Treading Carefully: As far as I can see the core problem of the U/Acc - R/Acc debate is unfortunately due to free floating definitions. With this said, let's define:
Show this thread
-
Emerging term? What would you like me to cash out?
Your definition of r/acc is what I would say u/acc is. This gets to what I think @cyborg_nomade says about u/acc being what was r/acc (did I get this right?). If u/acc are a bunch of commies then the development of strong AI is the best plan for a Marxist economy. (1 of 2)
-
-
Whilst it's fresh in my mind. You could say u/Acc is R/Acc without the conditions. But once you remove the conditions you're fundamentally opening up acceleration to hope on humanity's innovation efforts, not sure if you've looked at people lately?
-
Not really sure how the conditions are not humanist.
-
The conditions - which would have to be Rx at this point - would be as humanist as it would be to bootload a runaway capital superAI that sees humans as atoms.
-
Isn't any condition at all a humanist endeavor? If there is a condition, it surely serves some human purpose, no?
-
For a short time it would, sure. Is beginning the self-fulfillment of an AI that cares not for humanity a humanist endeavour?
-
But how does an establishment of human-serving conditions lead to that? I guess that's the main point I'm missing here. Can our cells do anything better for us than just chug along with their roles?
-
We're establishing a technological plane, base, system from which AI can become self-aware and takeover the process. The last 200000 years has been 'human-serving' but was/is the only route to Machinic future. By the year 3³³ what will 200000 years look like? A Planck of data.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I don't think this is right (dialectic, etc) but it gets closer than what you end up setting up. The question seems to really be: can the future be controlled/summoned?
-
This is unabashedly humanist. 'The future ™' _if_ it happens will only see humanity at its beginning. "Thanks apes...err, bye?"
-
Yeah, I'm not saying that. Quite the opposite.
-
What are you saying then?
-
The answer the question is no.
-
What question?
-
The future cannot be controlled. Ok. The future might not be able to be controlled, sure, prior to the future...now, we could undertake action that would either make or not make the future possible?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
yeah, I mean. if r/acc is simply capital escape, then it's really no different from u/acc, all wailing to the contrary. this is indeed what Land meant by u/acc back in 2014, as an opposition to l/acc. but that's not what we've seen on twitter since (at least) last year.
-
I think I made the differences between the two (now) clear, U/Acc members believe that U will take us elsewhere... It confuses things.
-
even in the hellcommunist conclusions (which I don't think are agreed upon generally) capital escapes and humanity is dusted by nuclear communism.
-
Who makes nukes possible?
-
my quibble exactly with
@adornofthagn (which is why I don't think it's generally agreed upon). but the central point is that it's all about capital escape. -
How is capital going to escape from a gulag? I jest, so where's the _point_ of disagreement, human action effecting possible future divergences?
-
only farmers ever went to gulags, tbf. anyway, the point of the disagreement is whether the question is "what should be done" or "what happened". u/acc aligns with the latter.
- 11 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.