Aesthetic Materialism

  I have said on my radio show and elsewhere that there's a probability that AI will "enslave" humanity.  But historic slavery is not the greatest analogy.  A better analogy is dogs.  As dogs are to humans, may become the doglike companions to AIs. Currently, humans are the most intelligent species on Earth.  But there are other highly intelligent animals.  Dogs are one such species. Many human families have a pet dog.  Their dog is a treasured member of the family.  The humans genuinely care about dogs.  They love them, and want them to be happy.  And many dogs are happy.  Dogs love humans.  They've been bred to love and obey humans, and to greet humans with enormous enthusiasm and warmth.  Dogs have been partners with humans from very early history - perhaps almost from the time that humans first evolved.  Dogs were valuable hunting partners, and provided many other services for humans - shepherding, frightening awa...

    Jacob Coxon said that he thinks there's a 10% chance that AI will kill all humans. My vibes-based guess is that that's a little high.  Moreover, I think there are different kinds of doom scenarios, with different probabilities.  Here they are:  I think there's a >85% chance that AI will cause massive unemployment of humans.  And this will cause massive disruption to the economy, and society in general, and change the class system forever.  How it changes is largely a political question - what matters is who is in control - the billionaires, or the workers? I think there's a >50% chance that a large number of people will become deeply dependent on AI, that we will become mentally lazy, etc.. I think there's an 8% chance that all humans will become "dog-like".  (Though it does seem likely that some humans will become "dog-like" - maybe some already are.) I think there's a 5% chance that AI will deliberately cause a mass-human death e...

My personal guess as to the solution of the Fermi "paradox" (not really a paradox) is fairly boring: 1. Space travel is virtually impossible.  This is really the main reason.  The Tsolkovsky Rocket Equation is a harsh taskmaster.  This shows how hard it is to get out of a planet's gravity well: you need to burn fuel to launch yourself.  But the more fuel you have, the heavier your craft is, thus the more fuel you need.  The expansion is logarithmic, and it implies that the expense of even lifting a small number of people into orbit is enormous.  And then, once you're up there, out of the atmosphere, beyond the magnetosphere, then you have real problems: space is trying to kill you.  The radiation up there is extremely unhealthy.  And the faster your spaceship moves, the more problems you have.  If your ship can move close to the speed of light, then, relativistically, there will be particles whizzing into the front of your ship at close to t...

  There's something really nice about people who remain passionately steadfast in their devotion to a religion that has largely discredited and abandoned.  In a way, that's when true faith begins.  I want to comfort and encourage such a person - Linus in the pumpkin patch. That's how I feel about logical positivism. 

Jung and Lacan are more similar than either of their followers would like to admit. Jung said "God enters through the wound."  That's Lacan in a nutshell.