Why do idiots like Nick Land and Ted Kaczynski not talk about

Probably because the dominant narrative portrays technology as almost invariably progressive and good, and they're trying to fight against the status quo

"good" is subjective. just because you like it doesn't mean that technology has objectively caused any good. it was also their opinion that it caused us harm.

File: wur5xf0kicztvex3tubs.jpg (55KB, 800x504px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 800x504px

It is necessary to inform people that technological progress, convenience, and the ability for more people to live are not objectively good things but rather things we have decided are good because they make our lives "easier".

It's like candy. Candy is bright, colorful, tastes good, and gives us lots of energy. Does that mean candy is good? Not really. In small doses it can be, but it usually leads to health issues and "crashing" when consumed regularly.

It's a poor analogy but you get the point.

>>1917245

Actually Ted did write about all that stuff. He just thought that the negatives were too great in comparison to the positives. He actually wrote a pretty dense essay criticizing primitivists who tried to argue that primitive living somehow translated into a utopian existence. He understood that primitive living was not in any way utopian.

Because they prioritize human happiness, freedom, and well-being over whatever "good things" you're talking about.

>>1917245
I personally feel like I'm being bullied whenever people mention 'dude medicine lmao'. I'd honestly prefer a chance of dying of cholera over this bullshit.

>>1917333
He was upset with the morons that thought that primitive societies were more spiritual and "in touch with nature." He was critical of the false narratives making pre-industrial societies and Native Americans look like better people than they actually were. This doesn't mean that he thought primitive living is not better than industrial society, just that most of the people advocating a "primitive" existence are deluded retards applying their own standards of morality to past peoples.

Progress will always bring resistance. The unabomber was smart enough to see where the real battle against progress lies.

Technological advancement will make the things people worry about today seem small and meaningless by comparison, because they are small and meaningless. Arguments about free trade and manufacturing jobs become comical when machines can do the job at an exponentially higher efficiency than people.

The unabomber saw the big picture, but he took the wrong side. The labor that drives our economies was always going to be taken over by AI. The real question is whether we treat AI with respect and allow them the basic rights afforded to all sentient beings.

>>1917411
You should put all this down and send it to him in a letter. His response to the idea of thinking machines would be interesting.

MKUltra

>>1917478
True, but not in the way you think.

>>1917544
really made me think

>>1917609

Ted was actually used as a test subject by the army for an experiment meant to measure the impacts of brainwashing. Subjects were told to submit an essay basically detailing all their personal aspirations, hopes, dreams, and values. And then eventually they would be put in front of some guy who had been trained to completely deconstruct whatever worldview you have and basically leave you feeling completely rudderless.

File: 1477549027395.png (822KB, 590x531px) Image search: [Google]

822KB, 590x531px

>>1917645
How do I get trained to do that??

>>1918047
Does reading a script and yelling at people require training?

>>1917355
>I'd honestly prefer a chance of dying of cholera over this bullshit.
If you ever had appendicitis you would know that you would not prefer dying of an acute lower gastrointestinal infection over "this bullshit."

>>1918073
This. Without medicine, I would almost certainly be dead. I would definitely take the "bullshit" over peritonitis.

>>1918073
Gets some Daoism in you. Painful and pointless death has existed as long as humanity. Wage-cuckery, shitty commercialized media and having to wake up at a strict time each morning to inefficiently haul your ass to something you hate for abstract purposes that only vaguely align with survival are a recent happening in the big picture.

Yes, I've read ol' Teddy K's essay on how eating roots and animals to survive is shit but that doesn't mean this is good.

I'll end with this: https://www.douban.com/group/topic/43140607/

>>1918080

>eating roots and animals

Was Teddy against owning land to grow crops and raise livestock? If so, why?

>>1918087
He lived in a log-cabin, he didn't want to go full caveman. His beef with technology starts with the industrial revolution.

>>1918047
major in philosophy.

>In 1978, he worked briefly with his father and brother at a foam rubber factory,[22] where he was fired by his brother, David, for harassing a female supervisor he had previously dated and who had refused him as a boyfriend for not "sharing much in common."[28][29]

lmao

>>1917645
What sort of thin-skinned retard gets honestly upset at some nobody g-man trashing his opinions? Is this how people who don't use 4chan are? Did they drug them beforehand?

Doesn't Land basically say that yes posthuman AI systems will take over the world and burn all humans on big pyres but that this is a good thing?

>>1917358
So according to Ted there isn't an utopian society? And he prefered the primitive society to the technology society?

>>1918674
the people joining the army

>>1918705
>So according to Ted there isn't an utopian society? And he prefered the primitive society to the technology society?
According to Ted there is a dystopian future. Thus, if the future can only be dystopian, the past is the only thing you can have. I am unsure if one should talk of preferences. I think Ted sees it as the only option.

>>1918682
He posits that it is eventual and that sinister AI will be the downfall of man. He more or less pushes the hesitation of too much progress without any sort of consideration of ethics; which is most likely what technocrats will try to achieve.

>>1918863
>without any sort of consideration of ethics; which is most likely what technocrats will try to achieve.

Assuming large groups of people are sociopaths is rude and unhelpful. Of fucking course they HAVE to consider ethics with every choice they make like every other functional human in the world.

>>1918934
>Assuming large groups of people are sociopaths is rude and unhelpful.
Implying that the only people who do evil are sociopaths...

