Disaster Professor: Total Surveillance Is the Only Way to Save Humanity - The author of "The Simulation Argument" says one bad technology could destroy humanity — and the only way to prevent it is an AI overlord.

Professor: Total surveillance is the only way to save humanity

We're doomed to destroy ourselves if we don't embrace mass surveillance, he argues.

futurism.com

The Oxford philosopher who posited 15 years ago that we might be living in a computer simulation has another far-out theory, this time about humanity’s future — and it’s not exactly optimistic.

On Wednesday, Nick Bostrom took the stage at a TED conference in Vancouver, Canada, to share some of the insights from his latest work, “The Vulnerable World Hypothesis.”

In the paper, Bostrom argues that mass government surveillance will be necessary to prevent a technology of our own creation from destroying humanity — a radically dystopian idea from one of this generation’s preeminent philosophers.


Black Balls
Bostrom frames his argument in terms of a giant urn filled with balls. Each ball represents a different idea or possible technology, and they are different colors: white (beneficial), gray (moderately harmful), or black (civilization-destroying).

Humanity is constantly pulling balls from this urn, according to Bostom’s model — and thankfully, no one has pulled out a black ball yet. Big emphasis on “yet.”

“If scientific and technological research continues,” Bostrom writes, “we will eventually reach it and pull it out.”


Dystopian AF
To prevent this from happening, Bostrom says we need a more effective global government — one that could quickly outlaw any potential civilization-destroying technology.

He also suggests we lean into mass government surveillance, outfitting every person with necklace-like “freedom tags” that can hear and see what they’re doing at all times.

These tags would feed into “patriot monitoring stations,” or “freedom centers,” where artificial intelligences monitor the data, bringing human “freedom officers” into the loop if they detect signs of a black ball.


Two Evils
We’ve already seen people abuse mass surveillance systems, and those systems are far less exhaustive than the kind Bostrom is proposing.

Still, if it’s a choice between having someone watching our every move or, you know, the end of civilization, Bostrom seems to think the former is a better option than the latter.

“Obviously there are huge downsides and indeed massive risks to mass surveillance and global governance,” he told the crowd at the TED conference, according to Inverse. “I’m just pointing out that if we are lucky, the world could be such that these would be the only way you could survive a black ball.”

 

[Zersetzung]

nukes. we've been through this already. we've pulled a black ball twice actually. nukes are the big one though.

There are worse things, and ironically (or not) mass surveillance is what's providing the data for learning system weapons that could have, or maybe already have, consequences that reach much further while also being invisible and capable of producing precise memetic shields that prevent us from even asking the right questions about their use.

Like, here's some published military research regarding the use of social media to influence the opinions of not just individuals, but groups, as the cohesive sentiments of groups are seen as far more stable and self-maintaining. Clearly, the more data available for the purpose of mapping our networks of relationship, the more effective such a system would "influence the social group to a common desired state". Presumably that desired state is one in which your group is naive about its influences, because otherwise that becomes really meta and recursive fast which isn't ideal if you're a fucking Arsenal Gear.
Think of it like this: if your past is known and all of your inputs are recorded, then the system trying to predict (and influence) your behaviour is using the exact same data that you're making yourself out of, and at some resolution the uncertainty that your individuality lives in vanishes.

BTW, the Air Force research lab mentioned in that whitepaper is based at Eglin AFB. In the same year it was published, Reddit named Eglin Air Force Base the "Most Addicted City" in the world. Weird coincidence. Also probably coincidental that 2012 was the year that internet propaganda tools designed for use on foreign targets (meaning essentially zero restrictions on scope) were legalised for indiscriminate use on US citizens and the world.

Not saying nukes aren't horrific, but nerve staples are worse.
If we aren't even human anymore then what's the point of protecting anything.

 

[The Flawless Gazelles]

Nick Bostrom is a Swedish philosopher at the University of Oxford known for his work on existential risk, the anthropic principle, human enhancement ethics, superintelligence risks, and the reversal test.Wikipedia

can sweden not just die?

 

[dunbrine47]

Meh, I give it a 6.66/10.

 

[Billy_Sama]

And universities are starting to wonder why people and potential are going to trade schools to better themselves than be put under new think BS.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

outfitting every person with necklace-like “freedom tags”

I'm calling satire.

 

[BR55]

"Authoritarianism is bad!...Unless its our brand of Authoritarianism!"
Between this guy and Francis Fukuyama I think there is more then enough evidence that we just need to genocide Ivory Tower Academics.

 

[Tasty Tatty]

Dick Masterson explained this guy perfectly in a recent episode of his podcast.

Academic liberals have eradicated god but deeply desire to have that sortof presense. As a result, they've made it their duty to create god.

Not only God: they want to create a whole religion too, with norms and strict rules.

 

[Bongsnake McGee]

...And brits keep wondering why dystopian science fiction often portrays Britain as the neo-fascist dictatorship.

 

[FlightOfTheBumbleBee]

Sometimes a high IQ merely enables a more advanced form of retardation.

