Relevant in the Thiel discussion, our very own Vitalik Buterin being
awarded the Thiel Fellowship and $100,000:



[1]http://newsbtc.com/2014/06/05/vitalik-buterin-awarded-thiel-fellowsh
ip/



Maybe Thiel isn't so bad after all.



--
Paul Buitink
paulbuitink@???





On Tue, Jun 3, 2014, at 10:19 PM, Robert Jakob wrote:

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 <[2]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 <[3]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 <[4]marvin@???

<[5]mailto:marvin@hardopdenken.nl>> 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 <[6]josh@???

<[7]mailto:josh@thinkfenix.com>> 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

<[8]author@???

<[9]mailto:author@anonymousbitcoinbook.com>> wrote:



"Officially incorporated in May 2003, Palantir is generally

considered to have been founded in 2004 by Peter Thiel

<[10]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel>, Alex Karp, Joe Lonsdale

<[11]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lonsdale>,^<[12]http://en.wikiped
ia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies#cite_note-4>

Stephen Cohen

<[13]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Cohen_%28entrepreneur%29>,
and

Nathan Gettings. Early investments were $2 million from the US

Central Intelligence Agency

<[14]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency> venture

arm In-Q-Tel <[15]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel>, and $30

million from Thiel and his firm, Founders Fund <[16]http://en.wikiped

_______________________________________________

unSYSTEM mailing list: [17]http://unsystem.net

[18]https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem





_______________________________________________

unSYSTEM mailing list: [19]http://unsystem.net

[20]https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem




_______________________________________________

unSYSTEM mailing list: [21]http://unsystem.net

[22]https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem



_______________________________________________

unSYSTEM mailing list: [23]http://unsystem.net

[24]https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem




_______________________________________________

unSYSTEM mailing list: [25]http://unsystem.net

[26]https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem

References

1. http://newsbtc.com/2014/06/05/vitalik-buterin-awarded-thiel-fellowship/
2. mailto:josh@thinkfenix.com
3. mailto:genjix@riseup.net
4. mailto:marvin@hardopdenken.nl
5. mailto:marvin@hardopdenken.nl
6. mailto:josh@thinkfenix.com
7. mailto:josh@thinkfenix.com
8. mailto:author@anonymousbitcoinbook.com
9. mailto:author@anonymousbitcoinbook.com
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel
11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lonsdale
12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies#cite_note-4
13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Cohen_%28entrepreneur%29
14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency
15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel
16. http://en.wikiped/
17. http://unsystem.net/
18. https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
19. http://unsystem.net/
20. https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
21. http://unsystem.net/
22. https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
23. http://unsystem.net/
24. https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
25. http://unsystem.net/
26. https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem