Operational Prometheanism: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= Operational Prometheanism = | = Operational Prometheanism = | ||
Source - [https://chatgpt.com/share/69995ccf-6024-8010-a97d-9dbf77824e71] | |||
'''Operational Prometheanism''' is a civilizational design stance that reconciles technological agency with existential risk awareness. | '''Operational Prometheanism''' is a civilizational design stance that reconciles technological agency with existential risk awareness. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 12: | ||
[[Bostrom]] maps the failure modes of godhood. | [[Bostrom]] maps the failure modes of godhood. | ||
The OSE view insists that godhood implies responsibility for outcomes. | |||
Together, the future is designed under existential constraints. | Together, the future is designed under existential constraints. | ||
Latest revision as of 07:21, 21 February 2026
Operational Prometheanism
Source - [1]
Operational Prometheanism is a civilizational design stance that reconciles technological agency with existential risk awareness.
Humanity is acquiring godlike powers.
Godlike powers do not guarantee godlike outcomes.
The future is determined by whether we build civilizations worthy of the power we wield.
Bostrom maps the failure modes of godhood.
The OSE view insists that godhood implies responsibility for outcomes.
Together, the future is designed under existential constraints.