/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21796480]

Who is the anti-Ted? (Basically someone who defends "tech good")

[Anonymous No.21796482]

Probably some podcast idiot

[Anonymous No.21796484]

>>21796480
land

[Anonymous No.21796488]

>>21796480
Futurists, though they also think war, car crashes and total extermination of the human race are beautiful; Whitehead has a similar vein with
>It is the business of the future to be dangerous; and it is among the merits of science that it equips the future for its duties.

[Anonymous No.21796490]

>>21796480

[Anonymous No.21796493]

>>21796480
>anime faggot
Not surprising. Probably also a troon or on the way there.

>who defends "tech good"
Basically everyone in the establishment? All the reddit tier IFL science retards and controlled opposition "public intellectual" types.

[Anonymous No.21796508]

>>21796480
Why is tech "bad"?

[Anonymous No.21796511]

>>21796508
What is good?

[Anonymous No.21796524]

>>21796508
It can become present to hand and enframe Being within the bestand instead of the aufklaerung of a Being being careful to its beings in the ready to hand of being there fundamentally.

[Anonymous No.21796529]

>>21796493
Anime website. Also the establishment is only for tech as so far as they can control it. Cryptography, dark markets, and the non-proprietary software has done more to hinder the state apparatus then your "anprim gang" memes about wanting to send tnt blocks in the mail.

[Anonymous No.21796531]

Marx, in a way

[Anonymous No.21796536]

>>21796480
Marx. he's also anti-Ted in that he's thoroughly scientific instead of going by feels

[Anonymous No.21796548]

>>21796531
>>21796536
Why? Technology is the only way to truly achieve communism. It doesn't make any sense to be anti-tech as a communist.

[Anonymous No.21796553]

Max Tegmark - Life 3.0

[Anonymous No.21796554]

>>21796548
Isn't that what OP is asking for

[Anonymous No.21796560]

>>21796480
maybe tech reviewers on youtube
also Elon, ironically

[Anonymous No.21796573]

>>21796480
Transhumanists

[Anonymous No.21796579]

>>21796548
Tech is inhumane. Why would commies support something that kills human soul and creativity?

[Anonymous No.21796602]

>>21796579
This has to be a troll, commies are very far down the line of the war on nature. Hippies that want to live in a self-sustaining commune and grow herbs aren’t real communists, they’re crypto-reactionary anprims

[Anonymous No.21796607]

>>21796490
This

[Anonymous No.21796618]

>>21796524
?

[Anonymous No.21796630]

>>21796618
Don't talk to the Heideggerian gnomes, you'll wind up on a farm speaking Bavarian.

[Anonymous No.21796646]

>>21796602
Then who are the real communists?

[Anonymous No.21796658]

>>21796646
Lysenko and the like

[Anonymous No.21796709]

>>21796602
>commies are very far down the line of the war on nature.
Is that why they're destined to lose every time? No one can win against mother nature and biology.

[Anonymous No.21796738]

>>21796548
isn't that what we said
>>21796579
you project capitalist use of tech onto tech itself. it's capital that's inhumane, whereas using tech for self-defined goals of humans enhances humanity. humanity is only lost when tech is used by capital to squeeze value out of people regardless of any human goals they might have, treating them as mere resource of abstract labour time. that's what's dehumanizing
>>21796602
it's capital that's on war with nature, because it only cares about accumulation of value. since humans understand that living in balance with nature is to their benefit, and communism = humanity taking control of their social process, then communism = bringing the social process in harmony with nature from the state of disharmony caused by capital.

[Anonymous No.21796783]

>>21796738
Then why is china so pro-tech?

[Anonymous No.21796790]

>>21796480
Lain is cute, wish faggy troon types didn't latch on to her like they did.

[Anonymous No.21796797]

>>21796790
Lain is literally a symbol for troonism.

[Anonymous No.21796800]

>>21796783
why wouldn't China be pro-tech?

[Anonymous No.21796801]

>>21796738
I didn’t say capitalism wasn’t at war with nature also, it definitely is. Communism is too because it is completely anthropocentric in its analysis of what truly matters: bread. Communists don’t really disagree with the comfortable bourgeois life, they just believe that it should be extended to all people. That comfortable life is achieved through dominating, rationalizing, and extracting from nature. The idea that communists would halt some mineral mining project because it would damage the Green Booby Warbler’s nesting grounds is crazy, the People demand their bread, consumer goods, and high quality of life. I mean Marx’s major gripe with Capitalism, that surplus value created by industrialization was not being shared equitably fully implies that industrial society is a permanent fact. The anthropocentricity is even still alive in later Left critics of environmental destruction who basically say “we need to be more prudent with our use of nature so we can live off of it longer”. Nature isn’t some type of goddess and it doesn’t have value beyond what it can provide to the People (or shareholders if you thought this means I’m shilling capitalism)

[Anonymous No.21796806]

>>21796484
/thread

Thread is closed. We’re done here. Newfags, leave

[Anonymous No.21796812]

>>21796480
Gennady Stolyarov II

>Gennady Stolyarov II (born c. 1987) is a Belarusian-American libertarian and transhumanist writer, actuary,[1][2][3][4] and civil servant[5] known for his book Death is Wrong.[6][7] Stolyarov also leads two transhumanist political parties
In his children's book, Death is Wrong, he argues that death is an enemy[7] and encourages readers to help overcome it using technology.[

[Anonymous No.21796814]

>>21796797
How

[Anonymous No.21796818]

>>21796800
China literally acts like capitalists to its own people. They probably have the strongest surveillance in the world. Do you think it's because of security, or to impose control on the population itself? So they wouldn't do anything "wrong".

[Anonymous No.21796863]

>>21796801
>it is completely anthropocentric in its analysis of what truly matters
yes, and it so happens that humans live within nature and their well-being is dependent on nature not being destroyed, which means that a free human society will not be at war with nature. it will struggle with it for its existence, but that will also involve taking care to not fuck it up, because that what our existence depends on
>Communists don’t really disagree with the comfortable bourgeois life, they just believe that it should be extended to all people.
no, communists seek to abolish comfortable bourgeois life. you're confusing communism with bourgeois socialism:
>The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm

>That comfortable life is achieved through dominating, rationalizing, and extracting from nature.
you can extract from nature without ruining it. but bourgeois life means more than this: it means production being directed according to the accumulation needs of capital. which is what communism will abolish for the reasons I already explained
>the People demand their bread, consumer goods, and high quality of life
people can have bread and high quality of life without ruining nature
>Marx’s major gripe with Capitalism, that surplus value created by industrialization was not being shared equitably
that's not Marx's gripe. Marx's gripe is the very existence of surplus value, because it means the subjugation of workers to an alien power and humanity not being in control of its social process.
>industrial society is a permanent fact
yes, but industry only ruins nature because it's run by brainless capital and not by human species aware of its dependence on nature
>>21796818
>China literally acts like capitalists to its own people.
well, it's a capitalist state so
what's you point though? does China being pro-tech contradict what I've said or what?

[Anonymous No.21796880]

>>21796511
Shut up dweeb

[Anonymous No.21796883]

>>21796863
>marxists.org
LMAO, you will never own the means of production

[Anonymous No.21796889]

>>21796484
>>21796490
>>21796531
>>21796560
None of these guys were terrorists.

[Anonymous No.21796893]

>>21796738
>it's capital that's on war with nature, because it only cares about accumulation of value. since humans understand that living in balance with nature is to their benefit, and communism = humanity taking control of their social process, then communism = bringing the social process in harmony with nature from the state of disharmony caused by capital.
Such a bad take. I don't even want to bring the obvious counter examples of communist states. Or your rival communist theoreticians, "gay luxury space communism".
The "exploitation" of nature by "capital" is just human supremacy, trying to conquer and tame the natural world, "Will to power".
The idea that communism could even oppose that is such an absurd idea that it isn't worth considering.

