Guest Topic of the Week by GreyClxudz
Hello it's me GreyClxudz your crazy ass neighborhood Anarcho Nihilists. I'm wanting to know what the anarchist news team thinks of mass surveillance. Mass surveillance is starting to develop quicker at a a alarming rate. Examples of mass surveillance is AI software being used at the southern border to track the identity of migrants. And data centers being built around you to collect your data that can be given to law enforcement and to corporations to keep pushing ads on your algorithm to make you buy their products. Mass surveillance isnt even just a problem for online. With the building of cop city more police are gonna be trained like militarized groups and given advance equipment to capture and secure individuals who go against the laws of the establishments. Even the newly elected president Donald Trump has even said before he will militarize the police once he's in office. All of these examples are proof we are soon entering a time with more police control and more controlled internet usage which will eventually lead to a complete authoritarian controlled state.
Do you think there can be technology without the involvements of hierarchies?
What do anarchist think of AI technology?
Would you consider community's watch groups as a form of surveillance?
What are some anarchist who talk about mass surveillance? And what do they do to defend themselves against it?
What is some anarchist literature that discuss this issue?
The anti surveillance movement has been hijacked by far right figures and influencers. What are some ways anarchist can take back the anti surveillance movement?
***
If you're interested in writing a guest Topic of the Week post, please email us ---> thecollective (at) anarchistnews (dot) org
Comments
Do you think there can be
anon (not verified) Sun, 01/05/2025 - 19:50
Do you think there can be technology without the involvements of hierarchies?
"No."
What do anarchist think of AI technology?
Anarchists are not a monolithic group. Generally, however: "AI bad."
Would you consider community's watch groups as a form of surveillance?
"Yes, if they are doing surveillance. No, if they're not."
What are some anarchist who talk about mass surveillance?
"All anarchists talk about mass surveillance."
And what do they do to defend themselves against it?
"Molotov."
"What is some anarchist literature that discuss this issue?"
theanarchistlibrary.org
"The anti surveillance movement has been hijacked by far right figures and influencers. What are some ways anarchist can take back the anti surveillance movement?"
Molotov.
####################
Heyz thecollective,
Pleasez have some self respectz.
~Anonz
oh pinyon
1111 (not verified) Sun, 01/12/2025 - 17:03
In reply to Do you think there can be by anon (not verified)
i can do a technology all on my lonesome, just with rocks or sticks or what have you. where is the hierarchy if i make my own tools or develop my own techniques? how is that not technology?
"AI" is a fake thing. It is just a buzzord. We have LLMs, GANNs, and all sort of other kind of alphabet soup fuckin rando data "structures" pretending to be code. None of it is "Artificial Intelligence" or all of it is. The term is not defined in a meaninful way.
Why should I name someone who talks about mass surveillance? I don't know or care if such folk are anarchists. How about @evacide? Graeber? Cory Doctorow? Bruce Schneier?
One way to defend against surveillance is to steal it & transform it into sousveillance... but I wouldn't expect "anti-technologists" to understand this, nor those who don't know what "technology" even is. Here's a handy definition: "Technology" is "knowledge about techne" where "techne" is "tools and/or techniques". A tool is a technique that has mass.
Anarchists don't need to "take back" anything. We don't need to own issues, just to fix them. If the chuds want to fight against surveillance let them. Credit doesn't matter. Results matter.
I got plenty of self respect, kiddo. I just don't respect *you*.
Brah, throw out your…
anonymous (not verified) Sun, 01/12/2025 - 17:41
In reply to oh pinyon by 1111 (not verified)
Brah, throw out your dumpster poutines. They have turnt!
Also, learning is fun. Learn what words mean! Maintenant!
There's this:
anon (not verified) Sun, 01/05/2025 - 23:52
There's this:
https://anarchistnews.org/content/what-if-god-was-real
Just a quick drive-by comment
anon (not verified) Mon, 01/06/2025 - 16:05
Just a quick drive-by comment here. I'm reminded of the recent Tesla cybertruck attack outside a Trump property in Las Vegas. The news reporting on this stated that Musk/Tesla had immediately provided Tesla cybertruck photographs of driver taken and provided the route via Tesla charging stations on the attackers route from Colorado to Las Vegas. Just one of these cars has like over 69 8k cameras pointed in every single direction.
Dang, I spoke too soon,
anon (not verified) Mon, 01/06/2025 - 16:15
In reply to Just a quick drive-by comment by anon (not verified)
Dang, I spoke too soon, another quick comment follow up. While Bill "Not Bored" Brown is not really someone I'm fond of, I did find a few of their projects around the topic of surveillance to be pretty cool.
Surveillance Camera Players was "The group Surveillance Camera Players (SCP) was founded by Bill Brown, Susan Hull, and various other situationist-inspired activists in New York (USA) in November 1996 answering a call to «Guerilla Programming of Video Surveillance Equipment» by Michael Carter in 1995. The members of this media activist group manifest their opposition to the violation of protected rights to privacy by performing specially adapted plays directly in front of these cameras. "
On the old Not Bored website, you used to be able to go there and find a map of all the surveillance cameras for a certain area. Today, I think if a map like that existed in the cities across the USA, you would find these type of cameras have increased so much, and that's not even taking into account all the door cameras ppl have nowadays.
