The sidebar for this sub doesn't define it as a vehicle for Singularitarianism, and uses language which is less messianic. The key phrase being changing civilization which does not necessarily entail changing it in a way that is desirable.

The defining characteristic of the singularity "small S"—which I have been distinguishing from the Singularity "capital S" which is often associated with something that can approach optimism unto belief in "the rapture of the nerds"—is that it so named because it represents a moment of unknowability. Transformation of the ordering of our world across multiple dimensions in ways which may, or may not, be radical.

Allah willing, this will be cause for the optimism. There is not reason to assume that, just as there is no reason as of yet, to conclude that it will be awful in some way.

IMO what we know for certain is that we cannot (yet) see beyond the event horizon.

We can muse, however, which is what I understood this place to be about—and for better or worse, where we all start is with a present world within which there is no shortage of woes, many of which amount to the preconditions upon which any superintelligence emerges.

I am not saying The End is Near, but I do think there is reasonable cause for serious concern and serious discussion, including of the bewildering ways that both true singularity, and its precursors, may destabilize things. That that may well feel pessimistic is IMO all the more reason to contribute as one may to creating a context within which more optimistic scenarios have the best chance of taking hold.

Practically speaking that means e.g. raising awareness of the need for safeguards, and the reality of risks.

And also of championing, amplifying, and celebrating the opportunities and victories as they come.

Yoy better check they self

I think the best way to interpret this is to always ask whether there is something fundamentally limiting or constrained about a given issue, because if not, the broader assertion is that when the relative cost of energy and computation go towards zero, anything that is amenable to solution via application of those factors becomes on a long enough time scale just an engineering problem. A simple matter of engineering as they say.

Eg the question of being on or off grid presupposes that there is a grid in the sense we mean it today and more importantly that it is a fundamental determinant of what is plausible.

The thrust of this idea about robot built houses is undoubtedly not just that grid connection will be a trivial and well solved problem, but that it may be a red herring because it may not be necessary in the sense it is today.

With enough energy, you can pull water out of the air; and with the right energy and tech you can dispense with gray water and wastewater.

That's probably the far down the line extreme but the theory is the same for incremental improvements.

There is a world in which the limits we have are the limits of physics.

I don't expect to see it and don't have a great deal of faith anyone will, given current obstacles, but I think it's a lot less far fetched and a lot more plausible than we would have thought conceivable only a couple decades ago.