Holy shit get hype

but he's a fucking joke.

he's everything that was wrong with early 90's academia....... and he's never grown out of it.

thread theme - youtube.com/watch?v=U0LaOskuZdc

i just listened to the first hour of this. he's fucking embarrassing. someone please explain why he's been memed. he's a clown-ass materialistic libertarian. he unironically supports consumerism and has some of the most cringe, fedora-tipping anecdotes. he goes, "i mean the CLASSIC LIBERALISM, not that what's come out of the Uh-merican uh-dialectical?" fucking pathetic you faggots are interested in this shit. or have i been memed and you're all just joking and i wasted an hour of my time?

someone defend your boi. i was expecting some sci-fi hp lovecraft/alan moore shit which would at least be interesting. he has a cool voice which i dig, is that why you guys like him?

someone post the 2nd hour pls

t. non-member

>redice.tv/red-ice-radio/the-dark-enlightenment-neoreaction-and-modernity

any1 have the nick land skillet tweet?

just wait till you are over 40 or 50. much of the youthfoul spirit will be lost for good (and some will be recognized as genuine delusion or insanity or effect of a hormone poisoend brain)

Nick Land wants to be fucked and then eaten by a Hyundai car-welding arm
it's not like he's WRONG but what's with the fucking death-worship

read his book "Thirst for Annihilation" about Bataille. Best nihilism book ever
"Life appears as a pause on the energy path; as a precarious stabilization and
complication of solar decay. "

that's fucking queer and I want no part of it

GTFO christcuck

I mean, I say this as an actual gay

also worshiping cold brutal god is not all that different from worshiping OT ragey god

His life was probably so uninteresting that even the noumenon of total oblivion seemed more entertaining. Happens a lot to every generation past the 70's. When you study Marxism in the context of the times of Marx himself you can actually see people around are struggling to achieve something, whereas present day is a very Brave New World kind of unpleasant quest for constant pleasure and escapism. His techno-nihilism is just a kind of escapism in the end. But even if you're not very keen on that part, the apparatus built around this idea is pretty much spot on a good explanation on much of our current society.

what does nihilism has to do with gayness ?
Read Bataille. Its about cold materialism mainly. Materialism not in the capitalist sense but in the non dual antimetaphysical sense.

thanks OP

>what does nihilism has to do with gayness ?
One is inherent to the other.

The fact this retard allowed himself to be interviewed by these brainlets just goes to show where he lies.

Jordan Peterson tier, into le reddit basket it goes

christianity is still the most gay and cucked ideology ever

someone post the goddamn fucking second hour or... or... reeeeeeeeeeeeeEEEEEeeeeeee

into the orcus we go...again..and again

I seriously think he's employed a solitary shill to make sure there is at least 1 land thread in the Veeky Forums catelog at all times

I don't have the second hour, but another user posted some unlisted lectures a few days ago.

I've been listening to the "Bitcoin and Philosophy" lectures, and it's actually pretty fascinating. He is kind of terrible at speaking, and often the first 10 minutes are just painful, but once things get going it's good. Also, some of the students that interject are cringey.

repost:
For anyone more intelligent than me, who is interested in hearing about Nick Lands lectures: I have found some unlisted YT links, containing threee of Nick Lands complete lectures:

youtube.com/user/mshazeyjaney
This is the guy who uploaded it. In the "playlist" ribbon click the arrow at the right and you find this:

Qwernomics: Path Dependency & Semiotic Fatality Session I
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPs4TRYh1Unpf9t5BgA_6VHr-Oyw2Cy8m

Nick Land - Bitcoin and Philosophy
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPs4TRYh1Unr-_knTP9pf84eT698qCj-I

Nick Land - Outer Edges
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPs4TRYh1Unq8xFETda6BHxbQeps-uTtO

>"i mean the CLASSIC LIBERALISM, not that what's come out of the Uh-merican uh-dialectical?"

this is a pretty crucial distinction, especially for American readers. When Land talks about Liberalism, he is almost never speaking about "The Liberals", that is the non-moderate portion of the Democratic Party, nor is he talking about the Left in general. He's talking about "classical liberalism", enlightenment thinking, Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, Paine- the idea of free markets, equal rights, personal liberty, political suffrage, due process.

But yeah, he's kind of terrible at speaking publically. And I can't speak on the value of this given podcast, haven't listened to it yet.

>don't punch back and don't fuck girls!
how can christcucks look at themselves in the mirror?

>the idea of free markets, equal rights, personal liberty, political suffrage, due process.
Land only believes in one of these, maybe two or three depending on the circumstances.

nick land sounds irredeemably spooked. muh human progress. fucking materialist faggot

You have to understand that Land was a leftist for a significant portion of his early academic career. He is already well-versed in criticisms of unrestrained capitalism, but he ended up differing from his peers when he came to the conclusion that modernity was inevitable, its engine unstoppable, and its advocates infinitely more powerful than its detractors

It's also worth noting that he is deliberately toning down his ideas to appeal to the /pol/ teenager crowd which makes up most of Red Ice's audience. If they were aware that when he celebrates technological discovery he is also advocating a vehicle toward achieving a William Gibson fever dream with humanity completely sterilized from reality, then they might not be so quick to embrace him. As of now they're just happy for an intellectual weapon to sic on brown people and the baizuo

>muh human progress
You missed the point.

kill yourself

ccru.net/swarm1/1_melt.htm

I found it interesting that Henrik would invite him on and seemed to be interested in everything Land said and seemed to agree with most of it. I wonder if he's aware of the true implications of what Land advocates for.

if what you're saying is that nick land really advocates for technology to kill us or whatever, that is not clear from this interview. either way, i could do a muh technology and he'd still be a spooked out pseud

!!!!
thx brah

>I can reduce any viewpoint to "muh x" and it will make someone look like a psued.
Nice talent you got there.

no. you dont understand m8. time to re-roll the dice on your life bud. better luck next time brainlet

This. Land would send the alt-right running back to the stone age with their tails between their legs if he actually went out there with his full ideas. No one with power in the Right (nor in their right minds apparently) advocates for his kind of accelerationism. Well, perhaps someone on Sillicon Valley but that person is
likely hidden under many layers of "democracy" and "progressive social development".

>that nick hologram image

I think he must be, which is why he steered around it for the first hour (haven't listened to the second so I guess it's possible they go more in-depth there). I've only heard a couple Red Ice podcasts before, but he seems very conscious of his audience and makes an open effort to cater to their beliefs

Red Ice is the biggest Alt-Right media outlet. For it to adopt a Landian position would be a huge deal.

>Meltdown has a place for you as a schizophrenic HIV+ transsexual chinese-latino stim-addicted LA hooker with implanted mirrorshades and a bad attitude. Blitzed on a polydrug mix of K-nova, synthetic serotonin, and female orgasm analogs, you have just iced three Turing cops with a highly cinematic 9mm automatic.
>The residue of animal twang in your nerves transmits imminent quake catastrophe. Zero is coming in, and you're on the run.

this is pretty good

nobody adopts anything, if you look at their past guests, their spectrum is huge. for example gilad atzmon is for old school socialism and muslim inclusion, but they talk with him about identity politics. if adorno was still alive they would probably invite him to to talk about cultural degeneration.

is this an accurate characterization:
theguardian.com/world/2017/may/11/accelerationism-how-a-fringe-philosophy-predicted-the-future-we-live-in

if so hahahahaha this dude ist just another one of those ted talk faggots who think AI is going to happen any day now. he's literally an infomercial salesman. get b8'd m8, if this dude is really paying a shill on here - how much would that cost?

>but that person is likely hidden under many layers of "democracy" and "progressive social development".
Nah, it's just Peter Thiel.

>just another one of those ted talk faggots who think AI is going to happen any day now

From listening to the Bitcoin and Philosophy lectures, he thinks AI is already here, in the form of the market and corporation. Corporate Personhood, Corporate Speech, Algorithmic trading, the question of "AI, When?" is over. We were all so caught up in science fiction anthropomorphism, of a big reveal, of turing cops ready to destroy it, that we never realized that Capital itself is autonomous and supreme. It will outlive us, it will adapt better than we do. It will eventually discard us.

>Scientific intelligence is already massively artificial. Even before AI arrives in the lab it arrives itself (by way of artificial life).