Last note, for the readers there are currently 38 texts on The Anarchist Library under the topic of "surveillance"
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/topic/surveillance
And you dumbass fuckin
anon (not verified) Mon, 01/06/2025 - 18:40
In reply to Just a quick drive-by comment by anon (not verified)
And you dumbass fuckin "anarchists" keep using the Internet
And you, dumbass fucker, are…
anonymous (not verified) Thu, 01/09/2025 - 06:58
In reply to And you dumbass fuckin by anon (not verified)
And you, dumbass fucker, are also using the internet
I mean what is there to
anon (not verified) Tue, 01/07/2025 - 07:48
I mean what is there to really say? We're fucked. The leftist dream of educating the masses toward global revolt failed. Miserably. In the US the only insurrectionary anarchist activity is the heated debates on anarchist forums. And while nihilists and leftists trade punches and play video games all day the state swells all around us.
swell
anon (not verified) Tue, 01/07/2025 - 09:17
In reply to I mean what is there to by anon (not verified)
swells around us, like a nasty abscess about to burst. no one, not anarchists either, wants to bother healing this collective toxicity. but also true that no one will want to cleanse the mess after this civilizational pimple pops. everyone thinks it is the other's responsibility; leftists, liberals, fascists, politicians etc.
hunker down offline, but no where is safety guaranteed.
well said.
anon (not verified) Wed, 01/08/2025 - 16:55
In reply to swell by anon (not verified)
well said.
I think there can be
anon (not verified) Tue, 01/07/2025 - 09:20
I think there can be technology without the involvements of hierarchies. DIY, and collective science projects are evidence of this. However, once hierarchical systems start to get involved, it becomes increasingly difficult to decouple it from the use of tech. Take the early internet or the early days of chemistry, these were either non-hierarchical or at least far less hierarchical than they are now. As with anything, hierarchy creeps further into what it does not control.
What do anarchist think of AI technology?
AI is generally bad under our current capitalist and statist civilization. There could be genuine uses for AI, something that actually helps people, instead of just stealing art or shitting out an essay (although both ai image generation and writing can be fun and sort of helpful.) I think anarchists could use AI to get things done nobody wants to do, so we can have more time to fuck and play (including playing with tech / science.)
Community watch groups? Do you mean neighborhood watch groups? Yeah these are obviously wannabe cops whose purpose is to defend the property of middle class homeowners.
Some anarchists who talk about mass surveillance I can think of are Tom Nomad and Robert Evans. Both of which have problematic takes.
Most anarchists who talk about mass surveillance propose similar techniques to combat it: using end-to-end encrypted messaging and email, using a VPN/ TOR browser / TAILS operating system, properly masking up, keeping some things completely offline, having a robust security culture.
Some ways anarchist can take back the anti surveillance movement from right wingers and leftists is to emphasize the roles of the state, private capital, and culture contribute to mass surveillance. Obviously combatting the alphabet agencies mass surveillance, but also the mass surveillance of meta, X, etc. should also be combatted. Creating a culture against mass surveillance and emphasizing privacy is paramount. Creating a resistance to Karen’s, snitches, and other lower level contributors to mass surveillance.
An interesting thing I’ve thought about in regards to mass surveillance (and this is pretty dystopian) is what if we just made it completely open source? Everyone’s search history, every single camera, every single text and email, available to anyone. This is the opposite end of the spectrum, and could also be seen as anarchistic, as it removes hierarchical control of surveillance. However this would be a pretty dystopian anarchist society.
even "make it completely open
anon (not verified) Tue, 01/07/2025 - 09:42
In reply to I think there can be by anon (not verified)
even "make it completely open source" wouldn't be fully open and wtv; agencies would still keep their analysis algorithms secret, it would become a matter of differential manpower, proprietary software, and computing power...
I think, I know nothing about networks or hacking
tails vs heads and opsec
R@W10M/\V$ (not verified) Thu, 01/09/2025 - 14:25
In reply to I think there can be by anon (not verified)
worth noting that the usecase for tails is selective. For a properly hardened daily driver with no proprietary software its highly recommended to buy qubes os certified hardware, which comes with opensource firmware. 2fa with a totp security token recommended, if youre extra paranoid, but this is of course for those who are.... doing more than usual. Still, I would atleast say by FAR the most important aspect of opsec is the spying device you carry around in your pocket. Degoogle. Grapheneos on certain phones works, for the less tech inclined you can buy from certain open source projects that are degoogled, Im looking forward to trying the brax3 phone, or other available models can be gotten from nitrokey, which also happens to supply qubes os hardware with heads. Tails doesnt REALLY have a save state, as in like every time you start up youre starting from an essentially fresh install... not really a daily driver. No trace. Not necessarily the most secure.
QubesOS is based on the Xen…
anonymous (not verified) Thu, 01/09/2025 - 15:55
In reply to tails vs heads and opsec by R@W10M/\V$ (not verified)
QubesOS is based on the Xen hypervisor which has massive architectural flaws that are basically unfixable. Xen has had several high severity vulnerabilities up to and including a full domU escape to dom0 with root permissions that was in the codebase for seven or eight years before it got fixed.
so your recommendation is…
R@W10M/\V$ (not verified) Thu, 01/09/2025 - 16:55
In reply to QubesOS is based on the Xen… by anonymous (not verified)
so your recommendation is then tails as a daily driver? Seems impractical for a lot of people.
Tails is based on Systemd…
anonymous (not verified) Thu, 01/09/2025 - 18:22
In reply to so your recommendation is… by R@W10M/\V$ (not verified)
Tails is based on Systemd which also has well-documented security flaws including at boot stage, and an infamous privilege-escalation flaw found a few years back. There was Heads, a non-Systemd version of Tails but it got quickly abandoned.
"Tails is based on Systemd "…
anonymous (not verified) Thu, 01/09/2025 - 18:40
In reply to Tails is based on Systemd… by anonymous (not verified)
"Tails is based on Systemd "
Hello, fellow 1337 h4x0rs.
*dies*
when i was talking about…
RawtenMus (not verified) Thu, 01/09/2025 - 20:05
In reply to Tails is based on Systemd… by anonymous (not verified)
when i was talking about Heads, i was talking about qubes os with coreboot/libreboot. Im still unaware of what youre doing besides complaining then. What do you use then, void? Artix? Name me an os that doesn't have any cve's I mean what youre talking about with qubes is from 2016 right? Sooo idk, i think qubes is as advertised... a reasonably secure os.
I wasn't complaining, just…
anonymous (not verified) Fri, 01/10/2025 - 07:53
In reply to when i was talking about… by RawtenMus (not verified)
I wasn't complaining, just pointing how Tails isn't as safe as they say for how it is based on an unsafe init system, instead of something like OpenRC, Runit or SysV (that unlike the systemd cult says, is still in active development). You can have Arch, BSD, Gentoo or some Debian variants running with any of these alternatives, but for some reason, the very brilliant devs behind a "privacy-focused" distro like Tails are locked to systemd because "reasons".
Biggest obstacle to safer practices will always be the same: Invasion of the Body Snatchers lousy mentality (or "everyone uses Facebook, so let's just fucking give our lives to it!!!"). That's the cultish mindset that made systemd so big... not its ease of use, and much, much less performance or security.
Dunno much about Qubes OS tho. Not a fan of hypervisor shit.
Calling Devuan,
anonymous (not verified) Fri, 01/10/2025 - 17:46
In reply to I wasn't complaining, just… by anonymous (not verified)
Calling Devuan
The people need a non-systemd Tails, over.
No Trace Project questions
no-trace-fan (not verified) Tue, 01/07/2025 - 16:01
Hi! Have you heard of the No Trace Project?
https://www.notrace.how/
I'm very much reminded of this effort upon reading this TOTW.
Here are some other questions that might be relevant to think about around this subject as well (could be a whole other TOTW on it's own):
How can we support each other in developing and practicing physical surveillance countermeasures?
If you detect physical surveillance, which activities or projects would you want to continue and which would you want to put on pause? If you stop meeting with your friends to prevent the surveillance operation from mapping your social network, how can your network help you feel less isolated?
If you detect physical surveillance, how can you communicate this to your network in a way that doesn't alert the surveillance operation that they have been detected? How can such communication happen in a way that doesn't bolster paranoia?
via No Trace Project:
https://www.notrace.how/blog/preparing-for-physical-surveillance/prepar…
an example of this type of…
anonymous (not verified) Tue, 01/07/2025 - 16:20
In reply to No Trace Project questions by no-trace-fan (not verified)
an example of this type of decentralization can be seen in how ppl manage to share dumpster produce without needing coordination. if you came to a compost can full of vegetables and saw signs that others also visit, how much/when would you take so that everyone else also gets some, and so that (ideally) everyone also gets decent information about what and how much is in there? a key feature of this kind of distribution is that everyone involved works with what they can get--you can't exactly place orders!
furthermore, some may be involved in further sharing by distroing from their house or workplace/backpack etc. oftentimes this continued chain is also on a "free for all" basis, potentially with or without verbal coordination and/or self-consciousness. interestingly, in systems such as this, it's more likely for people to UNDERUTILIZE and for food to go to waste, then for TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS to decimate the stock. if i knew how to coordinate full distribution and full use without speaking a word, i would do it, but alas, undersaturation is fine too i guess...
"And what do they do to…
anonymous (not verified) Tue, 01/07/2025 - 16:49
"And what do they do to defend themselves against it?"
KeYbOaRd MoLoToV!
I can refute every pimple in…
Le Way, (not verified) Thu, 01/09/2025 - 16:13
I can refute every pimple in this drone covered world surrounding me that offends or enraptures me, except this chaos, this individual sovereign chance and this divine equivalence which springs from anarchy.
Since the dawn of time, all…
Dav8d Anarchborough (not verified) Fri, 01/10/2025 - 05:07
Since the dawn of time, all animals have developed sensory organs to enhance their surveillance powers to preserve them from predators, hunt for their prey, and to detect other essential objects to make their lives comfortable and productive. The most sensitive and powerful sensors, the eyes, ears and nose enable them to see, hear and smell their enemies from a long distance and secure their safety and relieve their anxieties and fears. The cleverer animals who live in herds have developed the power of machine sensors to complete this task whilst they sit in chairs in secure strongholds out of danger, enabling them to reproduce at an exponential rate and dominate entire regions, which rival the powers of eagles, bloodhounds, whale and bat sonar organs. This is a natural evolutionary phenomena which causes alarm to all of their prey or enemies.
The more powerful rival…
David Anarchborough (not verified) Fri, 01/10/2025 - 21:37
The more powerful rival herding societies of these hyper surveilance societies, to survive, develop their own surveilance and anti-surveilance technology because they have the wealth and surplus of energy to do so, and a vicious snowballing tit-for-tat competition arises between the combatants, and the original purpose of surveilance, which was to preserve and provide well-being to its members is forgotten, but instead used to impose control, fear and confinement of the inhabitants of both competing societies, now deprived of the benefits of a balanced organic observation of their environment.
At the height of surveilance…
David Anarchborough (not verified) Sat, 01/11/2025 - 06:08
At the height of surveilance technology, the advanced herding species, true to their collective innate nature, have concentrated their populations into dense concrete forts with reinforced walls and gates, and observe their environment via a panopticon of surveilance cameras channelling all the sensor data to handheld screens and wall monitors within their prison-like dwellings, where all their requirements are delivered. A small variety of their species called 'anarchists' venture out at night, devoid of any surveilance technology and only using their primitive organic eyes, ears and nose, they gleefully throw caution to the wind and laugh and dance along the dangerous laneways of the concrete jungle, seeking food, freedom and excitement away from the stifling moral conformity and oppressive surveilance that the herd's authority impose upon the population. They are a rare breed, and only spotted occasionally when naked and mating in the numerous parks after nightfall,,,,,,truly courageous, but easy targets for pervertsvwith infrared equipped surveilance cameras.
"Do you think there can be…
Tim Declercq (not verified) Sat, 01/11/2025 - 08:05
"Do you think there can be technology without the involvements of hierarchies?"
Sure, why not? Depends on what you mean by technology I suppose. Even a stone handaxe is technically technology, and our ancestors were already using that before homo sapiens even existed.
"What do anarchist think of AI technology?"
I think it's really cool. In fact I even dabbled in it myself back in the day before this recent AI boom of the last 5-10 years, participated in Stanford's General Game Playing competition and other AI competitions. Was a lot of fun, did quite well too, mostly using MCTS-derived algorithms and stuff like that.
I'm getting the feeling here that you're looking for a response along the line of "the government can use AI for repressive purposes therefor AI bad" and I'm sure you'll find many anarchists using such argument, but not me, I consider this more a Luddite argument than anything. It's like someone in the 19th century saying "bicycles bad!" merely because if a cop uses a bicycle they're better at catching you.
"Would you consider community's watch groups as a form of surveillance?"
If that's what they're doing then sure.
"What are some anarchist who talk about mass surveillance? And what do they do to defend themselves against it?"
I've seen quite some zines about it, though if you're looking for English-language stuff I'm sure others will be better at helping you. As for defending against mass surveillance, general stuff like don't bring your phone to any actions or meetings, don't leave an electronic record of anything illegal, use cryptography, etc.
"The anti surveillance movement has been hijacked by far right figures and influencers. What are some ways anarchist can take back the anti surveillance movement?"
Not sure I'd exactly call it hijacked, mass surveillance (especially after the Snowden revelations) is something that is generally opposed by quite a lot of people in society, and anarchists generally have a much weaker influence in society than far-right figures and influencers. So I think it's more that the anti-surveillance movement reflects the general balance of influence in society at large than a specific hijacking. Though I suppose it all depends on how you want to look at it.
here ya go Tim! this is a…
lumpy (not verified) Sat, 01/11/2025 - 09:03
In reply to "Do you think there can be… by Tim Declercq (not verified)
here ya go Tim!
this is a fun little video essay that playfully challenges your stance on AI a lil' bit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttb2BdExy38
Ok I watched less than 2…
Tim Declercq (not verified) Sat, 01/11/2025 - 09:26
In reply to here ya go Tim! this is a… by lumpy (not verified)
Ok I watched less than 2 minutes of that and I've already face-palmed at least 5 times. Among the many misunderstandings this person seems to have, I'll just address one of them: Life expectancy has increased dramatically so, their argument goes, we could become effectively immortal because increase in life expectancy outpaces the aging process.
This person doesn't seem to understand what life expectancy is. Did you know that even in the stone age the modal age of death was about 70 years? Life expectancy is calculated as the average amount of years, at birth, a person will have before dying. The reason life expectancy used to be around 35 years isn't because people lived until 35 and then died (that has *never* been the case, even in the stone age).
The reason is because of high infant mortality. If half of the people who are born die by age 5 and the other half by age 65, then life expectancy is (5 + 65) / 2 = 35 years. That doesn't mean that people were dying when they reached age 35, it just means that there was a very high infant mortality which was dragging the *average* down. Almost the entire growth of life expectancy in the modern age is due to decreased infant mortality because of medical improvements, the part due to actually living longer is almost negligible. This is also why life expectancy has stopped growing so much lately, because infant mortality is about as low as it'll ever get.
