Skip to main content

Black Hole Swans

Notes on the impending lack of Outside Context ugly ducklings, and why the Technological Singularity is not a Black Swan Event.

"The usual example given to illustrate an Outside Context Problem was imagining you were a tribe on a largish, fertile island; you'd tamed the land, invented the wheel or writing or whatever, the neighbors were cooperative or enslaved but at any rate peaceful and you were busy raising temples to yourself with all the excess productive capacity you had, you were in a position of near-absolute power and control which your hallowed ancestors could hardly have dreamed of and the whole situation was just running along nicely like a canoe on wet grass... when suddenly this bristling lump of iron appears sailless and trailing steam in the bay and these guys carrying long funny-looking sticks come ashore and announce you've just been discovered, you're all subjects of the Emperor now, he's keen on presents called tax and these bright-eyed holy men would like a word with your priests." Iain M. Banks, on Excession

Despite all best attempts, we see the future but through a glass, darkly. There a many reasons for this, chaos theory being one, cognitive biases being yet another. One of the larger contributions to our cataracted crystal ball of the undiscovered country may well be Ray Kurtweil's Law of Accelerated Returns. To the uninitiated, Ray Kurzweil is a Futurist, or, more specifically, he's Google's Chief Futurist, as well as being the goalpost-moving head Singularity proponent of the age. His pet creation, the Law of Accelerated Returns basically suggests exponential growth of technology as time continues, not a linear one. Humans tend to see things like this due to our linear experience of time, hence our warped perceptions of future events. It also doesn't help that our lifespans are limited, thus diminishing our scope for development.


This will be a living page, or at least that's my intention: I plan on expanding on this idea until I can clarify this thought in it's entirety. If you have any thoughts or ideas to contribute, please get in touch!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Alphabet Soup: A Quick Guide to Post-Nominals

This week, I’ll walk you through the ever-growing list of post-nominal letters you can add to your name through qualifications and certifications. Being a student myself, I’ll start with exploring the academic route, then go through the more popular, and best recognised, vendor and standards organisations’ certifications, highlighting their worth for your CV and career development. It’s not a comprehensive list, by any stretch of the imagination, and is geared towards a more general CyberSec professional, rather than focusing on any one aspect of the industry. I’ll try and shy away from too much debate by running away very quickly to avoid the one about CEH vs. OSCP, and leave it to you instead. *Disclaimer* I am a university student, and haven’t actually done any of the following certifications, at least not to completion. I have explored each in a reasonable amount of depth to see their benefits and worth and consulted with holders of a few to gain their insider opinions. I a...

Multidisciplinarianism

Nice, long, big word there as a title. I'll shorten it for you: polymath. A person of wide knowledge or expertise. The desired human state. I have long been an advocate for something I call wide-spectrum literacy: competence in reading, writing, arithmetic, science, technology, politics, philosophy, economics, to say the least. I have what you could mildly call a vehement dislike of ignorance, particularly wilful ignorance: I find little to no excuse for it, especially in developed nations where access to technological marvels which act as gateways to endless learning and knowledge, most of it free, is commonplace to the point of being carried around in pockets. You can imagine, then, my sickening disgust at the state of the world, and the horror of facing an international society in which ignorance, bigotry, and mendacity don't just roam freely, but are actively pursued as if they were the highest virtues.  Now, I'm not going to lay the blame entirely at the feet of...

Logical Fallacies - Why do they matter?

I came across a wonderful poster image by a talented artist, Michele Rosenthal , which depicts a robot debate: Granted, these aren't all the logical fallacies that exist, but it covers the most obvious, and most abused ones. But why are they important? We currently live in an age where we have access to more information that at any other point in history, and yet somehow we still think that arguing from emotion, or with our cognitive dissonance blinders on, is both right and acceptable: it isn't, not by any stretch of the imagination. Postmodernism may have a place, but not here. Yes, you absolutely are allowed to feel they way you want to, but debates are places for facts and ideas that need to be scrutinised rigorously, not with playground threats and character assassinations. "I feel" is not an argument that belongs in a debate - your feelings are valid for you, yes, but you can not simply refute the evidence-based assertion of vaccinations work with the st...