This Post Has 13 Comments

1. It’s great
   Years ahead of the debate, once again.

   Reply

2. Lots of text and complicated words to not say a whole lot
   I am a fan of Nick Bostrom and his book Superintelligence. I didn’t love this book however. I found it to be overly wordy and complicated to read. This book has an interesting and unusual style of how it’s all laid out but it didn’t work for me and I just felt a bit confused most of the time.

   Reply

3. Sadly, this book is not worth buying
   I wish that I could report that this was a good book. Instead, I regret the time that I put into reading it. “Superintelligence” was worth reading, especially in 2014. “Deep Utopia” is not so in 2024.
   Yes, there are a few paragraphs here and there that are worth reading. There’s a bit of dialogue that is clever and a bit more that’s amusing. The structure around a series of lectures might have worked out with some more refining of the concept — I think that Bertrand Russell, for instance, did some of this in his autobiography, but Russell’s use of his own correspondence to buttress that linear approach gave it a stronger foundation than Bostrom’s attempt.
   But the book overwhelmingly is a loss of one’s time. The author did not manage to pull off a Hofstadterian feat like “Godel, Escher, and Bach”, where a deeply playful approach worked out. He didn’t even manage to pull off the somewhat lighter touch that Steven Pinker can bring to bear (and Pinker’s interesting ability to flip his own argument around, at least occasionally, with grace and skill.)
   Bostrom is a good writer; indeed, I think that prose style in “Deep Utopia” was more approachable than that of “Superintelligence”. My own guess is that what Bostrom needed was a good editor to help navigate this project, one willing to challenge the author. Instead, too much material that should have not made it into this volume was left there. Material that should have been given a thorough trimming was allowed to run on.

   Reply

4. Bad cover. Poor quality print. Not up to snuff.
   *Ideapress should be ashamed of themselves.*
   1. Don’t let an author design their own cover. This is embarrassing work.
   2. Use a printer that isn’t absolutely bottom of the barrel. I can see through these pages. The book is barely readable because the print quality and paper quality so so low.
   3. What editor let this happen? A dialogue? Seriously… no.
   Bostrom is a smart thinker, but no genius deserves this level of mistreatment.

   Reply

5. Food for thought
   Important questions to think about as we are heading to obsolescence rapidly. I think most likely however that the capabilities of ai will enable personalized entertainment / distractions that will keep humans occupied. On the other hand, purpose is imaginary anyway. We have no more or less importance to the universe than an e. coli bacterium (and possibly less). One of the great potential benefits of AI in fact is in humbling humanity. That might be the greatest benefit any technology has yielded to mankind.