Unless you can give me a good reason I'm not inclined to spend almost an hour of my life watching the rest of this video, as at this rate I'll have a flat head by the end because of all the face-palming :p
Short addendum: the modal…
Tim Declercq (not verified) Sat, 01/11/2025 - 09:28
In reply to Ok I watched less than 2… by Tim Declercq (not verified)
Short addendum: the modal age of death is the age at which most people die, it's a much better metric than life expectancy because it isn't so sensitive to this averaging effect of infant mortality. So of all people who died, you record at which age they died, and the age at which most of them died is then the modal age of death. Already in the stone age this was 70 years.
srsly? you typed all of this…
lumpy (not verified) Sat, 01/11/2025 - 15:15
In reply to Short addendum: the modal… by Tim Declercq (not verified)
srsly? you typed all of this instead of waiting another 30 seconds to realize that everything you're responding to here, was a joke. this youtuber is a comedian but also quite insightful ... but you didn't even get past the opening jokes ...
Well I much prefer text over…
Tim Declercq (not verified) Sat, 01/11/2025 - 15:47
In reply to srsly? you typed all of this… by lumpy (not verified)
Well I much prefer text over audio or video anyway. Exactly for the reason that I can quickly skim through a text to see what it's going to be about before committing to the time of carefully reading it all, instead of taking the chance of wasting an hour or so of my life on something that may very well be useless. Especially in cases like these where I just get a link to some video in response to some argument I've made, where in >90% of cases it either argues against points I never made (and positions I don't hold) or just tells me stuff I already know, in both cases making it a simple waste of my time.
the youtuber is funny and…
lumpy (not verified) Sat, 01/11/2025 - 18:41
In reply to Well I much prefer text over… by Tim Declercq (not verified)
the youtuber is funny and thoughtful about a critique of techno-optimism but yes, i'm afraid you'll need an attention span longer than a few minutes to get much out of it
There is nothing wrong with…
Tim Declercq (not verified) Sat, 01/11/2025 - 19:15
In reply to the youtuber is funny and… by lumpy (not verified)
There is nothing wrong with my attention span. It's quite presumptuous of you to assume I'd get something out of some random youtube video, and the more this conversation goes on the more I'm convinced I made the right call of not bothering to watch it any further. You say it's a "critique of techno-optimism" even though I didn't argue any techno-optimism (let alone whatever specific points of techno-optimism this youtube video is criticizing).
Dude, you know what I think that AGI will do? I think that most likely it'll kill us all. How's that for techno-optimism? And the reason I think that isn't because of some youtube comedians but because of actually reading actual AI alignment research. You know, stuff that requires a good attention span.
You may pretend that there's something wrong with my attention span all you want, I already explicitly explained my reasoning: That it's a waste of my time watching long videos arguing against points I never made or positions I don't hold - which this, by your description, seems to be a case of.
I just spent the last hour or so reading a paper by Carroll about the intricacies of energy conservation in different interpretations of quantum mechanics (this one https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.11052) and I had no problem investing an hour of my time into that, because I didn't know too much about that and I find it interesting, so I actually got something out of it. Why do you think papers like that have an abstract? Is it because readers don't have an attention span to read anything longer than one paragraph? No, it's because it's a common courtesy to give a short overview of the content before expecting people to invest their time into reading the whole thing. A common courtesy which you are not providing me by just throwing a 45min youtube video at me expecting me to watch this whole thing while giving me exactly zero reason to expect I'd get anything out of it, to the contrary.
SIGH the video addresses…
lumpy (not verified) Sun, 01/12/2025 - 09:55
In reply to There is nothing wrong with… by Tim Declercq (not verified)
SIGH the video addresses that too...
the - OMG AGI will kill us all!!! chicken little routine is just the other side of the coin. regardless of the temperament of the person, if they get all hippy woo about AI or claim that it's guaranteed skynet lazer genocide for all humans, the whole grift is still just a i-have-special-knowledge ego trip.
this is just how conspiracy theories and cults work. they draw people in using huge, charismatic claims about a singularity event like the rapture and utopia or golden age OR, for the other type of person, maybe they prefer a just-around-the-corner-apocalypse. the point is to cause a big emotional reaction in the listener and it puts them in to a more suggestible state
I see you have a habit of…
Tim Declercq (not verified) Sun, 01/12/2025 - 12:09
In reply to SIGH the video addresses… by lumpy (not verified)
I see you have a habit of pretending to address people's points without ever actually addressing them. No, lumpy, it's not "hippy woo" about "guaranteed skynet lazar genocide" nor did I ever say anything of the sort. What I said was, I quote, "I think that AGI will most likely kill us all." All that other stuff is just you. Here, let me show you why I think AGI will most likely kill us all:
Suppose the manager at a paper clip factory installs an AGI with the goal of "maximize paper clip production." Can you see already how even something as completely innocuous as that results in it killing us all? No? Well, suppose that later we want to turn it off because the factory is going to stop production. Will the AI allow us to turn it off or will it resist being turned off? Think about it for a moment.
The answer is of course that it will resist. Not because of some "skynet lazar" BS you're coming up with or some anthropomorphic notion of it having self-preservation , but because of a very simple reason: If it gets turned off then it will end up producing less paper clips. It has two options, one of which results in more paper clips than the other, and so that's the one it goes with. Simple as that.
Now suppose that after the factory manager failed to turn off the AI, we go to war with this AI in an effort to finally turn it off. Will it now acquiesce to being turned off or will it fight us to the death to stop us doing so? Think about it for a moment.
