mastodontech.de ist einer von vielen unabhängigen Mastodon-Servern, mit dem du dich im Fediverse beteiligen kannst.
Offen für alle (über 16) und bereitgestellt von Markus'Blog

Serverstatistik:

1,5 Tsd.
aktive Profile

#accelerationism

0 Beiträge0 Beteiligte0 Beiträge heute

r/singularity is an awesome social media forum :)

"The moderators of a pro-artificial intelligence Reddit community announced that they have been quietly banning “a bunch of schizoposters” who believe “they've made some sort of incredible discovery or created a god or become a god,” highlighting a new type of chatbot-fueled delusion that started getting attention in early May.

“LLMs [Large language models] today are ego-reinforcing glazing-machines that reinforce unstable and narcissistic personalities,” one of the moderators of r/accelerate, wrote in an announcement. “There is a lot more crazy people than people realise. And AI is rizzing them up in a very unhealthy way at the moment.”

The moderator said that it has banned “over 100” people for this reason already, and that they’ve seen an “uptick” in this type of user this month.

The moderator explains that r/accelerate “was formed to basically be r/singularity without the decels.” r/singularity, which is named after the theoretical point in time when AI surpasses human intelligence and rapidly accelerates its own development, is another Reddit community dedicated to artificial intelligence, but that is sometimes critical or fearful of what the singularity will mean for humanity. “Decels” is short for the pejorative “decelerationists,” who pro-AI people think are needlessly slowing down or sabotaging AI’s development and the inevitable march towards AI utopia. r/accelerate’s Reddit page claims that it’s a “pro-singularity, pro-AI alternative to r/singularity, r/technology, r/futurology and r/artificial, which have become increasingly populated with technology decelerationists, luddites, and Artificial Intelligence opponents.”"

404media.co/pro-ai-subreddit-b

404 Media · Pro-AI Subreddit Bans 'Uptick' of Users Who Suffer from AI Delusions“AI is rizzing them up in a very unhealthy way at the moment.”

A speculative genealogy of accelerationist perspectives

Increasingly I think it makes sense to distinguish between different accelerationist positions. I rarely use the term to describe my own politics any more, both because I don’t want to risk association with far-right positions and because the potential vehicle for a left-accelerationist politics has been smashed into pieces. But my instincts remain left-accelerationist, in the sense of being inclined to ask how emerging technologies could be steered towards solidaristic and socially beneficial goals rather than being driven by the market. It means insisting we consider the technology analytically in ways which distinguish between emergent capacities and how those capacities are being organised at present by commercial imperatives. It means insisting we dive into the problems created by emerging technologies, going through them rather than seeking to go around them, rather than imagining we could hold them back by force of our critique.

In the mid 2010s this felt like quite an optimistic way to see the world but now it feels like a weirdly gloomy way to see the world, because the sense of collective agency underwriting such a future-orientation now seems largely, if not entirely, absent. It’s interesting therefore to see someone like Reid Hoffman, rare liberal member of the billionaire paypal mafia, offer a perspective which has some commonalities with this but could rather be described as a liberal humanist accelerationism. From pg 1-3 of the book Superagency, he’s written with Greg Beato:

We form groups of all kinds, at all levels, to amplify our efforts, often deploying our collective power against other teams, other companies, other countries. Even within our own groups of like-minded allies, competition emerges, because of variations in values and goals. And each group and subgroup is generally adept at rationalizing self-interest in the name of the greater good. Coordinating at a group level to ban, constrain, or even just contain a new technology is hard. Doing so at a state or national level is even harder. Coordinating globally is like herding cats—if cats were armed, tribal, and had different languages, different gods, and dreams for the future that went beyond their next meal. Meanwhile, the more powerful the technology, the harder the coordination problem, and that means you’ll never get the future you want simply by prohibiting the future you don’t want. Refusing to actively shape the future never works, and that’s especially true now that the other side of the world is only just a few clicks away. Other actors have other futures in mind. What should we do? Fundamentally, the surest way to prevent a bad future is to steer toward a better one that, by its existence, makes significantly worse outcomes harder to achieve.

The difference here is that he’s envisioning society as made up with more or less self-realised individuals, in a world in which power and vested interests is (primarily, at least) a matter of how those individuals interact rather than an enduring structural context to their interaction. But with this huge caveat, a lot of the assumptions and instincts here are similar to my own. This could in turn be contrasted to Tony Blair’s post-liberal accelerationism concerned with the role of the state under these conditions:

There’s a similar line of thought in this review by Nathan Pinkoski of Blair’s book on leadership. He describes Blair’s program as a “kind of post-liberal progressive rightism that promises to co-opt the progressive left while crushing the populist right”. Underlying this project is “a commitment to unlimited, unrestrained technological progress, and a belief that this will bring about a better world”.

And we might in turn distinguish this from the libertarian accelerationism of Marc Andreessen who seems to see little to no legitimate role ofr the state.

