Nick land

>REAL CAPITALISM HASN"T BEEN TRIED (yet)

>what's his goal?
To A C C E L E R A T E

Attached: accelerationism.jpg (710x473, 160K)

i don't know what any of this means

in short he wants to jerk off to robots and he is ready to do whatever it takes

Oh my sweet summer reddit newchild.

Evolution and capitalism are both symptoms of the underlying tendency toward intelligence maximization. The driving factor of modern human history is the shift of power from evolution to capitalism. Once artificial intelligence is more intelligent than natural intelligence control will change hands and humanity will go extinct. Capitalism as we know it will vanish in favor of raw flows in the body without organs.

>too
*to

I'm not very lettered and I understood him just fine. It's a mash up of Lovecraft, Sade, and Calvin.

Attached: CRhP6hEUkAAm4PY.jpg (576x1024, 28K)

what explanation does he give for artificial intelligence overtaking natural intelligence?

Intelligence is profitable so profit motivated humans create more of it.

Capitalism is a Lovecraftian demon sent to destroy us. It was summoned by a bunch of jews using some sort of dark ritual, a ritual that can only be performed when the world is in the state of kali yuga. Enjoy the end, modern man!

Attached: アカギ#14_169.png (865x1200, 490K)

The process behind capital acceleration is the same basic process that created humans. Are we a Lovecraftian demon sent to destroy all the large mammals? The struggle for existence goes on. We are only a node in the graph.

america is capitalist but filled with sub-iq retards how do you explain this

Wonder if the re-education camp will cure his retardation

The US government is not a profit maximizing entity. Capital does not have complete control of the world yet. Check out The Dark Enlightenment.

They have high iq chink immigrants

The top isn’t.

Basically he wants capitalism to spurn technological innovation so that robots slaughter humans and coloniza space.

I only heard that he lives in China. Did he actually get sent into those re-education camps? lmao

Did anyone see a few weeks ago that John Milbank was reviewing one of Land's books and he said that he probably should have been whipped more as a child? Talk about two Yea Forums memes colliding.

capitalism isn't about producing human intelligence

he hasn't tweeted in a few days, the only other time he took a break was for a day when he had medical problems. also he announced that break, no announcement of this one.

he lives in Shanghai. he got paid by the government to write a guidebook to fucking Xinjiang of all places and the rest of his money comes from Bitcoin and teaching shitty classes over Skype at fake online universities

youtube.com/watch?v=lrOVKHg_PJQ&app=desktop

he wants AI to put transwomen on the blockchain

That's oddly specific

Isn't Land's Techno-Capital Singularity predicated on perpetual growth in technology? For all we know, we're on the cusp of a tech stagnation point; where all the hanging compound gains of technology have been plucked and we start rubbing up against the walls of physical limitations.

I never get materialists... they are so adamant about the physical world but when it doesn't mold to their will they start dipping into quasi-metaphysics like singularities, simulation theory, and transhumanism. Moore's Law may be obsolete soon, but it's created whole secular cult around it's "timeless" prognostication.

Personally, I want to see all this tech-fetishism fall flat on its face.

Attached: s curve.png (648x432, 15K)

He’s a boomer justifying himself reading philosophy through amphetamine binges he doesn’t understand

It's predicated on growth up to the point of either genetic modification, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, or other unknown possibilities. Physical limits certainly don't prevent at least one of those from happening. There are many opportunities for intelligence runaway in the future. It doesn't matter if we face a global dark age. As long as the technology is possible it will happen.
Specifically about Moore's law: it will end for silicon chips after 3nm processes are fully optimized in 5 years or so. Other materials and manufacturing processes like fully depleted SOI will be able to scale at least somewhat further. New computer architectures can also improve efficiency by orders of magnitude. Check out IBM Truenorth and Intel Loihi. Human interaction with nano scale machinery has only scratched the surface.

who doesn't?