That's right, it'll fight us to the death. Again not because it's some "skynet lazar" BS or anything of the sort, but simply because that's the option that would result in the most paper clips. Obviously there's nothing special about paper clips in my example here, yet something as innocuous as a factory manager deploying an AI to help with paper clip production ended up with it killing us all. And that is why I think that AGI will most likely end up killing us all.
You claim that youtube video addresses this point, so please provide a timestamp where it addresses this problem of goal-conservatism (the tendency of AI system to resist having their goals changed).
i'm not addressing your…
lumpy (not verified) Sun, 01/12/2025 - 17:19
In reply to I see you have a habit of… by Tim Declercq (not verified)
i'm not addressing your points, i'm explaining how you've misconstrued mine.
are you the only one who gets to choose a topic? that would be odd if you thought so.
my point is about how the AI-will-save-us or AI-will-kill-us binary is a canard. the tech hype hucksters don't care which one you respond to you, the point is different people respond to both and it's all just a sales pitch.
i said it VERY clearly this time. you can gish gallop off in a random direction again if you want but i'll still be standing here, smirking at you, whenever your horse gets tired and you circle back, k?
i'm conserving energy, you should try it. read more carefully, maybe think harder before you fire back and don't bother making demands, belligerence doesn't work on me :)
You claimed, and I quote: …
Tim Declercq (not verified) Sun, 01/12/2025 - 18:24
In reply to i'm not addressing your… by lumpy (not verified)
You claimed, and I quote: "this is a fun little video essay that playfully challenges your stance on AI a lil' bit." Later on you further claimed, and I quote: "SIGH the video addresses that too..." But now you're saying you're not actually addressing my points? So why should I watch that video then?
"my point is about how the AI-will-save-us or AI-will-kill-us binary is a canard. the tech hype hucksters don't care which one you respond to you, the point is different people respond to both and it's all just a sales pitch."
And what does any of that have to do with anything I said? That's right, nothing whatsoever. See, here's what happened: I stated that I think that most likely AGI will end up killing us all. You, in all your arrogance, unable to conceive of the fact that other people might be able to think for themselves, just assumed that obviously I could not have arrived at that conclusion other than by being put in a "suggestible state" and "drawn in" by a "grift" of some tech bros, decided to throw some random-ass video at me, insisting that I would get something out of it addressing my stance on AI. In your arrogance and presumtuousness you did not bother to ask me for my reasoning for my stance before doing so, even though I had explicitly told you that it was based on the actual literature of AI alignment research (the goal-conservatism problem is a serious and unsolved problem).
Unless you'd like to present another explanation for why, if you now claim to not be addressing any of my points or stances but just presenting your own topics for discussion, you chose to do so by specifically responding to me in this thread instead of starting your own thread about it?
Some of the specie's members…
David Anarchborough (not verified) Sat, 01/11/2025 - 22:39
In reply to Ok I watched less than 2… by Tim Declercq (not verified)
Some of the specie's members who are endowed with critical thinking, which has nothing to do with sensory organs, but rather a keen ability to assess numbers, cause and effect, develop flat heads from continuously slapping their faces in exasperation at the stupidity of others.
it's my face to slap flat…
lumpy (not verified) Sun, 01/12/2025 - 09:59
In reply to Some of the specie's members… by David Anarchborough (not verified)
it's my face to slap flat david, don't kink shame :P
There's something else I'm…
Tim Declercq (not verified) Sat, 01/11/2025 - 11:51
In reply to here ya go Tim! this is a… by lumpy (not verified)
There's something else I'm going to address here, because it's rather intriguing and is not something many people know about. At the very start of the video he confidently proclaims: "You're gonna die."
Really? You see, there's this neat little result in the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics that suggests otherwise, known as "quantum immortality." Something that's not often mentioned is that you don't even need the Everett interpretation or quantum mechanaics at all to arrive at this, the much weaker assumption of 1) an infinite universe and 2) non-deterministic physics is enough. There's been quite some debate about it (for example Everett himself believed he'd be immortal) and personally I consider the counter-arguments unsatisfying, but this would take us way too deep into the math of quantuim mechanics. So yeah, there's a plausible argument that we live forever, there is no basis for this guy to confidently proclaim otherwise.
Before you get too happy about this immortality though, note how it means *living* forever, it doesn't mean being young forever or being healthy forever. Quite the opposite! It means a life of eternal decay, getting older and weaker forever, most likely being in excruciating pain but never able to take that last breath that will finally end it all. Just eternal decay...literally forever with zero possibility for escape.
So yeah, "you're gonna die"? What an optimist!
"there's a plausible…
lumpy (not verified) Sat, 01/11/2025 - 15:27
In reply to There's something else I'm… by Tim Declercq (not verified)
"there's a plausible argument that we live forever"
"there's no basis [to] confidently proclaim otherwise"
... so you're a troll or a bot or what? what tf is this bullshit?