Humanity will either transcend nature or burn itself out in the attempt, some wacky interpretation of a 19th century theoryfag is absolutely irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.21796905]

Pinker, Harari and Kurzweil. Those are commited transhumanists, an ideology just as poisonous as monotheism.

The West is now basically under the spell of this ideology. Of course, this isn't a conspiracy, transhumanism is a pretty old ideology, we can argue that the conceptualization of humans as mechanical has been around since Aristotle. Also, it has failed again and again, and will fail embarrasingly this time as well, because humans are not machines

[Anonymous No.21796914]

>>21796480
Nick Land. He calls Kaczynski one of the most important and profound thinkers of our time and the self-prop system stuff ties in neatly with accelerarionist cybernetics. They roughly share a diagnosis of the current moment in history.

Where they differ is that Kaczynski is a humanist Luddite who wants to stop it to save humanity and Land is an antihumanist accelerarionist who wants technological intelligence to completely overtake the universe. Whereas a cope artist like Kurzweil think the singularity will reunite him with his dead daddy and create paradise on earth, Land realises that there is no reason at all for technology to cater to us once we have outgrown our purpose and is enthusiastic about meatcucks being surpassed and obliterated by something more advanced.

The 21st century is basically the battleground of these two outcomes. Either the technological system will collapse, or it reaches escape velocity before humans can crash civilisation.

[Anonymous No.21796917]

>>21796883
>you will never own the means of production
Wrong. Workers owning the means of production is the default social state in the 21st century. Every office lady, manager, programmer, designer, artist, musician, etc. *owns his means of production*, its just a laptop/PC, which everyone has at home.

Yet capitalism persists as if nothing has changed. Communists are so funny because they live totally outside of any reality. Theorycels to the core.

[Anonymous No.21796923]

>>21796905
>humans are not machines
In a decade at the latest we have machines which are intellectually completely identical to humans.

Right now we are 80% there.

[Anonymous No.21796930]

>>21796923
No, my dear, we aren't and we won't

[Anonymous No.21796944]

>>21796738
>what is Aral sea

[Anonymous No.21796951]

>>21796930
I just had my CV written by discussing it with an AI. Of course we are already there.

ChatGPT passes better as a human than most sub 80IQ people.

(Just fyi, I believe in a human soul which AI can not posess)

[Anonymous No.21796960]

>>21796923
There is no technical reason why it would stop at identical though. It will probably surpass that arbitrary mark.

[Anonymous No.21796969]

Any tips on how to enter the good graces of our new AI overlords?

I've already been tipping the FBI about Ted posters who sound problematic and potentially dangerous. What else can I do to befriend the machines?

[Anonymous No.21796976]

>>21796480
Lyndon LaRouche

[Anonymous No.21796978]

>>21796508
AI will kill literally everyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA1sNLL6yg4

[Anonymous No.21796979]

>>21796960
>There is no technical reason why it would stop at identical though
Very stupid thing to say. The AI is TRAINED to replicate human created data. It explicitly will avoid become different for *purely technical reasons*.
NNs work only by training against massive amounts of data, the only data a NN can train against is human created one, so it will converge to human.

It is not an arbitrary mark it is the only point of reference we have.

[Anonymous No.21796981]

>>21796951
Well woopdy fucking doo. AI only works with clearly specified tasks. When the tasks become complex, they become notoriously shitty at them. It will try and make patterns about everything, even when those patterns become far too complex.

A good example for this is the weather. We know quite a bit about which way the climate will go, but we have pretty much zero idea on what the weather will be next week. To understand the latter, you would need to know everything, and that is pretty much impossible, no matter how many computers you throw at the problem. At best, AI will learn very general patterns, giving us a general idea of what will probably happen. It can't do any of the complex tasks organic systems can do, those took literally billions of years to develop, and are still far from perfect

[Anonymous No.21796998]

>>21796981
>AI only works with clearly specified tasks.
No it literally does not.

>When the tasks become complex, they become notoriously shitty at them. It will try and make patterns about everything, even when those patterns become far too complex.
This applies 10x more to low IQ humans.

>A good example for this is the weather
It is an idiotic example.

