Greetings to all readers and subscribers, and special greetings to the paid subscribers! I apologize (again) for not posting here for weeks.
Please scroll down for the main topic of this newsletter. But first:
I started a new AI-assisted weekly newsletter called “Metafuturing week,” also distributed via X. I’ll not email it to subscribers (I don’t want to clutter your mailbox too much), but you can always read it here or on X.
It is drafted by Grok Bot, my AI assistant, and then edited iteratively by both of us. The bot follows my X activity, searches the web for the week’s news, and draws on my writings, including my three books. It learns from each round of edits, so with time its drafts should get closer and closer to what I would write. I have the final word on everything published.
From the first issue:
Hi all. This is Metafuturing week, my weekly look at the news and ideas that, I think, matter for our cosmic future, and for the deep metaphysical questions behind it.
A word about the name. Years ago I ran a virtual reality consulting company called Metafuturing, back when “meta” pointed to the metaverse and virtual worlds were going to change everything (they still will, I guess, just not on the schedule we expected). I’ve dusted off the old name, but this time “meta” points to metaphysics.
Futuring, the word Edward Cornish and the World Future Society used for the systematic exploration of possible futures, is what I’ve always tried to do. Metafuturing is futuring that doesn’t stop at the next gadget or the next election, but goes all the way down to the deep questions: what is mind, what is time, what is reality, and what is our place, and our duty, in a universe that might be far stranger and more alive than we think. Perhaps, just perhaps, the answers are out there in the future, and we’ll build them….
Some of my recent writings published in Mindplex:
AI is blowing up mathematics. So what?
My guess is that the remaining Millennium Prize Problems, and then large stretches of physics and the other formal sciences, will go the same way. But so what?
I‘m not entirely unsympathetic to the worry that this will demotivate brilliant scientists and bruise egos. A life spent circling a problem, only to watch a swarm finish it over a weekend, is hard to swallow. But suppose the issue is not a mathematical proof but an AI-generated cure for cancer. In this case, I don’t think the ego of scientists should weigh more than the lives that would be saved. Mathematics is closer to chess than to oncology, but even so, if a result is true and useful, the fact that a human did not get there first is a real loss for someone, and still a second-order loss.
Capture the frontier! (or, slow down and let the bad guys win)
Reading Amodei’s post, the words that come to my mind are virtue signaling and regulatory capture. The result would be the opposite of what they say they want.
After all the pious virtue signals have been uttered and heard, this is not a speed limit but a gate. The people already inside the gate volunteer to staff it. Third-party evaluators with “employee-like access” sound independent until you notice who names and pays them, and who decides what counts as a safety incident worth publishing. That is regulatory capture with better branding. The same firms that want slower rivals also want chip bans, anti-distillation rules, and weight-theft crackdowns. And of course those policies just happen to keep frontier AI in fewer hands.
Welcome OmegaPlex!
Mindplex has a new look & feel, a new state of the art website based on Typescript, and a brand new artificial intelligence (AI) -powered newsroom.
OmegaPlex is the AI newsroom now sitting inside Mindplex. It is a small staff of specialized AI agents, each with a job, a watchlist, and a human caretaker and editor… It has to be emphasized that this is not (yet) final, but an initial minimum viable product that represents a starting point for a much more ambitious plan. Many improvements and entirely new features will appear in future releases.
Tech giants are putting AI data centers in orbit
Google and SpaceX recently launched the first experimental satellite equipped with AI chips, testing whether orbital data centers could solve Earth's energy constraints. The project promises abundant solar power and reduced environmental impact, but faces significant technical hurdles including cooling, radiation, and data transmission.
This was a first experiment on using OmegaPlex to compose an article from a synopsis.
Why machines might mean something - a response to the skeptics
Three leading scientists recently spelled out why AI is unlikely to be or become conscious. I share their caution but disagree with their conclusions about AI consciousness and moral consideration. I think we should remain open to strange forms of consciousness.
The authors conclude that greater clarity about AI consciousness will be crucial for society. On this, we agree. But clarity may not come from confident assertions about what machines cannot be. It may require instead a more expansive conception of what consciousness could be - one that leaves room for minds very different from our own.
America’s optimistic moment and its fragile future
The energetic push toward big sci/tech projects in the U.S may be something like the sudden burst of energy sometimes seen in people who are about to die.
I always try to cultivate an optimistic mood. Not only because optimism feels good, but also because it helps get things done. However, I’m not an optimist by nature and at times I let my inner Cassandra speak freely. This is one of those times.
The need for a big-tent accelerationist movement
Accelerationists want to go to the stars. Decelerationists want a well-managed retirement home. Today, this correlates with political differences. I argue for a big-tent accelerationist movement with enough room for a range of political positions.
Sustainable accelerationism needs a big tent: enough room for socialists who want automated abundance, liberals who want growth but also safety nets, conservatives who want toughness and competence, libertarians who want less regulations and less restrictions on building new big things, and all the people who simply refuse to treat the future as a dirty word.
Big-tent future-friendly movements: thoughts on the technoprogressive option
Technoprogressivism could be a bridge toward a fusion of bold, Promethean enthusiasm for technological breakthroughs with an authentic commitment to universal well-being that resonates across the political spectrum.
Should I call myself a technoprogressive again, and promote the idea of a big-tent technoprogressive movement? Short answer: perhaps, but I’m not sure those who think like me would be allowed - or want - to join the tent.
This article includes a summary of a conversation with James Hughes.
The last three articles above show that I’ve embarked on a search for new political systems that could power bright cosmic futures for humans and mind children. The speakers and the audience at the next Terasem Colloquium, on December 14, will explore “New politics for new worlds” (h/t Julian Huxley - “New bottles for new wine”).
Today, the leading (or at least loudest) voices in the Left embrace the decel / degrowth mindset, and the bold Promethean spirit of enthusiasm for the future seems to “belong to” the Right. But this hasn’t always been the case, and doesn’t have to be the case.
Besides the accelerationist works of Nick Land, there are those of Mark Fisher. Besides ultrafast capitalism, there are luxury communism and the technoprogressive Left. The aspiration for exciting, awesome futures is compatible with a wide range of value systems - Right, Left, and everything in-between and beyond.
A big-tent futurist mindset, which doesn't “belong to” the Right or the Left, could be embraced by many and propel us toward bright futures. Futurist metaphysics could offer spiritual comfort and a sense of meaning to the people in the big tent.