Yes lumpy, to confidently…
Tim Declercq (not verified) Sat, 01/11/2025 - 15:35
In reply to "there's a plausible… by lumpy (not verified)
Yes lumpy, to confidently proclaim that "you're gonna die" he would need to refute the argument, otherwise the best he could do is something like "I think you're gonna die" or "there's a chance you're gonna die" but not to proclaim "you're gonna die" as if this was an absolute certainty.
ohhh tim, death is quite a…
lumpy (not verified) Sat, 01/11/2025 - 18:53
In reply to Yes lumpy, to confidently… by Tim Declercq (not verified)
ohhh tim, death is quite a bit stronger than your little thought experiments and rhetorical flourishes
"death and taxes" as the old saying goes but i'm an anarchist so i don't accept the second one
Yeah because we all know…
Tim Declercq (not verified) Sat, 01/11/2025 - 20:08
In reply to ohhh tim, death is quite a… by lumpy (not verified)
Yeah because we all know that the universe isn't described by physics but by old sayings. A denial is not the same as a refutation lumpy. Here's an example of what a refutation would look like: https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0187
Now, to be sure, this refutation is quite flawed, both on general grounds (it's not actually arguing against the claim that we'd be immortal but against the claim that it'd be a good idea to start playing quantum Russian roulette, which is quite another question and rather independent of the first question, not in the least because people would still be immortal even if they never played any quantum Russian roulette) as well as on some technical grounds (for example claiming that the vast majority of the integral of an exponentially decaying measure would be in its infinite tail) but at least that's what a refutation would look like.
Funny thing about this paper though is that it showed the opposite of what the author was trying to argue, in that it showed that the immortality argument doesn't even require the Everett interpretation or quantum mechanics per se but that it would also follow from just assuming an infinite universe and any non-deterministic physics, as I had already mentioned earlier (the "many-planets" part of the paper).
you're not actually dealing…
lumpy (not verified) Sun, 01/12/2025 - 09:38
In reply to Yeah because we all know… by Tim Declercq (not verified)
you're not actually dealing with "explaining the universe" here at all ...
you're doing a pretty simple error of reasoning about the burden of proof. the "many worlds interpretation" doesn't force everyone to now have to "prove" that death is certain. that's not how reasoned argument works.
the large claim is being made by the speaker when they say something absurd or speculative like "maybe we live forever somewhere in another dimension because schroedinger's cat and implications of these mathematical models". people don't have to run around, endlessly disproving the large claims of loudmouths and demagogues.
everret wasn't saying what you and various tech-bro hype men are claiming he was. whoever else you're dragging in to this, also wasn't making practical, provable assertions, they were speculating about other dimensions, which is fine but also means almost literally nothing since we can't go there and ask the immortals about it.
it's called the many worlds interpretation for a reason. you're being a weird liar by deliberately misrepresenting this or getting taken in by somebody else who's lying or failing to understand. also, the video essay which you refused to watch, explains all of this in a fun way, instead of my grumpy style which i tried to spare you from ;)
It's not "other dimensions"…
Tim Declercq (not verified) Sun, 01/12/2025 - 11:35
In reply to you're not actually dealing… by lumpy (not verified)
It's not "other dimensions" where we "can't go there" to "ask the immortals." The wavefunction exists in 3 spatial dimensions, no more and no less, there are no "other dimensions." Furthermore under the Everett interpretation you are constantly "splitting" into different branches of the wavefunction whether you want to or not, every decoherence induces a branching. Do you even QM bro? Can you write me down the Schrodinger equation here without having to look it up? Because I seriously suspect you are talking about things you don't know anything about.
As for the video essay, which you claim addresses this, give me a timestamp where it addresses the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics. Because if you got this nonsense about "other dimensions" where "the immortals live" and where we "can't go" from that video then I'd like to check it.
You need to cancel your…
anonymous (not verified) Sun, 01/12/2025 - 11:57
In reply to It's not "other dimensions"… by Tim Declercq (not verified)
You need to cancel your Netflix subscription and go outside. The answers to Schrodinger's VERY IMPORTANT equation is DEEP within the grass. Go touch some, brah.
*Max
anonymous (not verified) Sun, 01/12/2025 - 11:57
In reply to You need to cancel your… by anonymous (not verified)
*Max
I don't have a Netflix…
Tim Declercq (not verified) Sun, 01/12/2025 - 12:20
In reply to You need to cancel your… by anonymous (not verified)
I don't have a Netflix subscription. And Schrodinger's equation is the equation that governs the evolution of the wavefunction of a quantum mechanical sytem. It's the basic, elementary building block of quantum mechanics. Me asking lumpy to write it down without looking it up is of course designed to check whether he actually has the slightest familiarity with what he's arguing about here. It's like asking someone arguing about mathematics to add 2 and 2 together, to see if they even have a basic familiarity with the subject they're arguing about.
Tim ... i know you want to…
lumpy (not verified) Sun, 01/12/2025 - 17:11
In reply to I don't have a Netflix… by Tim Declercq (not verified)
Tim ... i know you want to run the goal posts around because this isn't going well for you. you seem to really struggle with humour and sarcasm versus the point someone is actually making but we've massively wandered off topic at this point, all starting from when you didn't clock a joke and started implying you were too smart to lower yourself to a comedian's video essay. i'm obviously not interested in a quantum mechanics pissing contest with you, that's not even close to what we were talking about.
it was AI, remember?
"Tim ... i know you want to…
Tim Declercq (not verified) Sun, 01/12/2025 - 18:33
In reply to Tim ... i know you want to… by lumpy (not verified)
"Tim ... i know you want to run the goal posts around because this isn't going well for you."
If that's what you feel you need to tell yourself then who am I to stand in your way?
