Wiki Interview With Eliezer/Singularitarian Philosophy
Singularitarian Philosophy
What stage of development is the singularitarian philosophy presently in?
The stage of development of the Singularitarian philosophy seems adequate to support the Singularity, although I would certainly like to see a lot more introductory material out there. By "adequate", I mean that an individual professing what seems to be the current state of the art in Singularitarian philosophy should hopefully be able to think coherently and rationally about the Singularity and the ethics thereof, and to devote effort to accomplishing good thereby. There still aren't *enough* of those individuals, and *anything* has room for improvement in it.
What needs to be or should be done to improve singularitarianism?
Currently, I would say: Write more introductory material, emphasize more the importance of personal action, and provide an introduction to the halls of reason/science/rationality for the benefit of new-minted Singularitarians who were not already neuroscientists when they showed up. I think that an interesting and important part of Singularitarianism is the extent to which we reject prevailing bugs in the human psyche as they apply to common social action, and I would like to see this preserved as Singularitarianism spreads beyond an initial membership recruited from the ranks of scientific rationalists.
In your estimate, how many singularitarians presently exist?
In terms of total commitment, I would say at least two, but probably less than a dozen. In terms of being interested enough to put forth major efforts, I would say at least ten and less than a hundred. In terms of being interested enough to make minor efforts, I would say at least fifty and less than a thousand. In terms of talking about it, I would say at least hundreds and less than a million. In terms of having heard of the Singularity and thinking vaguely that it might be a good thing, it could be millions - who knows? It's been showing up outside transhumanist circles lately.
Why do you and singularitarians in general believe the Singularity is a "good thing"?
That the Singularity is a "good thing" is the end result of a lot of moral reasoning and strategic reasoning which isn't necessarily the same from person to person.
What do you mean by "good"?
When I say "good" it sums up the final product of my ethical system - volition-based Friendliness, intelligence, joy, truth - and the final product of my strategic reasoning - that the Singularity is the best way to create the largest increase in "good" with the greatest probability.
Why do you believe the Singularity is desirable?
The Singularity is in many ways a strongly convergent outcome of many philosophies, since no matter what you define as "good", if it's not explicitly antitechnology then often the Singularity will be the most powerful means of accomplishing it to the greatest possible degree. Some forms of good, such as intelligence improvement and unlimited life, inherently seem to require a Singularity. Because the Singularity also reaches into the roots of intelligence itself, it interacts with deep moral questions as well - "What is really right?" may be easier to solve if you are smarter. Other Singularitarians may use other reasoning, but those are the structural reasons why many forms of reasoning end at the Singularity.
In the extended version of "The Singularitarian Principles: Solidarity", you wrote, "Even if we somehow knew for a fact that any superintelligence would exterminate humanity-including me and all other Singularitarians, of course-this "Shiva-Singularity" might still be a goal that all of humanity could share. Dying in the creation of something better strikes me as significantly less pointless than dying of old age or nanowar. As attractive possibilities go, this one is significantly less attractive than Apotheosis; but sometimes, choosing the best available action doesn't mean that any of the available actions are good. Think about the possibility that there might be a better world but that we are absolutely barred from it, no matter how unpleasant this possibility is-because once you've confronted this possibility and thought about it openly, it loses a lot of its "scare power", and you become a more confident futurist as a result." If a "Shiva-Singularity" is a real possibility, then I don't think it's likely to be a "goal of humanity's", even if the alternatives are no better. If such a Singularity is an end-result possibility of SIAI's work, then isn't there quite a high probability that your work will be highly criticized, regulated, or possibly barred?
A Shiva Singularity is not knowable in advance and I currently have no specific reasons to predict such. I would estimate that any given AI project is more likely to wipe out humanity through failure of Friendly AI, which does not count as *any* kind of victory, than a Shiva Singularity as such. The reason it is there in the Singularitarian Principles is to make a point about the nature of altruism, not because it is likely. I understand that many people refuse to emotionally accept the idea of *any* Existential Risk - to them *any* Existential Risk, no matter how small, is "unacceptable". They do not understand the concept of a risk that becomes larger if you ineptly try to avoid it, or a risk that is necessary to minimize worse risks. *That* is the reason I worry about regulation. The point of considering a Shiva Singularity is to refine your morality by confronting tough questions, which I consider to be a good thing for philosophers, and the Singularitarian Principles *is* about philosophy. Morality should be the source and first principle of your actions. If you only consider comfortable moral situations then you run the risk that comfort, not altruism, becomes your first principle.
In PtS, you wrote, "The only way to combat the floating social perception of "unnatural equals immoral" is with positive reasons why ultratechnology is moral. (6). And that doesn't mean holding out a big carrot, like eternal life or infinite wealth, because the same technophobic memes say these things are unnatural. You have to offer positive moral and emotional reasons, reasons that the audience can accept within themselves, without interference from what they've been told it's socially acceptable to feel. You have to offer positive moral reasons which are higher and more idealistic than technophobia, and which feel higher." What are some reasons why ultratechnology is moral?
Ultratechnology is moral where it serves a moral purpose. Technology has served many moral purposes over the millennia, especially the increase of knowledge, the alleviation of suffering, and the creation of joy, but what I think is really significant is the increase of intelligence. If people can become smarter, you've moved forward in a way that transcends the ways that technology has moved us forward before. When people get smarter, *then* you've accomplished something.
Do you believe "getting smarter" is a primary moral reason?
If the question means what I think it does, then it's certainly a primary moral reason for me under my current definition of morality. Of course I might have a different definition if I got smarter.