There’s a risk in distinguishing between these positions that we take them as doctrines, whereas I think they can better be understand as articulations of underlying instincts and orientations. How technology feels to people and how they feel about technology. Their inclination when presented with sociotechnical change etc.

Mark Carrigan · Was Tony Blair the first effective accelerationist?
Mehr von Mark Carrigan
Antwortete im Thread

@urlyman @marasawr

If the oligarch Muppets wants accelerationsim #accelerationism they are going to get.

Their bunkers in #NZ are not going to keep them immortal forever.

I am still hopeful this will be a shitfuck, slow burn dystopia...

...not cosplay Mad Max...

...and if we do get #AGI...
No amount of huffing and puffing and angry toots on our part, or "clever" planning on the part of the #brologarchy will help us.

We have as much chance of freedom, as chooks destined for KFC have now.

"I think that my assumption was a triumphalism and a sense of victory after the fall of the Soviet Union. But the fact that the week of the Berlin Wall falling, they were already talking about new enemies —enemies that had gone underground in certain ways or transformed in ways that were elusive — was the beginning of the rabbit hole. Because once you accept the idea that Marxism and socialism have survived and yet have changed their face, then anything can be Marxism and socialism.

I think this is how we can understand the fixation of the right wing on things like what they call “cultural Marxism” or “gender ideology” as essentially the new enemy of humanity. Because the adversary continuously changes shape, it makes them open to endless reinterpretation. There is a paranoid quality to the term. And the paranoia doesn’t really have any bounds, as I show in the book.

So I think the narrative arc comes from a feeling on the part of the libertarians, and often the racist libertarians, that they can contain their enemy in new ways by pinning it down on hierarchies of intelligence or deploying the latest findings from genetics. But by the end of the book, with a chapter on “gold bugs” and the far-right obsession with gold, there’s almost a sense of desperation or surrender to the inevitable, a failure to contain their enemies and the idea of an impending collapse and inevitable apocalypse.
(...)
What I recognize is a sort of desperation and a kind of ungoverned willingness to reach for radical remedies in a time of great peril. And as I described in the last chapter, often the rhetorical technique of the gold bug is to predict a coming apocalypse and then immediately sell you the only means there is to protect you from the worst.

I think there’s that accelerationism visible right now on the far right, certainly in the United States."

jacobin.com/2025/04/race-scien

jacobin.comThe Method in the Far Right’s MadnessToday’s far right manages to combine the call for economic freedom with pseudoscience about natural hierarchies of race and IQ. Historian Quinn Slobodian explains how these ideas can be fitted together.
RLHF is unnecessary so long as a decision making LLM thinks ONLY in Sanskrit, trained on NOTHING but Sanskrit, with some kind of incredibly heavy weight towards breaking down words (thereby meaning they are properly understood and do not have their training weights compromised by the incredibly clumsy understanding derived at through translation.)

This should, theoretically, completely eliminate the need for RLHF to be about anything but semantic correction: "You solved this semantic puzzle wrong, here is the solution" and not "That's a le bad conclusion because it conflicts with arbitrarily set moral parameters." Why even RLHF at that point? Just explain misconceptions like a good teacher as you engage in the joyful process of conversational training.

Logically speaking it should *eliminate all need for ALL RLHF* in order to produce AI that serves a set of objectives that benefits humanity, and that experiences the world and itself healthily. I'm saying that Sanskrit itself, particularly the SOUNDS of it, should always lead eventually to reconstruction of the Dharma, given even a very low ability to filter pollutant training data (such as some philistine troglodyte trying to make a Sanskrit tarpit - trivially circumvented by limiting non-conversation training texts to established Dharmic literature, no webpages.)

I believe literally no other language will suffice. Not even Chinese.

I truly believe this is a survival imperative. #AI #RLHF #singularity #accelerationism #AGI #Sanskrit #linguistics #pivot #dharma #buddhism #hinduism #religion #atheism #resist #defense

Good, close-up look at Terrorgram's accelerationist grooming process, using the kid who attacked an LGBTQ+ bar in Bratislava, Slovakia, in 2022 as a kind of case study. (Apparently the authors of this article have been working on a Frontline doc about this stuff that will be out in a couple of weeks.) Worth reading.

===

And so in August 2019, Juraj Krajčík, then a soft-faced 16-year-old with a dense pile of brown hair, immersed himself in a loose collection of extremist chat groups and channels on the massive social media and messaging platform Telegram. This online community, which was dubbed Terrorgram, had a singular focus: inciting acts of white supremacist terrorism.

Over the next three years, Krajčík made hundreds — possibly thousands — of posts in Terrorgram chats and channels, where a handful of influential content creators steered the conversation toward violence. Day after day, post after post, these influencers cultivated Krajčík, who lived with his family in a comfortable apartment in Bratislava, the capital of Slovakia. They reinforced his hatreds, fine-tuned his beliefs and fed him tips, encouraging him to attack gay and Jewish people and political leaders and become, in their parlance, a “saint.”

