Plurality2025-02-17
This discussion later led to [A Future of Plurality, not Singularity
Plurality2025-02-17
nishio After much trial and error over the past few days about how to explain the difficult-to-explain concept of "Plurality", I came up with the following question yesterday: "singularity is Is it really good? is a very compact explanation. nishio "Is 'singularity is coming, let AI handle everything' the only future option? Could there be a different future?" It's like we talk about this and then we talk about the individual.
nishio In yesterday's example, we talked about Kiite World, but the idea that "when rankings are prepared, people's attention goes only to the top-ranked songs, and they listen to only those songs and lose the diversity of the viewing experience, which is not good. This is not a good thing." This is a viewpoint that is quite on the plurality side of the singularity-plurality conflict. nishio There are various elements of "this is Plurality-like" in the various ideas that have been developed so far, and by collecting them and connecting them in Associative Networks, we are trying to create a world where Singularity is not the sole focus. nishio When this becomes a topic of public design, the composition is whether "smart AI deciding the best way" is better or "AI helping people discuss and decide for themselves" ( deliberation support or broad listening) is better? nishio "What exactly are the technologies of plurality?" The question "What kind of technology is pullarity exactly? But it is difficult to answer directly, just like "What kind of technology is Singularity exactly?" It is difficult to answer directly, just like "What kind of technology is Singularity exactly? Some technologies accelerate the world in the direction of singularity, others accelerate it in the direction of plurality, or generate a "stronger resistance to higher speeds," like air resistance, against the speed of evolution becoming too fast, etc. nishio It would be good to dig a little deeper into this aerodynamic drag story. (If it is based on the definition that "as technology increases the rate of technological progress, the rate will eventually diverge, and that divergence is the technological singularity," then just as raindrops reach terminal velocity due to air resistance, the forces of acceleration and resistance will balance each other and the raindrops will no longer accelerate at a constant rate, and there will be no singularity in the mathematical sense. The force of acceleration and the force of resistance balance each other out, so that acceleration does not occur at a constant speed, and in a mathematical sense, there is no singularity. nishio (Explanation: terminal velocity is the velocity at which an object is subjected to a volumetric force, such as gravity or centrifugal force, and a drag force that depends on velocity, when these forces are no longer changing due to suspension. ) nishio the question is whether society and technology have a velocity-dependent drag term like aerodynamic drag, and whether it can be increased or decreased. Singularity-happening groups assume that resistance can be ignored.
On the other hand, there is the idea that aerodynamic drag exists, and that by increasing it appropriately, we can prevent over-acceleration and make a better future. This is on the pullarity side in the counterpart composition to singularity, and a more detailed look at Vitalik's d/acc would be a concrete example. This is another "is singularity enough?" but if you just cut out the latter part, "Making things better with technology is a dangerous idea", it becomes a very messy discussion. It is important to discuss what makes things better and what direction is "good".
In the singularity-versus-plurality composition
"Let's use technology to make us more efficient (and to do that, we'll have to discard those who aren't capable)" is on the Singularity side.
"Let's use technology to promote cooperation among people (to do so, we can't exclude people with different opinions and cultures, so efficiency will decrease)" is the plurality side.
---
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/Plurality2025-02-17 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I'm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.