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.”

 

[not william stenchever]

Besides nuclear war what black balls are left? Gray Goo? Man-made Black holes? Fusion power? We are talking about technologies that may not even be physically possible, nevermind world ending. Right into the realm of science fiction.

Hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery combined with the internet.

 

[The Great Chandler]

AM would like this idea.

 

[Dracula's Spirit Animal]

You can see in his eyes he knows mankind is fucked

Don't believe the hype. Orwell was one of the most exuberant, life and people loving men around. He was a harsh critic, but out of love and optimism. He detailed and warned, assuming people would understand his warnings. He was scathing, but not even remotely fatalistic.

Read The Road to Wigan Pier, Homage to Catalonia, Down and Out in Paris and London, Coming Up For Air, and Keep the Aspidistra Flying. 1984 and Animal Farm are his weakest books other than A Clergyman's Daughter.

 

[Wesley Willis]

Another fucking TED talk? They still do those?

 

[Zersetzung]

AM would like this idea.

please don't tell me how i feel, worm

Another fucking TED talk? They still do those?

`

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

Some argue that there is no genuine distinction between a sufficiently advanced simulated universe and a "real" universe, especially if the simulation has self aware entities contained within it, and/or the simulation and the "reality" can interact somehow (like with technology).

This seems to be obviously true to me.

Of course if we're living in a dream/simulation then there's no distinction between "real" and "simulated" or "dream" because that's all we have. That is what we know as real. Our "real" is the "simulation".

There's a distinction to be made whether you're talking about some "real", nonsimulated universe that contains a perfect simulation of itself, or whether the "real" nonsimulated universe even is anything like our "simulated" one.

In a sense, it's impossible for a universe to contain a perfect simulation of itself, as the entire universe is required to store all the information about the universe. At least, theoretically. However, if the "real" universe isn't anything like our "dream" world, then who is to say what's possible or not?

This is all classic solipsism, it comes down to the fact that in the end, all we know about our world is through our senses. We KNOW our senses can be fooled, it happens when we dream, it happens when we hallucinate. So who is to say our senses are giving us an accurate picture of the "world" we live in?

We do know that seemingly so far, our universe has been remarkably consistent, assuming our memories of said consistency are real. The rules seem to be applied universally. Of course, in a dream do you even notice the inconsistent logic?

That's why this is a philosophical question, rather than a scientific one. It's not falsifiable. Any challenge to it can be wrapped into the rules of the simulation. How can we make scientific inquiries if we can't trust history to be consistent? You have to assume it's NOT a simulation to trust your measurements enough to determine whether or not you're in a simulation.

All this is interesting philosophy, but it's silly that goofballs like professor dipshit here are acting like it's science or that we should be taking any action at all in reaction to it.

EDIT: Also, Ted talks are... inconsistent in quality and truthfulness. They just let some asshole who is an "expert" go up and say whatever. Sometimes it's useful and true, sometimes it's a load of horse shit. Sometimes it's a fucking made up experiment about goddamn chimps climbing to get bananas and sprayed with a firehose...

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

All this is interesting philosophy, but it's silly that goofballs like professor dipshit here are acting like it's science or that we should be taking any action at all in reaction to it.

Exactly. It's literally not science because of one simple hurdle: you have no means to test any part of it. Without that it's just asinine rambling to make yourself sound smart to other idiots.

 

[Kyria the Great]

Also I would rather that human society ends then we as a species be shackled to some 1984 hellhole for the rest of time. Be free or die trying to be.

I am exactly about this. I honestly feel when the human spirit dies, we will die as a species as what makes us human, free will, shall be so utterly crushed that we would be no better than machines.