   Reply

6. “Be careful what you wish for.”  Aesop
   In my review of one of Nick Bostrom’s previously published books, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (2014), I noted that John H. Flavell was probably the first to use the term metacognition when suggesting that it “refers to one’s knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes or anything related to them, e.g., the learning-relevant properties of information or data. For example, I am engaging in metacognition if I notice that I am having more trouble learning A than B; if it strikes me that I should double check C before accepting it as fact.” That was in 1976.
   As I began to read Superintelligence, I was again reminded of Flavell’s research. What does the term “superintelligence” mean? According to Bostrom, “We can tentatively define a superintelligence as [begin italics] any intellect that greatly exceeds the cognitive performance of humans in virtually all domains of interest [end italics].”
   He focuses on three different forms of superintelligence and asserts that they are essentially equivalent: Speed superintelligence, a system that can do all that a human intellect can do, but much faster; Collective superintelligence, a system composed of a large number of smaller intellects such that the system’s overall performance across many very general domains vastly outstrips that of any current cognitive system; and Quality superintelligence, a system that is at least as fast as a human mind and vastly qualitatively smarter.
   Bostrom’s focus in Deep Utopia is on the perils and potentialities of what could be characterized as “Artificial Superintelligence.” That is, life and meaning — for better or worse — in a world transformed by very advanced AI systems (VAAIS) . Questions arise: What if those systems create new problems? If so, what will be their nature and extent? In a world in which all problems are solved by VAAIS, what will give purpose and value to human life? How can — and should –  people spend their time and energy?
   These are among the passages of greatest interest and value to me, also listed to suggest the nature and extent of Bostrom’s coverage in Deep Utopia:
   o Economic growth (Pages 6-8, 17-28, 3w6-37, and 74-75)
   o Unemployment (8-20,
   o Inequalitgy (13-16,23-25, 53-54, and 70-75)
   o Jobs (16-23, 83-94, and 111-112)
   o Axiologica contours (69-81)
   o Limita to automation (83-94)
   o Moral status (86-88, 161-167, and 183-187)
   o Human nature (125-130, 150-151, and 150-151)
   o Purpose problem (129-131,
   o Brain editing (136-141 269-285, and 165-166)
   o Aesthetic experience (154-155and 221-229)
   o Personal identity (165-166,269-285, and 352-@59)
   o Fictional (171-187)
   o Interestingness (205-269, 301-304, 308-309, 319-320, and 503-505)
   o Evolution of motivation (230-236, 255-260, and 345-347)
   o Big World hypothesis (245-251)
   o Transhumanism (254-255)
   o Religion and the meaning of life (306-307; 343-344, 364-365, and 446-448)
   o Fulfillment/Joel Fineberg (311-319 and 316-319)
   o Meaning of life (405-473)
   According to Nick Bostrom, “Suppose that we develop superintelligence safely, govern it well, and make good use of the cornucopian wealth and near magical technological powers that this technology can unlock. If this transition to the machine intelligence era goes well, human labor becomes obsolete. We would thus enter a condition of “post-instrumentality”, in which our efforts are not needed for any practical purpose. Furthermore, at technological maturity, human nature becomes entirely malleable.
   Here we confront a challenge that is not technological but philosophical and spiritual. In such a solved world, what is the point of human existence? What gives meaning to life? What do we do all day?
   Deep Utopia shines new light on these old questions, and gives us glimpses of a different kind of existence, which might be ours in the future.”
   Almost every day, I ask myself this question: “If I were to get everything I wish for in terms of my personal growth and professional development, how would that change what I do each day as well as where and how I do it?”
   Hmmm….
   * * *
   Here are two suggestions while you are reading Deep Utopia: First, highlight key passages Also,  perhaps in a lined notebook kept near at hand, record your comments, questions, action steps (preferably with deadlines), page references, and lessons you have learned as well as your responses to key points posed within the narrative. Also record your responses to specific or major issues or questions addressed, especially in the 22 “Handouts” at the conclusion of the six daily components or portions thereof, such as the passages listed previously.
   These two simple tactics — highlighting and documenting — will facilitate, indeed expedite frequent reviews of key material later.

   Reply

7. Nothing to see here
   Nothing novel. Collection of platitudes. Not well written, not well structured. Flat jokes and pointless outtakes.
   There are much better books and articles about AI and possible post-AI societal outcomes.
   Avoid.

   Reply

8. Is this really the most important problem?
   The first question anyone should have before reading this is whether out greatest problem is like to be “we solved everything”. Does this seem likely to anyone? Imagine the kind of person who takes this seriously. Imagine how self centered they would need to be – sure enough, that’s what you get in arguments and writing style throughout this book.

   Reply

9. Very enjoyable…
   Loved the idea of realized ai as thought experiment equivalent to a particle accelerator
   And discuss some hot topics that most authors would be very afraid to discuss
   Whether inequality is good .. or the role of peace…

   Reply

10. Recommended for anyone interested in the (very) long-term future of humanity.
    Gives you a sense of existential hope, something very much needed in these times. (For that, I also highly recommend Bostrom’s working paper “Base Camp for Mt. Ethics”.)
    Perhaps not as excellent as Bostrom’s previous work (could have used some editing at times) but still great.

    Reply

11. 本書はボストロム自身が述べているように 、人間とAIとの関係が将来現実にどのように展開するかについての予想を立てるものではなく、それを検討するに際しての考察の指針を提供する点で貴重な文献と言える。他方、その議論は多岐にわたって詳細に展開されているものの、全体に人間一人一人の内面の視点から見たテクニカルマチュリティー（TM: 著者が想定するユートピア）の議論が中心であり、人が構成する社会全体の視点からの考察は希薄である。それはTMにおいては完全な社会が実現しているとの仮想状況を議論の出発点にしていることからの必然的な制約ではある。

    Reply

12. I wanted to love this book, as much as I had loved the author’s previous book Superintelligence, but ultimately didn’t. What this book seems to lack is an editor who’d interrupt Nick with a “stop, you’re repeating yourself” or “wait, will everyone understand this Latin phrase?”
    But maybe this book wasn’t written for us, after all, but a coming superintelligence. And as that it’s certainly an important subject, perhaps the most important of our time. May the ThermoRex – a surprisingly fun short story included in the book about a room heater turned conscious being – be nice to us.

    Reply

13. Difficult to read due to extremely small size fonts.

    Reply