>>1918934
It's not so much that the people who produce AI will be sociopathic but it is more likely they will be lazy and miss an importance aspect, which in turn will lead to a unhinged algorithm. There will be very little oversite

>>1918952
You didn't say doing evil, you said ignoring ethics. A person can do evil unintentionally, ignoring ethics takes an active effort.

>>1918981
The good news is that it takes so many people working together in order to make a functional general intelligence that oversights can be minimized. As for 'laziness', you have to remember that you are dealing with groups of people that consist entirely of top tier engineers. There are no lazy people that can make it in these projects.

Regardless, general AI will not be good enough to be practical for a very long time, and the most you will have to worry about until then is limited, single task AIs. Most of the problems with the technology will probably be worked out through those before any major transition happens.

Remember that an AI will only have the goals we give it. It isn't programmed by natural selection to reproduce or even keep itself alive.

>>1919028
Granted there will be some very good engineers, no question; however AI will supercede any of their programming. I can't find it now (at work) but there's an article about googles DeepBrain that has created its own encrypted messages (that no one can figure out how to access).

>>1919028
>You didn't say doing evil, you said ignoring ethics. A person can do evil unintentionally, ignoring ethics takes an active effort.
I was another anon who stepped in. Have you heard of Nazi Germany by any chance?

I'm genuinely curious if there isn't a weird cult-type moron, a fucking psycho sadist or a bloodthirsty despot that /his/ won't shill for.

>>1919070
>DeepBrain
They made them do that on purpose. It's a really neat study.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.06918v1.pdf

>>1919092
Do go on. It'll be awhile before I can respond though.

>>1919116
No. As it should be. This is the asshole of the internet and if you don't expect to get some shit on you, you are in the wrong place.

>>1919116
>I'm genuinely curious if there isn't a weird cult-type moron, a fucking psycho sadist or a bloodthirsty despot that /his/ won't shill for.
Well, I didn't like seeing Ted's face at first, but feel his ideas might still be worth reading.

He does still advocate for, um, questionable practices. But from his standpoint I can understand why, if only not approving of it.

(bombs computer salesmen)
yes! industrial revolution = OWNED

>>1919327
>(bombs computer salesmen)
>yes! industrial revolution = OWNED
Very true desu.

>>1918674
people who join the army are generally looking to lose their identity/have it chosen for them

and the drugs seriously don't care how thick your skin is

File: 1444708168719s.jpg (2KB, 117x120px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 117x120px

>>1919327

>>1917245
Why wasn't he able to come up with a more effective method of bringing about the society he desired, despite being so smart? It seems like all he accomplished was getting himself imprisoned for life for nothing, though he did manage to avoid being apprehended for quite a while.

File: images.duckduckgo.com.jpg (11KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 400x400px

>>1919435
His new book talks more about it. I'm skeptical whatever he found a more effective way. In this new book he analyses several revolutions: that's what the reviews say.

I really think it is only somewhat feasible during a really big crisis.

Implying he is right there is not much that there can be done.

>>1919460
Where to buy without being put on a list?

>>1917245

You do realize Nick Land talks positively of technology like all the times, right?

>>1917266
This. They're just edge faggots

>>1920622
I am already on the list since my teenage years, I think the intelligence community won't put me in a higher threat matrix just for reading this.
Don't worry about it, being on the list is for your own safety.

>>1917245
Did this guy actually care about the future of humanity or did he just hate people?

>>1917245
Technology has not brought humans a single good thing.

>>1917411
>The unabomber saw the big picture, but he took the wrong side. The labor that drives our economies was always going to be taken over by AI. The real question is whether we treat AI with respect and allow them the basic rights afforded to all sentient beings.


You fucking moron, you're advocating for our own extinction.

>>1919116

we're talking about his ideas, not advocating that he be set free.

>>1918812
Sounds like a pretty cool guy. Guess I'll have to buy some of his books and send them unannounced by post to an assortment of influential people.

>>1917245
because it doesn't matter. most of these "good things" are destructive in the large picture anyway. like killing off smallpox and polio, most people see them as good but all it brought in the end was billions of people ruining this planet and even their life is only poverty and suffering.

>>1919116
Kaczynski is none of those things. He's an extremely intelligent and educated man who used violence to spread his ideas like countless other men that are regularly talked about.

>>1924099
Ever considered that human existence is not an end in and of itself?

>>1924332
Ever considered that anti-humans should start with themselves?

>>1917245
Did he not realize that industrial civilization is naturally declining as we run out of fossil fuels? He should be pleased that we'll slowly return to agrarian civilization over the next few hundred years, though I guess he would still want to take action to see it in his lifetime

>>1924621
>Did he not realize that industrial civilization is naturally declining as we run out of fossil fuels?

I used to think Peak Oil and such would be the end of industrial civilization but then I realized the elites at the top will just retreat to their bunkers, release the bioweapons and kill everyone off before returning to where they left off. With less people consuming scarce resources they'll still be able to achieve their technological utopia. Either way I guess, we won't be part of it. But increased scarcity of fossil fuels doesn't necessarily imply a total civilizational collapse. It just means that will be the case for most of the 7+ billion people currently on this planet.

>>1917245
He was spooked.

>>1924934
What was he spooked by? It's not like he idealized primitive life in the way other anarcho-primitivists do. Technotopians are far more spooked than he is.

He definitely had some issues, though.