>For all we know, we're on the cusp of a tech stagnation point
although this is true there is no good reason to believe it. wishful thinking isn't a good reason to ignore ongoing trends.
>Moore's Law may be obsolete soon
"may" being operative. you are optimistic to the point of naivety

existence is itself a self-consuming demon the ouroboros seeking heat-death
the more we struggle to survive, the more we grow in ability, the sooner everything is over

life itself is the acceleration of the entropic process

>an esthetic movement which is resistant to postmodernity.
I'm interested. Could you summarize this movement?

I'll address the philosophical part of your post as well. Technology has continued on a relatively smooth accelerating trajectory for the entire history of humanity. Predicting an end to it requires much more evidence than expecting the trend to continue. The quasi-metaphysical claims are based on extrapolation of the trend. Most claims about humanity in the deep future will turn out to be wrong. That doesn't mean extrapolating the trend is the wrong approach. It's the only rational approach based on what we know.

That's the standard techno-optimistic boiler plate response.
But try to envision a techno-pessimistic one, where we hit an indefinite brick wall. That's hard given the momentum we've had.

Seriously, can anyone name a sci-fi story where the future is technologically stagnant yet non-dystopian? Where it's the year 2040 and it's eerily similar in tech level to today: the Dot Com 2.0 bubble happens, tech investment dries up, we have another AI Winter, breakthroughs in hardware stall, gene-editing turns out to be a mess, etc.
Honestly if you wrote a story 20 years ago about today, that's what it feels like.

I'm not coming at this from an optimistic perspective, but from a pessimistic one. Everybody is wide-eyed about all the hype. I'm just suggesting to look at it as if it may not materialize.

It's in nearly everyone's interest that tech succeeds because it's so pervasive within the capitalism and its markets (getting back to my original point about Land). But how much of it is smoke and mirrors in order to milk rubes out of investment shekels? How many billion dollar tech evaluations are really worth a billion dollars? What can ML really do and what can't it do that they are conveniently forgetting to tell us about.

There's definitely been a focus in the last 20 years on scaling technology out rather than up. Globalization put the profit motive toward serving the whole world not just rich Americans. I think the progress in computers outweighs the disappointments in other areas though.
I don't think there's any case for a true blockage in technological development without a physical limit. To claim that there is any physical limit preventing something like genetic modification is unfounded.

The field of machine learning almost didn't exist until 2014. If you want to learn what it can do check out OpenAI and extrapolate upward a bit for what Google and Facebook have internally that they aren't leaking. It's pretty monumental progress for 5 years even though it's far from AGI. I think the big investment scandal is the advertising market not the technology.

I understand your perspective and I don't think it's completely invalid. I just don't think you have a solid case for a true blockage to technological progress.

It was fairly linear for most of human history, then exponential just recently. What's to say we don't go back to linear?
Frankly, we haven't had any major breakthroughs in recent history, just typical expected progression of miniaturization and economies of scale. Smaller thinner phones, 4G -> 5G infrastructure, smaller transistors, etc.
Machine Learning was virtually the same as it was from the 70s and 80s, just with more computation now and a little better architecture; still faces the same NP-hard problems that classic computers struggle with. Fusion energy is still 15-years away from being 15-years away. Quantum Computing hasn't produced an actual quantum computer.

So I'm a little dubious of these extrapolations and the slippery slope of wishful thinking. There's a whole Cult of Technology that's emerged that I find rather unsettling and distracts humanity with promises of Clark's Third Law of techno-thaumaturgy.