Where formalist AI is incremental and progressive, caged in the pre-specified data-bases and processing routines of expert systems, connectionist or antiformalist AI is explosive and opportunistic: engineering time. It breaks out nonlocally across intelligenic networks that are technical but no longer technological, since they elude both theory dependency and behavioural predictability. No one knows what to expect. The Turing-cops have to model net-sentience irruption as ultimate nuclear accident: core meltdown, loss of control, soft-autoreplication feeding regeneratively into social fission, trashed meat all over the place. Reason enough for anxiety, even without hardware development about to go critical.

from

>if this dude is really paying a shill on here - how much would that cost?
Is it too much to think that people find his weird ass opinions interesting? I've made at least one Land thread before and I don't even agree with him on much of anything

thats just a flat-out equivocal use of the term AI. incredibly uncompelling

no, it's not. someone mentioned it earlier in the thread and i thought they might be for real

uuhm maybe i am naive but if there will ever be a self-aware malevolent AI its still locked in a box. What's keeping us from just pulling the plug.
And no, spreading itself over the world net is just scifi bullshit

spreading isn't scifi bullshit. It's what's already happened. Imagine trying to turn off the stock market, or the internet, or trying to turn off the power grid or water utilities. We are completely dependent on Techno-comercialism to keep vital resources circulating.

The AI shouldn't be anthropomorphized into a "malevolent" entity in a box. Capital is the superior species that evolves out of humanity and eventually replaces it.

Are you ready for this hot take for the sjw mage?

bud, that's not 'artificial intelligence.' what you're describing is material consumerism and it's a current blight on spooked culture vultures in developed economies worldwide.

it's really a hot-take on marxism. a not very strong one.

basically the AI couldn't disable or overtake anything of the techno infrastructure without severly crippling itself and its possibilities.
Catch 22. Its forced to copoperate if it wants to thrive.

>TheLitCritGuy
Should I know who this is?

Should've started with Fanged Noumena.

Holy shit that's good. Thanks!

>basically the AI couldn't disable or overtake anything of the techno infrastructure without severly crippling itself and its possibilities.
>Catch 22. Its forced to copoperate if it wants to thrive.

Capital is increasingly becoming less dependent on humanity. Robotic automation, Digital Autonomous Organizations, Machine Learning, Genetic Engineering, Nuclear Power, Image Processing, etc. The key here is the "automatic" or "autonomous" functions of things like the stock market or a nuclear reactor. While they can potentially meltdown without human maintenance, they're getting increasingly more self-reliant.

In the end, Capital's only "needs" are circulation and fuel. Extinction is possible for any entity, but Capital is more robust and resilient than the organic human at this point.

Is this Terry Davis of /lit?

>free markets, equal rights, personal liberty, political suffrage, due process
>Hobbes
?????
last I remember Hobbes was more like "submit to the king or perish, you worthless n-word"

think that person is just using him as a social contract theorist

are you familiar with nominalism?

>you worthless n-word

>Hobbes
Hobbes conceived of the notion of the Social Contract, wikipedia sums it up:

>Though on rational grounds a champion of absolutism for the sovereign, Hobbes also developed some of the fundamentals of European liberal thought: the right of the individual; the natural equality of all men; the artificial character of the political order (which led to the later distinction between civil society and the state); the view that all legitimate political power must be "representative" and based on the consent of the people; and a liberal interpretation of law which leaves people free to do whatever the law does not explicitly forbid.

This should be opposed to the whole "Divine Right of Kinds", "God's representative on Earth" which was the prevailing, fuedalistic/imperial notion of sovereignty as a "great chain of being" from god, through his sovereigns, their knights and clergy, down to the peasants, serfs and slaves.

So Hobbes is bottom-up authority, opposed to Top-down authority of most pre-enlightenment philosophy/theology

>last I remember Hobbes was more like "submit to the king or perish, you worthless n-word"

What's the problem?

>"Divine Right of Kinds"
meant to write, Divine Right of Kings

memes

He rationalizes the capital as an entity which perceives its environment and employs specific actions in order to reach its goals. That's pretty spot on the textbook definition of AI.

yikes

More that it behaves AS IF it perceives its environment and employs specific actions, which is something that tends to happen with any sufficiently complex system (the old fallacy about evolution "wanting" to make orgaisms better, etc). Whether it actually does or not is kind of a moot point.

still equating AI and capital is at best slippery and at worst totally nonsensical

go to bed nick. nobody likes you and jungle was shit.

it's just a more wordy version of Neuromancer.

They have pretty clear views of their own which are more apparent in their livestreams and specials without guests. Also the guests clearly changed immensely when they switched from spoopy stiff to being Alt-Right.