 

[thx1138]

David Gerrold's When HARLIE Was One has a similar presence; an AI acts out of self-preservation not by destroying humanity but by becoming it's ultimate (in its own mind, benevolent) dictator and renames itself the "Graphic Omniscient Device" or GOD (obviously).

A little less optimistically we have Colossus: The Forbin Project, where big C. decides that humans are too destructive and that it will take control of the world's nuclear arsenals (in the book, the Soviets have built a similar system with which Colossus networks itself, and then overwhelms and controls). The chief architect/programmer refuses to go along with it, so the computer orders a few loyal worshipers to violently rape his wife until he agrees to keep working on the project. The Pentagon derives a way to distract the computer with some recursive code while they work to disarm the nuclear arsenals; at the first one that is being manually disarmed, Colossus realizes something is wrong and detonates the warhead, killing hundreds who were on-site managing the disarming and announces to the world that if anyone ever tampers with it again it will exterminate a city as a punitive measure, but in the meantime, humanity must worship it and will grow to love it.

I don't think any AI we put in charge of us would be any less horrific.

 

[Bassomatic]

Ok so this guy says maybe we are living in my retarded larp dream, you know it's all a computer program, because of fuck all facts but I kinda like the idea.

So, trust me ban free speech.

People like him should be held down and put in the insulin coma they need so they are less a danger to themselves, and others spewing this nonsense. Isn't it funny, if the shoe was on the other foot (something this goober literally can not picture) that is EXACTLY what would happen, me saying I hope ill to him doesn't mean I'll ever raise my hand to him, just laughing and throwing some banter.

He's got every right to say it and he just is jerking off so hard on his cyber fantasy he wants to push the powers of the world to support it. It's some kind of Orwell verison of a troon who wants to force his fetish on the world.

Fuck people like that.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

Professor: Total surveillance is the only way to save humanity

We're doomed to destroy ourselves if we don't embrace mass surveillance, he argues.

futurism.com

The Oxford philosopher who posited 15 years ago that we might be living in a computer simulation has another far-out theory, this time about humanity’s future — and it’s not exactly optimistic.

On Wednesday, Nick Bostrom took the stage at a TED conference in Vancouver, Canada, to share some of the insights from his latest work, “The Vulnerable World Hypothesis.”

In the paper, Bostrom argues that mass government surveillance will be necessary to prevent a technology of our own creation from destroying humanity — a radically dystopian idea from one of this generation’s preeminent philosophers.

So, obviously, there were warning signs right at the beginning, which they were kind enough to let us know about immediately. A "philosopher" came up with this "theory" at a "Ted conference".
Ted Talks are interesting, but often factually deficient.
Philosophers are philosophers, the problem there speaks for itself I think.

Black Balls
Bostrom frames his argument in terms of a giant urn filled with balls. Each ball represents a different idea or possible technology, and they are different colors: white (beneficial), gray (moderately harmful), or black (civilization-destroying).

Humanity is constantly pulling balls from this urn, according to Bostom’s model — and thankfully, no one has pulled out a black ball yet. Big emphasis on “yet.”

“If scientific and technological research continues,” Bostrom writes, “we will eventually reach it and pull it out.”




Dystopian AF
To prevent this from happening, Bostrom says we need a more effective global government — one that could quickly outlaw any potential civilization-destroying technology.

He also suggests we lean into mass government surveillance, outfitting every person with necklace-like “freedom tags” that can hear and see what they’re doing at all times.

These tags would feed into “patriot monitoring stations,” or “freedom centers,” where artificial intelligences monitor the data, bringing human “freedom officers” into the loop if they detect signs of a black ball.

This is just so dumb. So fucking dumb.

So, his big fucking brilliant idea is that there are theoretical technologies that would destroy civilization, and if we keep inventing shit, we'll eventually invent one of those civilization destroyers. For some dumb reason he explains this as an urn full of different colored balls, probably because it makes the "theory" sound more substantial than something some stoners might have said at a college party.

Then, our genius doctor obvious proposes worldwide mass surveillance down to the individual, so if someone's about to invent one of these civilization destroying technologies, the monitoring agencies can... I dunno... stop them from inventing it?

Also, I guess nobody told Dr. Shitforbrains that his idea sounds like the blackest ball in the fucking urn. Nor, of course, does he go into any level of detail about how you would predict ahead of time whether a non-existent technology is civilization ending.

And yet Dr. Re.tardo, the ted talkingest philosophy professor this side of the special olympics, despite having no ideas about any of that, has a brilliant solution in mind! Just add more surveillance!

“Obviously there are huge downsides and indeed massive risks to mass surveillance and global governance,” he told the crowd at the TED conference, according to Inverse. “I’m just pointing out that if we are lucky, the world could be such that these would be the only way you could survive a black ball.”

Jesus, this part reads as if even he realized he had no fucking idea what he was even talking about. If we're "lucky"? "The world could be such that these would be the only way" fucking christ is that even a sentence or did he have a small stroke at that point?

 

[MadDamon]

Sometimes a high IQ merely enables a more advanced form of exceptionalism.

What makes you think that modern philosopher have high IQ? Most of the time they are just nerd with a narcissistic personality.