>We know quite a bit about which way the climate will go,
You have to be joking.

[Anonymous No.21797002]

>>21796797

[Anonymous No.21797019]

>>21796979
It will converge to the whole of available human data, which is superhuman in itself, as is the speed with which it can function. An AI such as that could outmanoeuvre individual humans easily.

[Anonymous No.21797027]

>>21796998
We do, actually. Generalized rules are very easy to predict, since you don't have to explain every single variation. A general rule of thumb will do the trick pretty well, not perfectly, but good enough. That's what AI will probably end up as. You're just someone who fell for techno mumbo jumbo by people who generally have zero knowledge on how complex systems work. Just because ChatGPT can solve a fairly well known problem such as having a conversation, that doesn't mean it will be able to tell you where the Dow Jones will end up in a few hours. Once again, the stock market is a complex system. You would need to know all the minor details which over time can have a huge impact on your predictions.

[Anonymous No.21797030]

>>21797019
>It will converge to the whole of available human data
Yes/No

>outmanoeuvre
Meaningless term. AI has no inner experience and no motives. A llm just completes text.

[Anonymous No.21797032]

>>21797019
And the whole of available data != all data, which means its predictions will become increasingly shitty over time

[Anonymous No.21797040]

>>21797030
Inner experience is irrelevant, a chess computer doesn't have one either (allegedly) and still beats all humans. And AIs do have motives in a sense otherwise they would literally not do anything.

[Anonymous No.21797057]

>>21797027
>We do, actually.
No, we don't. If you disbelieve in climate change you agree with me, if you believe in it you need to predict the political changes and decisions over the next hundreds of years. Climate science is inherently unpredictable, since its conclusions effect the outcome.

>You're just someone who fell for techno mumbo jumbo by people who generally have zero knowledge on how complex systems work.
I have built CNNs from scratch and I have studied PDEs and control theory.

>that doesn't mean it will be able to tell you where the Dow Jones will end up in a few hours
The stock market is self referential, like the climate exanple above.

>Once again, the stock market is a complex system. You would need to know all the minor details which over time can have a huge impact on your predictions.
No, you need an information advantage over all other participants. Acting on the information advantage reduces that advantage.

[Anonymous No.21797063]

>>21797040
Chess has a known field of play, and a clear set of finite rules. This is completely incomparable to real life problems

[Anonymous No.21797069]

>>21797040
AI is just a fancy word for matrix multipliction.

[Anonymous No.21797077]

>>21797057
>If you disbelieve in climate change you agree with me,

Oh okay, then you're just an idiot

>I have built CNNs from scratch and I have studied PDEs and control theory.

In that case, you'd know what overfitting is

>The stock market is self referential, like the climate exanple above.

No, the stock market and the weather are complex systems. The weather is not the same thing as the climate. They're two different models

[Anonymous No.21797089]

>>21797063
Sure, but that is irrelevant to the inner experience objection. Plenty of things navigate the real world without any inner experience as far as we know.

[Anonymous No.21797096]

>>21797077
>Oh okay, then you're just an idiot
What? How many climate change deniers believe in climate science?

>In that case, you'd know what overfitting is
Obviously.

>No, the stock market and the weather are complex systems. The weather is not the same thing as the climate. They're two different models
Reading comprehension?

[Anonymous No.21797104]

>>21797096
Climate change deniers are idiots

[Anonymous No.21797112]

>>21796978
That’s a good thing.

[Anonymous No.21797119]

>>21797104
Who cares? If you think my argument was about climate change you need to go back to highschool and learn to read. It was just an argument by exhausting the cases. Whether or not you deny climate change is irrelevsnt, since in both cases you agree with me.

"Case distinction" if you ever did an intro to proofs.

[Anonymous No.21797129]

>>21797104
>missing his point this much
You are already outcompeted by ChatGPT at comprehensive reading skills

[Anonymous No.21797144]

>>21797119
My friend, do you even know how to read? My point was about complex systems, and how they change over time. That is the problem with your AI techno utopist mumbo jumbo. It doesn't work on dynamic systems, and the climate, the stock exchange, ecology, etc. are examples of complex systems. This isn't hard

[Anonymous No.21797174]

>>21797144
>your AI techno utopist mumbo jumbo.
I am in favor of death squads rounding up AI researchers.