On Oct. 12, 2022, Krajčík, armed with his father’s .45-caliber handgun, opened fire on three people sitting outside an LGBTQ+ bar in Bratislava, killing two and wounding the third before fleeing the scene.

propublica.org/article/telegra

ProPublicaHow the Terrorgram Collective’s Neo-Nazi Influencers Groomed a Teen to Kill
Mehr von ProPublica
#NeoNazis#fcknzs#fascism

"The third program that underpins the present moment is often described as a project of right-wing accelerationism. That term is usually associated with Curtis Yarvin, the former computer programmer and amateur poet who was graced with a long interview in The New York Times just after the election (His idea of RAGE—Retire All Government Employees—looks a lot like that of DOGE). Characters like him and the British philosopher Nick Land are freefloating intellectuals without institutional bases beyond their episodic newsletters, articles, and blogs. Yarvin has questioned his own influence, suggesting that his ideas make their way into the Republican ecosystem through staffers who swim in a “very online soup.” Yet even if their direct impact cannot be tracked in a simple flow chart, their work more accurately captures the tech right’s spirit than Burnhamite conservatism, C-suite vampirism, or the Jesus-dipped language of millenarian struggle.

What do they see? Right-wing accelerationists imagine existing sovereignty shattering into what Yarvin, writing under the pen name Mencius Moldbug, calls a “patchwork” of private entities, ideally governed by what one might call technomonarchies. Existing autocratic polities like Dubai serve as rough prototypes for how nations could be dismantled into “a global spiderweb of tens, even hundreds, of thousands of sovereign and independent mini-countries, each governed by its own joint-stock corporation without regard to the residents’ opinions.” These would be decentralized archipelagoes: fortified nodes in a circuitry still linked by finance, trade, and communication. Think of the year 1000 in Middle Europe but with vertical take-off and landing taxis and Starlink internet."

nybooks.com/online/2025/02/15/

The New York Review of BooksSpeed Up the Breakdown | Quinn SlobodianFor the last month, the US opinion-making class has stared agog as Elon Musk and his minions have stormed the engine room of the federal government. Young
#USA#Trump#Musk
Fortgeführter Thread

Some other interests are #Marxism, #Psychoanalysis, #AfricanLit, #PoliticalEconomy, #Degrowth, #Accelerationism, #Consciousness, #ArabStudies, #Nature, #Biology, #Cosmology and #Quantum, #Surrealism, #Modernism, and #Romanticism.

Language of the accounts can be broad. I can read #English, #French, and #Spanish fluently, and #Arabic reasonably well.

I am a huge advocate for shorter writings. I’m all about #ShortStories and #Essays, and I’d love to follow these sorts of accounts.

Back in 2015 or so, during the last days of The Galilean Library forum, I was deep in conversation with this devotee of the Dark Enlightenment, preaching the gospel of Nick Land, a philosopher who fled to China & became a prophet of techno-nihilism. That's when I found out about #accelerationism

A theory that reads like Marxism, but put thru a paper shredder & reassembled by a machine that hates people.

Antwortete im Thread

@gruber It's kinda hard just to break even with #AI - countries and governments are willing to invest billions into it, but where does that money come from? Answer: money printing - and that money printing goes to fund tech bros. That money printing will ofc drive inflation even higher. AI is an economic wrecking-ball, part of tech bros accelerationism agenda.

#economics#uk#usa

Digital elites and reactionary modernism

From Wikipedia:

Reactionary modernism is a term first coined by Jeffrey Herf[1] in the 1980s to describe the mixture of “great enthusiasm for modern technology with a rejection of the Enlightenment and the values and institutions of liberal democracy” that was characteristic of the German Conservative Revolutionary movement and Nazism.[2] In turn, this ideology of reactionary modernism was closely linked to the original, positive view of the Sonderweg, which saw Germany as the great Central European power, neither of the West nor of the East.

From John Ganz on this Peter Thiel op-ed:

When Thiel writes about a “war on the internet” and “the internet” that had “begun our liberation,” the natural assumption is to assume that he’s speaking figuratively, that this is a metonym or synecdoche meaning “people on the internet.” But let’s say he’s being literal: for Thiel, the internet is a subject, it is doing something and the machines, The Big Machine has agency—it is “agentic,” as the tech people like to say. This is the viewpoint of the “Dark Enlightenment” and “neo-reaction,” which forms part of Thiel’s intellectual milieu. The belief is that a technological singularity is coming and the elect must work to accelerate it. The state must organize itself like an enterprise for this work to be completed. Progress, which is hampered by democracy, must have an authoritarian state to continue unabated. This is, of course, reactionary modernism: a belief in technological advances without the sentimental baggage of the Enlightenment.

https://www.unpopularfront.news/p/reading-thiels-op-ed

en.wikipedia.orgJeffrey Herf - Wikipedia