I wonder what an SU spokesperson would say about this post. I’m not sure Kurzweil was on SI’s Board of Directors very long, and I think he at most attended one board meeting — they’d probably mention that. I’m pretty damn sure they’d contest your claim that “SU’s activities have little to do with the Singularity, even under Kurzweil’s definition.” Remember that in Kurzweil’s meaning, the singularity is about accelerating technological change up to the point where the world is transformed. SU aims to enable people to contribute to (or at least ride the wave of) accelerating technological change.
CSER was created in mid 2012, saw lots of press in late 2012, but still has not been funded. Together with FHI they submitted a large grant application (in early 2013) that would supply their initial funding if they win it.
Finally, I’ll just note that SI’s focus on rationality was quite purposeful. That’s what Eliezer was talking about when he wrote that
there are many causes which benefit from the spread of rationality — because it takes a little more rationality than usual to see their case, as a supporter, or even just a supportive bystander. Not just the obvious causes like atheism, but things like marijuana legalization — where you could wish that people were a bit more self-aware about their motives and the nature of signaling, and a bit more moved by inconvenient cold facts. The [Singularity Institute] was merely an unusually extreme case of this, wherein it got to the point that after years of bogging down I threw up my hands and explicitly recursed on the job of creating rationalists.
When writing about high technology, SI wasn’t locating/creating enough people who are capable of thinking about the future in non-crazy ways. So Eliezer switched to the creation of a community focused on good thinking, and once he had gathered a mass of people who could see that value is fragile and therefore complex value systems are required to realize valuable futures, then SI started pushing on AI again.
I’m not sure Kurzweil was on SI’s Board of Directors very long,
I got the 2007-10 dates from Wikipedia on SI. It has a citation for the 2010; and I vaguely recall seeing Kurzweil on the list of board members as far back as 2007.
[SU people would] contest your claim that “SU’s activities have little to do with the Singularity,...”
Yes.
By the way, although the particular formulation is my own, I developed that opinion under the influence of certain SI people.
in Kurzweil’s meaning, the singularity is about accelerating technological change up to the point where the world is transformed
To some extent. But Kurzweil talks a lot about a point in the future where accelerating change is blindingly fast. SU does not focus on that, but rather on the current relatively slow stage of acceleration.
Anyway, as I said, there’s no sense arguing about words. The brand and the term Singularity can now be used to mean accelerating technological change in general, and it is now correct to say that SU is doing Singularity work.
CSER … still has not been funded.
Thanks, I didn’t know that. From all the noise, I thought that CSER was going strong.
SI wasn’t locating/creating enough people who are capable of thinking about the future in non-crazy ways
Part of my skepticism about the need for another recruiting path was that that I got into this in 2005 after simply stumbling upon the SIAI site—and, maybe, perhaps, at least I hope, I think I’m not crazy :-)
I had assumed that others would do like me. One of those biases. But I see now that the rationality work really did a much better job of bringing in good people.
I got the 2007-10 dates from Wikipedia on SI. It has a citation for the 2010; and I vaguely seeing Kurzweil on the list of board members as far back as 2007.
Yeah. As far as I can tell from board meeting minutes during those years, there was a miscommunication between Tyler Emerson and Ray Kurzweil, and Ray didn’t know he was on the Board during most of the time he was “on” the Board. :)
But this was all before I was around, so I don’t have first-hand information to offer.
Part of my skepticism about the need for another recruiting path was that that I got into this in 2005 after simply stumbling upon the SIAI site—and, maybe, perhaps, at least I hope, I think I’m not crazy :-)
Many useful and non-crazy people did come through the writings about AI — including Edwin Evans, Louie Helm, yourself, and many others — but not enough of them. And those who did are probably better thinkers after reading The Sequences, anyway.
I wonder what an SU spokesperson would say about this post. I’m not sure Kurzweil was on SI’s Board of Directors very long, and I think he at most attended one board meeting — they’d probably mention that. I’m pretty damn sure they’d contest your claim that “SU’s activities have little to do with the Singularity, even under Kurzweil’s definition.” Remember that in Kurzweil’s meaning, the singularity is about accelerating technological change up to the point where the world is transformed. SU aims to enable people to contribute to (or at least ride the wave of) accelerating technological change.
CSER was created in mid 2012, saw lots of press in late 2012, but still has not been funded. Together with FHI they submitted a large grant application (in early 2013) that would supply their initial funding if they win it.
Finally, I’ll just note that SI’s focus on rationality was quite purposeful. That’s what Eliezer was talking about when he wrote that
When writing about high technology, SI wasn’t locating/creating enough people who are capable of thinking about the future in non-crazy ways. So Eliezer switched to the creation of a community focused on good thinking, and once he had gathered a mass of people who could see that value is fragile and therefore complex value systems are required to realize valuable futures, then SI started pushing on AI again.
I got the 2007-10 dates from Wikipedia on SI. It has a citation for the 2010; and I vaguely recall seeing Kurzweil on the list of board members as far back as 2007.
Yes.
By the way, although the particular formulation is my own, I developed that opinion under the influence of certain SI people.
To some extent. But Kurzweil talks a lot about a point in the future where accelerating change is blindingly fast. SU does not focus on that, but rather on the current relatively slow stage of acceleration.
Anyway, as I said, there’s no sense arguing about words. The brand and the term Singularity can now be used to mean accelerating technological change in general, and it is now correct to say that SU is doing Singularity work.
Thanks, I didn’t know that. From all the noise, I thought that CSER was going strong.
Part of my skepticism about the need for another recruiting path was that that I got into this in 2005 after simply stumbling upon the SIAI site—and, maybe, perhaps, at least I hope, I think I’m not crazy :-)
I had assumed that others would do like me. One of those biases. But I see now that the rationality work really did a much better job of bringing in good people.
Yeah. As far as I can tell from board meeting minutes during those years, there was a miscommunication between Tyler Emerson and Ray Kurzweil, and Ray didn’t know he was on the Board during most of the time he was “on” the Board. :)
But this was all before I was around, so I don’t have first-hand information to offer.
Many useful and non-crazy people did come through the writings about AI — including Edwin Evans, Louie Helm, yourself, and many others — but not enough of them. And those who did are probably better thinkers after reading The Sequences, anyway.
Thanks, I edited the text about Kurzweil and the board.
o_0
Typo: Please add the link for “Eliezer was talking about when he wrote...”
fixed, thanks