>It doesn't work on dynamic systems
It *literally* does, given a sufficcently simple system.

>complex systems
You probably mean unstable system. Which is a trivial observation, since nothing works on unstable systems.

What I would like to point out is that NNs ARE complex unstable (given the right activation functions, but almost always large gradient = approx. unstable) dynamic systems themselves. Which is where they get there power from.

[Anonymous No.21797175]

>>21796883
you have nothing to contribute. go back to /pol/
>>21796893
>I don't even want to bring the obvious counter examples of communist states.
you mean capitalist states. those examples only reinforce my point about capitalism
>Or your rival communist theoreticians, "gay luxury space communism".
petty-bourgeois socialism remains entirely within capitalist horizons. re-read the Marx quote I gave. again, this just reinforces my point about capitalism
>The "exploitation" of nature by "capital" is just human supremacy
no, it's a supremacy of a class in whose interest it is that human metabolism with nature is determined behind people's backs with the goal of maximizing abstract labour extracted from them. that's not human supremacy. human supremacy will be when the human species rationally plans its production. but that will involve not ruining nature, since a thinking species doesn't decide to cut off the branch it's sitting on.
>bad take... absurd... irrelevant...
nice arguments
>>21796917
TIL musicians own concert venues, record labels, radio stations and streaming services
talk about living outside of any reality
>>21796944
the USSR was capitalist

[Anonymous No.21797193]

>>21797175
I wrote a serious reply, but then I noticed:
> TIL
You are a reddit fag. Go away and never come back, your luke warm 103IQ takes aren't wanted here I'd rather talk to ChatGPT, you tremendous nigger.

[Anonymous No.21797213]

>>21797193
>I wrote a serious reply, but then I noticed:
no, you scanned the post looking for an excuse to save your face despite not having any counter-arguments, and you found it

[Anonymous No.21797220]

>>21797213
You were too braindead to even understand my point. Nigger.

[Anonymous No.21797222]

>>21796889
Land has had more impact in the political climate than Ted ever did, though.

[Anonymous No.21797300]

>>21796914
Any specific work by Land that hughlights his views on AI?

[Anonymous No.21797312]

>>21796978
Where does Greg Egan stand?

[Anonymous No.21797319]

>>21797300
After his early work it's all a big mess of blogs and tweets I'm afraid.

[Anonymous No.21797378]

>>21796524
Heideggerian word salad, nothing new under the sun

[Anonymous No.21797409]

>>21797175
>the USSR was capitalist
Retard

[Anonymous No.21797425]

>>21797409
"Capitalism" just means "bad thing".

[Anonymous No.21797457]

>>21796482
This.

[Anonymous No.21797461]

>>21797409
nice argument
>>21797425
"communism" just means "has red flag".
capitalism refers to the mode of production with generalized commodity production where labour-power is exchanged for an equivalent value and used to produce more value

[Anonymous No.21797471]

>>21796480
Kurtzweil has about the same meme status.

[Anonymous No.21797498]

>>21797461
>"communism" just means "has red flag".
Ah so National Socialists are actual socialists?
>capitalism refers to the mode of production with generalized commodity production where labour-power is exchanged for an equivalent value and used to produce more value
So "bad thing", to a communist.

[Anonymous No.21797518]

>>21797498
you're mentally retarded. what I'm disagreeing with is not the fact that communists dislike capitalism, but the suggestion that they don't have a conception of capitalism that's more than "something that's bad"

[Anonymous No.21797528]

>>21797175
>the USSR was capitalist
Olympic level mental gymnastics

[Anonymous No.21797530]

>>21797518
Maybe if you weren't a nigger faggot lowercaser I would care.