"i'm obviously not interested in a quantum mechanics pissing contest with you"
Then why start one? You've made a series of claims about quantum mechanics and about the Everett interpretation specifically, are you retracting those claims? Here are a few of them:
- "everret wasn't saying what you {...} are claiming he was."
Then why does his biography state that he believed he would be immortal? Is it because this immortality result actually follows almost trivially from the Everett interpretation?
- "it's called the many worlds interpretation for a reason"
And what is that reason, then? Can you tell us what the term "world" in many worlds interpretation refers to, on a technical level? Hint: it has nothing to do with "other dimensions" that "we can't get to".
"that's not even close to what we were talking about. it was AI, remember?"
You seem to be confusing different threads. This thread was about the immortality result in the Everett interpretation and has never been about AI. I started it in response to that youtube guy proclaiming "you're gonna die" at the start of his video. Feel free to browse back through the chain of replies to verify if you want.
And lastly: "whoever else you're dragging in to this, also wasn't making practical, provable assertions, they were speculating about other dimensions"
Again with the arrogance, as if the only reason I could arrive at this immortality result is because I heard about it second-hand from "whoever else" speculating about things, as if I couldn't just derive this result from the math myself.
In all of the groups and…
David Anarchborough (not verified) Sun, 01/12/2025 - 01:24
In reply to ohhh tim, death is quite a… by lumpy (not verified)
In all of the groups and milieus within this specie's societies there exists one member who dominates all conversations and debates that occur, and uses numerous ad hominems and insults to seemingly win an argument,,,in their own minds. In anarchist societies, the vocal cords are used mostly to convey useful information to avoid suffering, for singing love or rebel songs, and to express ones feelings to maintain a harmonious relationship within the group, however this is lost on this knowall braggart, until someone just tells them to shut up, often with expletives included. Unfortunately this often has no effect, and actually makes them more obnoxiously loud and seething with ressentiment.
"Even a stone handaxe is…
Phenomenanonaut (not verified) Sat, 01/11/2025 - 11:51
In reply to "Do you think there can be… by Tim Declercq (not verified)
"Even a stone handaxe is technically technology"
A stone handaxe is a tool. It is not technology. Technology is (and requires) an authoritarian, repressive system and hierarchical structure.
In the spirit of good faith I will refrain from deconstructing your comment which is based entirely on this common ( misuse of the term in the hopes that you will educate yourself on the usage of the term.
When thinkers (in the philosophical tradition) discuss technology, they are not pondering the common usage of tools, but instead techne.
You (all of you) would benefit to begin with Heidegger, Marcuse, or even our based uncle's Ted and JZ on these questions concerning technology.
Death to technology!
Long live anarchy!
all technology is technique,…
anonymous (not verified) Sat, 01/11/2025 - 17:07
all technology is technique, would like to see anti tech people not use any techniques. so yeah bear minimum fuck industrial tech smash the machines.
Perhaps the most fascinating…
David Anarchborough (not verified) Sun, 01/12/2025 - 09:33
Perhaps the most fascinating and intriguing members of the anarchist species, to avoid surveillance, have adopted the ability to dissappear by using camouflage and remaining very quiet. These " Chameleonarchs " move unobserved by wearing clothing the same color as their surroundings and appear only as fleeting chimera in the camera footage of authoritarian scrutinizers. They go about their individualist business immune to any laws and restrictions, the lords of their habitat, freely engaging in joyful intercourse amongst their friends, impervious to any attacks or confinement by their enemies.
DA troll is soporific. While…
anonymous (not verified) Sun, 01/12/2025 - 09:53
In reply to Perhaps the most fascinating… by David Anarchborough (not verified)
DA troll is soporific. While the Emile troll was taking pages out of comment sections, at least it was amusing.
Some members of this "…
David Anarchborough (not verified) Sun, 01/12/2025 - 19:41
In reply to DA troll is soporific. While… by anonymous (not verified)
Some members of this " anarchist " milieu find hyper-complex texts suited to their hysterically caffeine (possibly meth)induced mood and anything calmly and logically explained goes completely over their stressed heads. These morons are ill-mannered and seething with discontent and project their bragging rights wherever they go, and show up as flashing lights on infra-red surveillance images.
Their comments are usually deleted [;)] by the security-minded collective.
never stop ;)
anonymous (not verified) Mon, 01/13/2025 - 08:11
In reply to Some members of this "… by David Anarchborough (not verified)
never stop ;)
The goal of trolling is to…
anonymous (not verified) Mon, 01/13/2025 - 09:15
In reply to Some members of this "… by David Anarchborough (not verified)
The goal of trolling is to fool or lure readers with the ambiguity of your comments or persona's reliability. Then there's the online practice known as trollololing, with the lesser hostile/asshole aims of doing it for the lols, like clowning for what clowns are usually good for.
So if from the start you present yourself through a lame, overused template for a joke then not only you're deflating the farcical value from the get go, but also erase the appeal of reading your comments at all. Like change clothes maybe? That would help.
> The goal of trolling Brah,…
anonymous (not verified) Mon, 01/13/2025 - 10:41
In reply to The goal of trolling is to… by anonymous (not verified)
> The goal of trolling
Brah, I think they're lame and boring too, but come the fuck on, brah.
Add new comment