Wow, Congrats to Vitalik. I have applied for the thiel fellowship before
but didn't get picked, it is a very selective award and is well deserved by
whoever gets it.


On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Paul Buitink <paulbuitink@???>
wrote:

> Relevant in the Thiel discussion, our very own Vitalik Buterin being
> awarded the Thiel Fellowship and $100,000:
>
> http://newsbtc.com/2014/06/05/vitalik-buterin-awarded-thiel-fellowship/
>
> 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 <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
>
>
>
> *_______________________________________________*
> 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
>
>