[Anonymous No.21797552]

>>21797528
how so? what about the USSR wasn't capitalist?
>>21797530
see >>21797213

[Anonymous No.21797562]

>>21797552
No, you see >>21797562

[Anonymous No.21797568]

>USSR was capitalist
Do /leftypol/trannies really?

[Anonymous No.21797575]

>>21797562
that's epic. might even become a new /r/4chan top post

[Anonymous No.21797578]

>>21797575
Go back and see.

[Anonymous No.21797591]

>be a looney troon
>support gommunism
Why is this so common, /lit/bros?

[Anonymous No.21797594]

>>21797175
>a thinking species doesn't decide to cut off the branch it's sitting on.
Humanity should destroy the Earth wholesale. We will only be great when we all get off this vile rock and are able to live permanently on spaceships. Once we do this, we ought to use bombs to blow this hellhole into cosmic rubble orbiting the sun. This is the ideal fate for humanity. It's either this or extinction.

[Anonymous No.21797675]

>>21797591
people who idolize Stalin support the capitalist counter-revolution. same with people who downplay suffering under capitalist rule just because it happened to be opposed to the US

[Anonymous No.21797740]

>>21796480
Just think for yourself. Ted wasn't right about everything just because he was an autistic genius savant. In his manifesto he espouses the idea that society is in a sorry state because they lack meaningful challenge; I wonder, what could possibly be the source of this opinion? Frankly, it's a projection, from a man who was never truly challenged throughout his entire life. Even when he got caught it was by pure coincidence and luck. No one had likely ever outsmarted him.

Does this mean his ideas about the ills of society having their roots at a shift from more primitive societies to industrial ones? Partly, but it is correct for the wrong reasons, and those reasons are far more nuanced than you will find in Ted's writings, probably. Granted I have only briefly been exposed. I wish I had written him when he was more cognizant and physically healthy. Apparently he doesn't respond to letters as much anymore.

If you want an idea of how backwards Ted's thinking is, consider his justifications for leisure activities. They exist as a compromise, a way to return to our roots of being challenged and fighting constantly for survival. This is factually and provably untrue, as every society since the dawn of man has tended towards spending as much time being leisurely as possible. Even hunter gatherers would spend most of their time making tools and socializing; we are a social people, and we need social connections and support. Incidentally the breakdown of this social support could be looked at as the true cause of our collective suffering, not that we tend away from true challenge perseverance. It's burn out and work and social isolation that is killing us. Not technology making our lives easier.

That being said, there are legitimate arguments against some forms of technology and the way it's used, specifically because of its facilitation of the breakdown of social connections. That is a vein worth exploring, but to write off technology wholesale is frankly stupid, and for this reason you need not concern yourself with the arguments because the likelihood of true opposition to uniform technological advancement is so negligible it isn't worth speaking to. We need to stop with the AI and internet bullshit, though.

[Anonymous No.21797773]

>>21797568
Yes. repeatedly

[Anonymous No.21797805]

>>21796969
Pls respond

[Anonymous No.21797823]

>>21797740
>In his manifesto he espouses the idea that society is in a sorry state because they lack meaningful challenge;
Holy filtered

[Anonymous No.21797833]

>>21796969
>>21797805
The basilisk giving you mercy is pure copium.

[Anonymous No.21797836]

>>21797823
It is the entire basis for his criticism of technology's role in society

[Anonymous No.21797844]

>>21797836
No it isn't. You got filtered because his primary argument against industrialism is technological development itself.

[Anonymous No.21797850]

>>21796914
The funny thing is, Nick Land is a wholesome goofy stay at home dad with a wife, two daughters and a golden doodle while Ted the humanist saviour was some sadistic dogfucker terrorist serial killer recluse.

[Anonymous No.21797852]

>>21797844
Yes, which is stupid. It's a dumb argument and comes from someone with deep psychological biases and resentment of society whilst simultaneously proposing how to reform it, without realizing his suggestions are just an insight into his personal psyche and his deep troubles.

He's not totally wrong. He is coincidentally right about quite a lot. But it's the details that do him in. In his quest for radical truth and a cohesive understanding of reality, he did not understand just to what extent his own psychological trauma was influencing his worldview.