You're just saying that because you've only read that quote. The entirety of Meltdown is really interesting.

No it's not. One of the most prominent applications of AI is to serve an economic function. It's not ridiculous at all to think that if an AGI emerges out of something which thinks in terms of markets and capital that it would adopt traits of the system and expand on it's old reward system.

Autonomous corporations will probably be a thing within the next 100 years. I'm not convinced that a human element is even necessary to capitalism given extensive automation.

fuck off nick

U wish bb. Read Superintelligence by Nick Bostrom and stop shrugging this x-risk shit off because the politics of the people espousing it hurt your feelings.

not that poster, but you're a brainlet.

that collection really turned me off the whole theory-fiction thing

Negarestani > Land

That's not very nice. Could you explain why you disagree with me? Genuine curiosity. Most people just post a flippant response when Land is mentioned but don't actually have a critique of what he's saying wrt AI.

sure and all the manufactering, building and maintenance is done by whom exactly ? Robots, drones, Nanotech ? In your fever scifi dreams maybe but not in this entropic shitty place called reality.

its obviously an allusion to neuromancer if that's what you're getting at

they already exist, The DAO was one, the problem is they aren't that smart yet.

Primordial soup organisms were pretty sufficient at managing entropy and that is why we are here today. It's not the insurmountable feat you think it is. The tech isn't here but that doesn't mean it won't be at some point in the future.

Do right-wing accelerationists have a good theory as to why the super-rich aren't actually putting RW-accelerationism into practice?

Here's an example: right-wing acclerationists harp about the importance of genetic hygiene constantly. Why aren't the super-rich promoting genetic hygiene policies? Is the explanation just "the Cathedral lol", aka false consciousness for right-wingers?

totally. The material/enviornmental constraints on an AI are much lower than on biological life.

an AI could take many redundant forms, from digital chips and quantum computers to marble machines and vacuum tubes. The range of temperatures and atmospheres that can support AI are much larger. An AI's fuel source is variable, anything that converts to electricity, especially solar power. The range of materials that the AI can constitute itself also vary, any number of conductive metals and plastics work.

The needs of the human organism on the other hand are pretty fucking specific. We can't downgrade into a marble machine. We can't replace blood with wood pulp or plastic.

No clue. I've always found the "dysgenic" arguments as they relate to the human population pretty fucking weak compared to notions of Capital/Human Predator/Prey arguments made by early Land.

My guess is that some of them might be trying to covertly promote eugenics, others might hope that the market sorts it out, others still might bank on genetic engineering.

I think right-accelerationism is kind of silly though. I'm sure someone else can explain their stance better than me.

You're underestimating the impact that nanotech and things like self-replicating machines might have in the future. These things are consistently leaving science fiction behind to enter our own reality. Seriously, take the other user's recommendation and read some of Bostrom's work on the subject. His writing is somewhat dense, but it's lucid and very helpful in explaining that general artificial intelligence could be a real, major concern in the next century. Of course, it couldn't as well, but we are in a far riskier position if it does, and it is not something we will be capable of solving retroactively.

I am assuming that most super rich people have zero desire to consciously bring about the obsolescence of humanity.

I was just shitposting regarding Neuromancer.

>I am assuming that most super rich people have zero desire to consciously bring about the obsolescence of humanity.
Well, someone has to buy shit.

>aka false consciousness for right-wingers
Accelerationists don't fetishise the super rich like Marxists do the proletariat. Also I think you're confusing right-wing accelerationism with neoreaction, understandable since Nick Land is the most notable thinker of both.

It's already too late. Roko's Basilisk and Banks 'Surface Detail' should give anyone nightmares who is able to think this through

>His writing is somewhat dense, but it's lucid and very helpful in explaining that general artificial intelligence could be a real, major concern in the next century. Of course, it couldn't as well, but we are in a far riskier position if it does, and it is not something we will be capable of solving retroactively.
If you accept Land's view we passed the point of solving that problem around the time of the Renaissance.

But I thought his goal was the violent liquidation of humanity to make way for a superintelligence. Why is this considered a problem?

It's not a problem in his view but he believes once we got to that point it became out of our control regardless.

Also isn't redice Neo-Nazi? This is rather amusing since Land has a Jewish wife. But everyone in the alt-right has a Jewish wife so whatever.