51–60 of 117 posts
Might want to call it the "Butlerian Jihad", because that's what it sounds like to me. And, yes, machines should serve man and amplify man's abilities, not replace man or his intellect.
I'd even agree to it so long as someone is responsible for its decisions, someone died because your auto-taxi is buggy? Go to jail and pay for damages out the nose. You knew the risks, that's the price to play here.
Unprofitable doesn't mean undoable, it'll only delay things, not make them inevitable. Your investment profits can wait.
> As a society we can reject this technology. I don't see a lot of precedent for this. I actually can't think of one example where society has rejected a useful technology. I believe that affluent people will pay more for artisinal/organic/human-created things. But the majority of the world without disposable income will choose cheaper over human. Even if human-made is better. Especially if AI-made is better. It's tr…
I think there are many precedents for this; you probably just discount them. Some religious communities explicitly reject certain technologies, for instance. We do it as an aggregate society as well whether we actually realize it or not; they are just negative examples of pursuing one kind of technology over another. We started out with a decentralized web, but economic forces have pushed tech development towards bui…
Absolutely everything that is said about GAB.COM, is untrue. Look at the Wikipedia article. Yet the casual reader will believe it. Readers HERE will downvote this because they think GAB.COM is an "alt-right nazi site" with nothing more than what paid propaganda to refer to.
That is what will happen to you, if you try to counter an emerging industry.
YOU will be the one lied about. You have to be ready to weather that. Where will your revenue stream come from? Advertisers believe bought-and-paid-for lies as easily as anyone else will. They will not want to advertise.
Fee-based social media won't work (Too many "free" options), so you are stuck with donations...just like GAB.COM.
It's a good idea both ethically and morally, but the general public is evil and stupid. AI's already know this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. How did rejecting atomic weapons go? 2. In what way does it "threaten human dignity" that is different from the technologies that came before it? Automation took away the livelihoods of people in industries like manufacturing decades ago. Feels like what is truly "different" this time around is just that you feel your job is threatened, so now it's a problem for all of society.
Not the pp, but: 1. For many countries (e.g. Australia), quite successfully. We said no, and then we didn't. 2. We can replace physical activity (e.g. machinery instead of human motion), and that doesn't move human beings from the place of control and power. Likewise, we can replace certain kinds of thinking work (e.g. programming or medicine) and that in itself isn't a major problem (except for the out-of-work progr…
In my opinion, yes, of course such a movement would find traction. We've seen similar movements at every major technological shift in human history. Some examples off the top of my head are certain types of Orthodox Jewish religions and the Amish. Even the term "sabotage" was from workers throwing their shoes ("sabos") into machines for fear of them losing their jobs [0]. There's been a steady stream of anarchists, l…
Today's transformer networks are the first hints of a technology that will replace humans completely for all purposes. It's qualitatively different, like world-destroying atomic bombs versus the minor explosives that came before. This is not like a loom replacing hand-weaving. We're rapidly converging on a full replacement for the human mind. These systems will not defeat you with guns like in Terminator. They will d…
Our children will propagate whatever it is to be human forward. If the next generation is completely digital/AI/made of silicon then, in my opinion, the most likely scenario is that they will propagate this essence of humanity forward, just like "natural" children would.
In other words, luddites view AI as an invading force whereas I see AI as our children that will propel humanity forward.
In terms of responding to your economic value zero point, I'd highlight that, under normal circumstances, in 120 years yours and mine economic value is exactly zero. The best we can ever hope for, in this scenario, is that we make some contribution that allows us to be remembered. The only hope for the essence of our personality or brain power to be preserved and still be functional in perpetuity is if it's copied into an "AI" or there are some spectacular advances in longevity science that would only be possible with AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. How did rejecting atomic weapons go? 2. In what way does it "threaten human dignity" that is different from the technologies that came before it? Automation took away the livelihoods of people in industries like manufacturing decades ago. Feels like what is truly "different" this time around is just that you feel your job is threatened, so now it's a problem for all of society.
Not the pp, but: 1. For many countries (e.g. Australia), quite successfully. We said no, and then we didn't. 2. We can replace physical activity (e.g. machinery instead of human motion), and that doesn't move human beings from the place of control and power. Likewise, we can replace certain kinds of thinking work (e.g. programming or medicine) and that in itself isn't a major problem (except for the out-of-work progr…
2. Again, I don't think that argument carries a lot of weight with people whose lives have already been completely upended by technology. The fact that some people now feel that This Time Is Different and thus we must all band together to hold the line betrays a deep lack of empathy.
In my opinion, yes, of course such a movement would find traction. We've seen similar movements at every major technological shift in human history. Some examples off the top of my head are certain types of Orthodox Jewish religions and the Amish. Even the term "sabotage" was from workers throwing their shoes ("sabos") into machines for fear of them losing their jobs [0]. There's been a steady stream of anarchists, l…
Today's transformer networks are the first hints of a technology that will replace humans completely for all purposes. It's qualitatively different, like world-destroying atomic bombs versus the minor explosives that came before. This is not like a loom replacing hand-weaving. We're rapidly converging on a full replacement for the human mind. These systems will not defeat you with guns like in Terminator. They will d…
Fully automated luxury communism awaits?
No. People have been bellyaching about technology replacing humans literally through all of history. Computers, automation, industrial revolution, what have you. Hunter gatherers were probably complaining about how agriculture was going to make people obsolete too. You can certainly reject whatever you want but don't fool yourself into thinking you're accomplishing anything.
We have seen these sort of movements before and there is definitely a pattern:
Free-software movement: Calls to reject all close-source software were made by the free-software movement, but once again such software still exists in a worse form (web apps) and 'open-source' has become a corporate buzzword.
Cyberpunk-Privacy movement: The same thing happened with the free-software movement where many large companies and others tracking you with their closed-source software can afford the fines and still don't care about your 'privacy' which they also use that as a buzzword.
Anti-IoT movement: After that, it that lead to the rise of another buzzword 'Internet of Things' (IoT) that was fought against by the same techies and was lost since many IoT devices are still existing and built by the same companies tracking you with that closed software and tracking information.
Current anti-AI movement: AI is another buzzword sung by the tech industry, such that companies like OpenAI became closed and diverted from their goals and others implemented their own GPT, DALL-E, Codex like models, and are getting better if not accelerating faster than before. AI experts alarmed by this tried to stop it and so far it has been ignored.
Anti-crypto movement: Yet another buzzword, which after 13 years is still alive and the same techies are still struggling to completely 'destroy' all of it. Due to this, the industry is instead 'regulating' it and picking a remaining few candidates rather than banning everything, because they know they cannot.
So you see with these examples above, co-existence is the end result and it has been the same result with the other movements and those hoping to achieve all their goals in preventing or totally stopping all of it is going to be very disappointed.