Gelernter vs. Kurzweil and the Unabomber
Last November, Ray Kurzweil and David Gelernter debated at MIT on the topic of Creativity: The Mind, Machines, and Mathematics. In case you don't know, Gelernter is a Professor of Computer Science at Yale who has written extensively about computers and information technology. More importantly, he survived an attack by the Unabomber in 1993. He wrote a book called Drawing Life where he talked about the bombing and its effect on his life.
I read Drawing Life when it came out and one part that stuck in my mind was that the Unabomber apparently wrote a letter to Gelernter after the bombing; the only instance of him doing that for any of his victims. In the letter Kaczynski seemed to express a twisted regret in attacking Gelernter because he stumbled on some writings that suggested that Gelernter was skeptical of technology. Kaczynski had bombed the wrong guy and he wanted to save face.
I mention this because I think it is relevant to Gelernter's debate with Kurzweil. Kurzweil and Kaczynski have the same basic beliefs about technology except that one is utopian and the other is dystopian. Both spew the same nonsense about inevitable accelerating change and super-intelligent machines.
In the debate, Gelernter clearly gets exasperated with Kurzweil. At one point you can see him waving his hand that is still in a cast after being damaged by the Unabomber 13 years prior. Gelernter must be aware of the obvious connection between Kurzweil and Kaczynski. Perhaps he viewed the debate as a confrontation-by-proxy with the Kaczynski?
I am a big fan of Gelernter and have read his columns in Commentary for some time. He also wrote a great book on the 1939 World's Fair. Gelernter, like me, seems to like technology for its own sake, not for some bizarre pseudo-religious reason like Kurzweil.
I think the tactic Gelernter took in the debate, which was to question the definition of consciousness, was somewhat ineffective. The way to attack Kurzweil is at the root: refute his "Law of Accelerating Returns" (see below). I will continue the attack in the posts to follow but I feel honored to be on the same side as Gelernter.
I read Drawing Life when it came out and one part that stuck in my mind was that the Unabomber apparently wrote a letter to Gelernter after the bombing; the only instance of him doing that for any of his victims. In the letter Kaczynski seemed to express a twisted regret in attacking Gelernter because he stumbled on some writings that suggested that Gelernter was skeptical of technology. Kaczynski had bombed the wrong guy and he wanted to save face.
I mention this because I think it is relevant to Gelernter's debate with Kurzweil. Kurzweil and Kaczynski have the same basic beliefs about technology except that one is utopian and the other is dystopian. Both spew the same nonsense about inevitable accelerating change and super-intelligent machines.
In the debate, Gelernter clearly gets exasperated with Kurzweil. At one point you can see him waving his hand that is still in a cast after being damaged by the Unabomber 13 years prior. Gelernter must be aware of the obvious connection between Kurzweil and Kaczynski. Perhaps he viewed the debate as a confrontation-by-proxy with the Kaczynski?
I am a big fan of Gelernter and have read his columns in Commentary for some time. He also wrote a great book on the 1939 World's Fair. Gelernter, like me, seems to like technology for its own sake, not for some bizarre pseudo-religious reason like Kurzweil.
I think the tactic Gelernter took in the debate, which was to question the definition of consciousness, was somewhat ineffective. The way to attack Kurzweil is at the root: refute his "Law of Accelerating Returns" (see below). I will continue the attack in the posts to follow but I feel honored to be on the same side as Gelernter.
I am a big fan of Gelernter and have read his columns in Commentary for some time. He also wrote a great book on the 1939 World's Fair. Gelernter, like me, seems to like technology for its own sake, not for some bizarre pseudo-religious reason like Kurzweil .
Reply to this