>The field of machine learning almost didn't exist until 2014.
I'm gonna stop you there.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_machine_learning

Attached: Marvin Minsky.jpg (185x272, 9K)

Linear is good enough for transhumanism. I don't expect linear though. I think the theory of overlaid s-curves is relevant. We can see the end of silicon and we're probably past the end of traditional drug chemistry. Some concepts that seem too inefficient to use for now will find a way to overtake the old methods. Machine learning is a good example of that. A field that produced lots of theory and little useful output is suddenly enabled by the explosive growth in computational efficiency. The use of machine learning feeds back into computer chip manufacturing as neural ASICs (Truenorth and Loihi are already orders of magnitude more efficient than traditional processors) or stochastic computing pushing past physical limits on deterministic computing. Genetic modification is a good candidate for future growth. 200 IQ vat babies feed back into accelerated research into more genetic modification until the physical limits on brains are reached.

To say something more concrete instead of speculative, the improvements in computational efficiency in the last 20 years are some of the densest leaps in technological progress ever made. Your pessimistic view seems to be based on the lack of obvious leaps in the consumer applications for the technology. The top supercomputer today is about a million times more powerful than the top in 1995 and consumer devices have scaled similarly. Imagine a car a million times faster than a Model T. They're manufacturing things so small you can count the atoms in some of the structures and pumping them out for the mass market. The fact that the highest end uses of the technology are in supercomputers built to aid research in other fields is encouraging. I think the theory of techno-economic interactivity is validated quite thoroughly by this point in history.

>Technology has continued on a relatively smooth accelerating trajectory for the entire history of humanity. Predicting an end to it requires much more evidence than expecting the trend to continue.
This is smoothbrain thinking. Literally what Thiel (rightfully) criticizes the boomers for believing. A lot of the progress made in the last 70 years was runoff from the massive advances made during WWII. It's even started slowing down in the past 10-15 years.

We're also reaching a point where getting the last percent is unreasonably expensive and hard. For example, Google's self-driving trucks work 99% of the time, which is completely unacceptable from a safety standpoint. Getting from 99% to 99.9999% will probably take as much research as it took getting from 50% to 99% (arguably more).

This is true for nearly all categories of AI. Neural networks are infamously bad at decision making. Look at the youtube demonetization algo as an example.

retarded post full of disinformation

>Neural networks are infamously bad at decision making.
Runaway bad; where it becomes a positive feedback loop of increasingly bad decisions. Meanwhile the nature of ML is a black box, so they can't look at "the algorithm" and see where it went wrong; they have to adjust the conditions from the start or code ad hoc heuristics in there which defeats the purpose of ML.
They can't even rollback to the previous ML conditions/algorithm since it'll be incompatible with the new data that's being fed. Which is why you never hear tech companies say "we're gonna use the old algorithm since that's what worked best", because it wasn't trained with all the new data that came in and it'll probably be as shitty as what it's replacing.

Still no activity from Land? Anyone heard anything?

Not much really. Some People say he was arrested, and there is a video of a guy that looks like him i prison but i dont think its him. I asked his friends on Twitter too but they wouldnt answear.

Maybe he took a vacation to Aruba?

He's in Xinjiang

>there is a video of a guy that looks like him i prison
Lol what

He became a monkey-human chimera

Attached: 19723B54-F968-4423-8CC2-278530651E30.jpg (930x558, 25K)

>It's pretty monumental progress
It barely does basic pattern recognition, progress has been glacial.

Attached: 1556071314370.png (421x834, 545K)

reminder that every AI mishap is staged to make us unaware of the actual progress

he dead

Attached: 1564909676062.jpg (600x448, 55K)

did they give him a free hair transplant?

Wtf was he doing in China? and why did he piss off the CCP while being there?

Was he really arrested?

living
being a trump shill

I bought Fanged Noumena a week ago and it's schizoposting to a high level.
The first essay is from 1988, arguing that we needed to unman war and start feminine violence, all to argue about toppling Apartheid (yes, see all that turned out).
By the turn of the millenium, he went off the deep end and wrote series of one liners, often without any coherence.
Also an unhealthy obsession with Deleuze and Guattari, plus Bataille. Then there's 'Capital is sentient' post 2000 Land, the one most memed about on Yea Forums.
Recently he became a Chinese agent.