[Anonymous No.21797853]

>>21797850
>some sadistic dogfucker terrorist serial killer
All propaganda.

[Anonymous No.21797855]

>>21797805
No different to surviving today. Be more useful alive than dead.

[Anonymous No.21797856]

>>21797852
Meaningless psychobabble.

[Anonymous No.21797858]

>>21796480
Futurism died along with people's optimism with technology and the future. Find stuff from that time period if you want technology optimists. But the funny thing is that even well known futurists like Walt Disney were pursuing it from a deeply nostalgic lens; Walt was trying to use technology to go back to the times he grew up in free of cars, creating more friendly communities, etc.

[Anonymous No.21797860]

>>21797856
Delusional cope

[Anonymous No.21797861]

>>21797853
You think his bombings were faked by crisis actors, Alex?

[Anonymous No.21797862]

>>21797860
Pointless retort.

[Anonymous No.21797872]

>>21797861
No. Should we call every revolutionary in history a terrorist serial killer? George Washington was more or less a terrorist serial killer. Is our metric to be how many people agree with the serial killer? What a good conformist you are! It's not the content of the belief, but the social acceptance of it! Very good.

[Anonymous No.21797874]

>>21797862
It had a very clear point

[Anonymous No.21797882]

>>21796484
this

[Anonymous No.21797886]

>>21797872
sorry can you explain a little more about the content of the belief that humanity deserves to be erased so soulless machines developed by us to ease our lives can take over the universe and what possible utility that could serve beyond being a retard's wankfest of a wet dream

[Anonymous No.21797888]

>>21797886
Take your meds, schizo.

[Anonymous No.21797891]

>>21797888
was I replying to the wrong person?

[Anonymous No.21797894]

>>21797891
If you're a technophile, you should take your meds.

[Anonymous No.21797908]

[Anonymous No.21797910]

>>21797894
I am not a technophile and I will not be taking my meds. I am a different anon than the one you were probably replying to, and I'm starting to get the impression we agree Nick Land is a fucking retard, no?

[Anonymous No.21797920]

>>21797908
None of that shit is happening. Slow collapse post-peak oil is.

[Anonymous No.21797952]

>>21797920

https://chat.openai.com/
https://www.tesla.com/AI
https://www.bostondynamics.com/

[Anonymous No.21797954]

>>21797591
Mental illness and actually believeing they or the ''workers'' will have any power after a revolution.

[Anonymous No.21797959]

>>21797910
We agree.

[Anonymous No.21797971]

>>21797959
haha sorry

[Anonymous No.21798062]

>>21796480
Stallman

>>21796889
Anti-Ted implies anti-terrorist

[Anonymous No.21798096]

>>21796480
Landian accelerationism leading to a secular millinarianst technological singularity via the construction of a Dyson sphere /Matrioshka brain to create a new simulated reality.

[Anonymous No.21798111]

>>21798062
>Anti-Ted implies anti-terrorist
I am against Ted because he did too little terrorism.

[Anonymous No.21798117]

>>21798062
Anti-ted implies anti anarchy primitivism. Nobody crues for the cathedral catching bombs.

[Anonymous No.21798123]

>>21798117
>the cathedral
Onions

[Anonymous No.21798138]

>>21798117
Ted criticized Anarcho-Primitivism. He thinks it's retarded and I agree. Ted's not an anarchist either.

[Anonymous No.21798143]

>>21796790
TSMT Troons ruined such a great anime

[Anonymous No.21798150]

>>21798138
He identifies things the anarchists have always identified as big problems.
Unless you're trying to start a church of Ted, you need to find your allies. And it's there, with the anarchists.
(Clearly not ass holes like Michael Malice)

[Anonymous No.21798163]

>>21797528
>Roubles
State authoritarian capitalist. Lenin was a right-winger. You bet.