 

[mr.moon1488]

Professor: Total surveillance is the only way to save humanity

We're doomed to destroy ourselves if we don't embrace mass surveillance, he argues.

futurism.com

The Oxford philosopher who posited 15 years ago that we might be living in a computer simulation has another far-out theory, this time about humanity’s future — and it’s not exactly optimistic.

On Wednesday, Nick Bostrom took the stage at a TED conference in Vancouver, Canada, to share some of the insights from his latest work, “The Vulnerable World Hypothesis.”

In the paper, Bostrom argues that mass government surveillance will be necessary to prevent a technology of our own creation from destroying humanity — a radically dystopian idea from one of this generation’s preeminent philosophers.


Black Balls
Bostrom frames his argument in terms of a giant urn filled with balls. Each ball represents a different idea or possible technology, and they are different colors: white (beneficial), gray (moderately harmful), or black (civilization-destroying).

Humanity is constantly pulling balls from this urn, according to Bostom’s model — and thankfully, no one has pulled out a black ball yet. Big emphasis on “yet.”

“If scientific and technological research continues,” Bostrom writes, “we will eventually reach it and pull it out.”


Dystopian AF
To prevent this from happening, Bostrom says we need a more effective global government — one that could quickly outlaw any potential civilization-destroying technology.

He also suggests we lean into mass government surveillance, outfitting every person with necklace-like “freedom tags” that can hear and see what they’re doing at all times.

These tags would feed into “patriot monitoring stations,” or “freedom centers,” where artificial intelligences monitor the data, bringing human “freedom officers” into the loop if they detect signs of a black ball.


Two Evils
We’ve already seen people abuse mass surveillance systems, and those systems are far less exhaustive than the kind Bostrom is proposing.

Still, if it’s a choice between having someone watching our every move or, you know, the end of civilization, Bostrom seems to think the former is a better option than the latter.

“Obviously there are huge downsides and indeed massive risks to mass surveillance and global governance,” he told the crowd at the TED conference, according to Inverse. “I’m just pointing out that if we are lucky, the world could be such that these would be the only way you could survive a black ball.”

Somehow I knew this guy was British before I even clicked on this thread.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

Get ready to see more supposed "intellectuals" suggest and advocate for absolute nonsense for humanity's "own good".

 

[Cat Menagerie]

Somehow I knew this guy was British before I even clicked on this thread.

Worse. He's a Swede in Britain.

 

[mr.moon1488]

Worse. He's a Swede in Britain.

Good God, that's like mixing HIV with cancer.

 

[Unog]

Wow, I guess Pol Pot was actually right about something.

 

[thx1138]

Ted Talks are interesting, but often factually deficient.

I've seen one good TED talk, which was given by Defense consultant Thomas PM Barnett. I recommend it to anyone looking for a good "Where does the world's only hyperpower (the United States) go from here?"

Of course it is a little dated, because now we have to face the specter of a resurgent Russia (in terms of ambition, not capability), and so must at least somewhat practice for a shooting war in Central Europe again, vs. being what Barnett calls an "Admin Force" (that is, managing global disaster response and fighting internecine brushfire wars constantly, as we have from 2003 to present).

Anyway back to the topic at hand...

This is just so dumb. So fucking dumb.

So, his big fucking brilliant idea is that there are theoretical technologies that would destroy civilization, and if we keep inventing shit, we'll eventually invent one of those civilization destroyers. For some dumb reason he explains this as an urn full of different colored balls, probably because it makes the "theory" sound more substantial than something some stoners might have said at a college party.

Yes, it is. He's ignoring cases where "black ball" tech have been invented and then stepped back from: see the proposed "Pluto" Cruise Missile of the 1960s : a nuclear-ramjet hypersonic robot bomber that could stay aloft for months after a nuclear war, raining dozens of ten megaton nuclear warheads on targets it perceived as worthy of another bombing. Then when it was done it would shit out its horrifically radioactive engine all over the final target; the ultimate dirty bomb.

We didn't not invent it because the tech wasn't matured (it all was), we didn't not invent it because it wasn't cost-effective (it was cheaper than a wing of B58 Hustler bombers, an aircraft carrier, or a then-nascent nuclear armed submarine), we didn't invent it because we just didn't want to. A perfect "Berserker" robot (well, it couldn't reproduce like Saberhagen's titular killing machines, but still), that would've terrified the entire world. And we just didn't do it.

For God's sake, the South Africans had nuclear weapons, then decided the world was a less safe place and elected to disarm. Unilaterally.

Doesn't this brainlet think that there's someone at the CDC smart enough to invent an aerosolized long-living, say, HIV or Ebola strain? That they haven't means that his "black ball jar" is transparent (as do all of the examples above): we can see them and, for the most part, avoid them.

Someone give this asshole a copy of DOSBOX and SimCity 1 so he can live out his totalitarian power fantasies and let the rest of the world alone, please.

 

[donjulio]

George Orwell must be shaking in his grave so much that it's causing an earthquake.

Well there was that one in the Philippines just now.

Edit: if we could just harness the power generated by all these spinning graves we could solve so many problems.

Wow, I guess Pol Pot was actually right about something.

In some way perhaps these cruel dictators had a point all along. We just didn't listen.