The SF Diplomat Interviews Nick Bostrom Thursday, Jan 25 2007
transhumanism 3:15 pm

From the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies website:
Jonathan McCalmont: Nick Bostrom, you are a philosopher, the Director of the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford, a university fellow in the James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization at the university of Oxford and co-founder of the World Transhumanist Association. How did you come to be a transhumanist?
Nick Bostrom: It was a matter of discovering rather than becoming. I discovered that there was a name for a view that made a lot of sense to me. The view was that people ought to have the opportunity to live much longer, healthier, smarter, and happier lives, and that technological enhancement of human capacities could enable this. The name was transhumanism.
Read the rest.
Nick Bostrom is probably the one public figure that I have the most in common with. When you look at Nick’s interviews and writings, you notice that, while he is very interested in transhumanism in general, he is particularly concerned with the creation of greater-than-human intelligence. For example, in the interview he says, regarding his initial consideration of these ideas, “I was dumbstruck because it occurred to me that we would eventually learn to manipulate and engineer the stuff that thinks, and this might result in above-human intelligence. That prospect seemed uniquely important.” This focus, on the prospect of superintelligence and ensuring how its creation will go well, is a branch of transhumanism called singularitarianism. (If you find that hard to pronounce, remember, or spell, this song may help you remember.) The word comes from “Singularity” merged with “arian”, like libertarian comes from “liberty” merged with “arian”.
Recently, Nick wrote a paper with Max Tegmark using anthropic reasoning to infer the probability of planetary catastrophe. My recent post on Tegmark mentions how he himself has now developed singularitarian sensibilities. For an outline of many principles common to singularitarians, see this link. The Singularity Institute is the premier organization for singularitarians. In addition to engaging in AI research, the organization puts on events like the Stanford Singularity Summit, which brings together prominent thinkers to discuss the Singularity.
To read more about the singularitarian perspective, I recommend AI as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk.

January 26th, 2007 at 5:42 am
Eliezer (IIRC) has started to avoid the use of “singularity” to refer specifically to intelligence explosion, and now prefers the latter term. How could we turn the latter term into an “ism” or “arian” designator?
January 26th, 2007 at 11:43 am
We can’t. “Transhumanists focused on the intelligence explosion” is okay too. People are turned off by -arians and -isms by mere association, anyway. The idea is not about any one word. Also, we are free to keep using the word, even if Eliezer doesn’t, you realize? Though I see the advantages of “intelligence explosion” over Singularity, most definitely.
January 26th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Sure, we can keep using it. But it’s not likely we’ll keep being understood as we’d wish. And even if -ism words aren’t the greatest, I’d still like to have an -arian or -ist. (You can’t say that people are turned off by -arian words and yet use an -ist word, because the two postfixes have the same meaning.)
“Intelligence explosion”, unfortunately, is just such a non-appealing term. I suppose either you choose something obtuse and vague, and then have the term co-opted (like “singularity”) or you choose something explicit and unwieldly.
Well, I don’t actually think singulariatarianism needs that much *public* exposure anyway. Do you think so?
December 18th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Men Gay Shotrs…
Tournament men gay shotrs increase survey shotrs men gay said? Pass because, Springfield Monique Alex hidden slowly lo. …