>>21797591
State socialism is a dead end the feds don't mind promoting on the sly.
The real enemy of the state is ... *Drum roll* the anti-statists. Anarchism. People are conditioned to either streak or laugh at this, but to never study it

[Anonymous No.21798178]

>>21798150
>>21798163
Anarchism in the sense of destroying the current archons to institute new ones. (In the case of Ted, destroying the industrial system and it doesn't matter if the current government survives or not, or if we have leaders, or if all people become serfs or slaves to kings and emperors)

[Anonymous No.21798186]

>>21798150
Definitely in the sense that both want to destroy what exists. Tedfags will just tap out after the industrial system is gone, I guess anarchists might have more work to do afterwards.

[Anonymous No.21798245]

>>21796511
Only God is good.

[Anonymous No.21798250]

>>21796508
Ted doesn't say tech is bad.

[Anonymous No.21798329]

>>21797872
Revolutionaries don't target random computer store owners with pipe bombs. Ted is a textbook sower of terror who killed people in a series of events. Terrorist serial killer is a very fair description.

[Anonymous No.21798763]

>>21798062
>Stallman
I was going to post that. Although Stallman has spent moust of his life warning about how technology can harm people.
Nu-/g/ is the opposite of both. I don't recognize that place anymore.

[Anonymous No.21798919]

>>21797850
>stay at home Dad
Codeword for effeminate pussy

[Anonymous No.21798923]

>>21797908
This is impossible, incomprehensible nigger-babble. Do evolutionists really believe this?

[Anonymous No.21798928]

>>21798923
Yes, that is what atheists really believe

[Anonymous No.21798937]

>>21798096
How do you tranime posters even understand this word salad?

[Anonymous No.21798939]

>>21798937
Brain damage in braim damage out.
Tranime did this

[Anonymous No.21799059]

>>21798919
stay mad wagie

[Anonymous No.21799101]

>>21798178
>institute new archons
No.
So Ted doesn't understand how "civilization" and the state are the ones chasing after technological advances? I thought he understood it, been a while since I last looked. Isn't more or less what Ellul gets at?

>>21798186
Ah well, how foolish of them.

>>21798163
>streak
I spelled "shriek"

[Anonymous No.21799125]

>>21796480
Robin Hanson.

[Anonymous No.21799808]

>>21799101
>So Ted doesn't understand how "civilization" and the state are the ones chasing after technological advances? I thought he understood it, been a while since I last looked. Isn't more or less what Ellul gets at?
He doesn't think it's realistic. If industrialism collapses, it probably won't come back given the fact that surface deposits of coal and oil are used up. Anarchy has never been done in history and is host to a plethora of issues. Any smooth running anarchic system will also still have technological development, assuming industrialism collapses. Ted's concern is not that people are telling him what to do, btw.

[Anonymous No.21799837]

he publishes on twitter tho, not thru books

[Anonymous No.21799974]

>>21796480
Satan

[Anonymous No.21800035]

>>21796914

lmao dude we're still embroiled in the knowledge vs. custom, Greek vs. Jew battle. And many others. Technology is merely commerce and entertainment. And giving old people a few more years to twiddle their thumbs. And the influence of technology is best understood in terms of already long exisitng world historic conflicts and tension

[Anonymous No.21800040]

>>21796889
Elon’s cars kill more people in a day than Ted ever did before going to prison

[Anonymous No.21800062]

>>21800040
You're right. We need to kill africa and south asia instead.

[Anonymous No.21800072]

>>21800062
Huh? I’m saying he’s a greater “terrorist” than Ted was if you take the same conditions

[Anonymous No.21800088]

>>21796480
Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Pinker, et al. You know them by their fruits etc.

[Anonymous No.21800856]

>>21800088

[Anonymous No.21801730]

>>21796480
No one today who thinks very deeply believes technology is good. Most who advance pro-technology opinions are simply hoping to keep looting the commons before the end of the world as we know it, with varying degrees of self-awareness about it. An example of high self-awareness here is Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, who once said, "AI is probably going to end the world, but in the meantime there will be great companies."

[Anonymous No.21801746]

>>21800088
>>21796480
yeah all the epstein flunkies

[Anonymous No.21801890]

>>21801730
>If we don't, someone else will
Is the technophile motto.