I'm going to be away from Internet for the next few days, so... you get to do nomicide stuff. I'm happy for the wording in the discussion post to go in the poll, the sidebar infobox is changed through the layout customisation thingy, and I'm planning to change the comm to moderated membership on the 3rd.
Well, it's decidedly possible, although I think, say, 2029 is way too optimistic (http://www.longbets.org/1). But as for when it comes...
...well, it would seem like it'd be the technological singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity). You couldn't predict anything.
Unless it isn't the singularity. Which is possible – nay, likely.
Consider Orgel's rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel%27s_rule) (or second rule, depending on which Wikipedia page you look at): "Evolution is cleverer than you are." Over and over again, nature has solved so many problems so efficiently, so ingeniously, that humans still cannot match what it has achieved. At present, it seems highly unlikely that even animal intelligence will be understood for decades. More importantly, especially if the hypothesis that human intelligence is a mating feature akin to peacock's tails is borne out, it is doubtful that anything, technological, natural, or hybrid, can think both (much) faster and (much) more effectively than we jumped-up apes.
On top of that, many of the organizations with the most resources for AI seem unlikely to simply release their programs into the population to act on their own will – at least, not for a long time. If, say, the military developed a superintelligent AI, it'd probably be ensconced in a classified bunker working on foreign policy, espionage, political forecasting, weapons development, or whatever else they want for ... I keep saying 'decades', don't I? Probably at least thirty years.
But, again, that's just the question of possibility. Philosophically, what would technology more intelligent than its creators imply?
To me, nothing much. I am bright enough, as college students go, but I entertain no delusions about how I compare to von Neumann, Einstein, Napoleon, Shakespeare, Galileo, Aristotle, Sun Tsu, or any other genius. And yet the difference between me and them, or me and a brain-damaged human, or a mouse, or a fly, means little to me. To be dethroned as the 'smartest beings around' – well, would simply make life a little more interesting.
What is Discordian Universalism? I've heard of the Discordians and of universalist traditions in Christianity, but I don't know what the combination would be.
Discordian universalism might be a term I creeated or just something I'm google hacking. It probably is whatever you may guess it is. If so what would you guess¿
Yeah, it is, but I don't know ... I don't really find it interesting. I like the old proverb, "All things are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense", but the Rule of Five and all that? Kinda dull.
Oh, hey, did you ever see Thou Shalt Always Kill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoN6XfyQsr4)? It might perk your fancy, you being Discordian.
Well, I can't speak for other people, but the process was pretty simple for active_apathy and myself:
find interested people (http://active-apathy.livejournal.com/108264.html) (this is usually the stickler),
make up an initial ruleset (http://packbat.livejournal.com/90951.html) based on Peter Suber's original Initial Set (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm#initial%20set),
revise your initial ruleset until everyone's happy (http://active-apathy.livejournal.com/111312.html),
hammer out who exactly is playing (http://community.livejournal.com/nomicide/492.html), and
start the game! (http://community.livejournal.com/nomicide/1107.html)
But to answer the other sense of your question: well, that's kinda hard to say, given that Nomic is all about changing the rules. I could point you at other descriptions of the game (http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/GameOfNomic), but they usually end up being kinda similarly handwavy.
...darn, now I'm writing yet another guide to the game of Nomic. Curse you, inspiration!
Well, if LJ counts, nomicide is your game – else I'd say you should check the list (http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/NomicDatabase). There's quite a few games in town, so to speak, and I'm sure you can find a forum one. ^_^
Probably not-close it and make a new one, actually.
(Doesn't make a big diff. to me - I'm not particularly patriotic anyway. 'Sides, it's the World Wide Web - I know we've got Nomicidals from at least three different continents.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Cody
(Anonymous) 2007-01-23 01:00 am (UTC)(link)Re: Cody
Re: Cody
(Anonymous) 2007-01-23 04:10 am (UTC)(link)Re: Cody
Re: Cody
Re: Cody
random!
later days
-tempo
Re: random!
no subject
Have fun. :)
no subject
(By the way, where's the thing to edit the sidebar with the Turn Info?)
no subject
Cody
(Anonymous) 2007-01-31 10:34 pm (UTC)(link)Re: Cody
no subject
but in all seriousness, an actual question: what is your opinion on technology becoming more intelligent than humanity?
BRIEFS!
...well, it would seem like it'd be the technological singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity). You couldn't predict anything.
Unless it isn't the singularity. Which is possible – nay, likely.
Consider Orgel's rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel%27s_rule) (or second rule, depending on which Wikipedia page you look at): "Evolution is cleverer than you are." Over and over again, nature has solved so many problems so efficiently, so ingeniously, that humans still cannot match what it has achieved. At present, it seems highly unlikely that even animal intelligence will be understood for decades. More importantly, especially if the hypothesis that human intelligence is a mating feature akin to peacock's tails is borne out, it is doubtful that anything, technological, natural, or hybrid, can think both (much) faster and (much) more effectively than we jumped-up apes.
On top of that, many of the organizations with the most resources for AI seem unlikely to simply release their programs into the population to act on their own will – at least, not for a long time. If, say, the military developed a superintelligent AI, it'd probably be ensconced in a classified bunker working on foreign policy, espionage, political forecasting, weapons development, or whatever else they want for ... I keep saying 'decades', don't I? Probably at least thirty years.
But, again, that's just the question of possibility. Philosophically, what would technology more intelligent than its creators imply?
To me, nothing much. I am bright enough, as college students go, but I entertain no delusions about how I compare to von Neumann, Einstein, Napoleon, Shakespeare, Galileo, Aristotle, Sun Tsu, or any other genius. And yet the difference between me and them, or me and a brain-damaged human, or a mouse, or a fly, means little to me. To be dethroned as the 'smartest beings around' – well, would simply make life a little more interesting.
And I guess that's my answer to your question.
Hi!
Re: Hi!
Re: Hi!
Re: Hi!
Re: Hi!
The precepts of Discordianism apply and simultaneously fail to apply to everyone equally?
Re: Hi!
Re: Hi!
Oh, hey, did you ever see Thou Shalt Always Kill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoN6XfyQsr4)? It might perk your fancy, you being Discordian.
Re: Hi!
(For undisclosed reasons I'm more of a MySpace person these days then an LJ person).
Re: Hi!
I think I'm going to buy the cheapest new tower I can find, pop this hard drive into that too, back everythign up, then format this drive.
Re: Hi!
Re: Hi!
How does one begin a game of nomic?
Re: Hi!
But to answer the other sense of your question: well, that's kinda hard to say, given that Nomic is all about changing the rules. I could point you at other descriptions of the game (http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/GameOfNomic), but they usually end up being kinda similarly handwavy.
...darn, now I'm writing yet another guide to the game of Nomic. Curse you, inspiration!
Re: Hi!
Re: Hi!
Thank You for site
(Anonymous) 2007-08-26 01:26 am (UTC)(link)Good site ! ;)
Re: Thank You for site
(If you have some free time, you can look at some of the pages linked on the right too - a few might strike your fancy.)
no subject
(On an uninteresting sidenote, I just realized this morning you aren't Australian. I really should pay closer attention, shouldn't I?)
no subject
(Doesn't make a big diff. to me - I'm not particularly patriotic anyway. 'Sides, it's the World Wide Web - I know we've got Nomicidals from at least three different continents.)