitcoinbook.com <author@???>>>
> wrote:
>
>
> "Officially incorporated in May 2003, Palantir is generally
>
> considered to have been founded in 2004 by Peter Thiel
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel>, Alex Karp, Joe Lonsdale
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lonsdale>,^<
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies#cite_note-4>
>
> Stephen Cohen
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Cohen_%28entrepreneur%29>, and
>
> Nathan Gettings. Early investments were $2 million from the US
>
> Central Intelligence Agency
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency> venture
>
> arm In-Q-Tel <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel>, and $30
>
> million from Thiel and his firm, Founders Fund <http://en.wikiped
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>