The economy is strictly human. Humans have needs and trade to satisfy those needs. Without humans, there is no economy. AI will have a huge impact like the industrial revolutionary. But just the machines of the industrial revolutionary were useless without humans needing the goods produced by them, so too is AI pointless without humans needs to satisfy.
Statement on AI Risk
241–250 of 964 posts
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what argument is there to refute? It feels like Aquinas “proving” God’s existence by stating that it is self evident. They can’t point to an existing system that poses existential risk, because it doesn’t exist. They can’t point to a clear architecture for such a system, because we don’t know how to build it. So again, what can be refuted?
Here's one of my concrete worries: At some point, humans are going to be outcompeted by AI at basically every important job. At that point, how are we going to maintain political power in the long run? Humanity is going to be like an out-of-touch old person on the internet - we'll either have to delegate everything important (which is risky), or eventually get scammed or extorted out of all our resources and influenc…
Well, that's a different risk than human extinction. The statement here is about the literal end of the human race. AI being a big deal that could cause societal upheaval etc is one thing, "everyone is dead" is another thing entirely.
I think people would be a lot more charitable to calls for caution if these people were talking about sorts of risks instead of extinction.
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#243The statement should read:
Mitigating the risk of extinction from climate change should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.
The fantasy of extinction risk from "AI" should not be placed alongside real, "societal scale" risks as the ones above.
Well. The ones above.
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#244[dead]
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#245The economy is strictly human. Humans have needs and trade to satisfy those needs. Without humans, there is no economy. AI will have a huge impact like the industrial revolutionary. But just the machines of the industrial revolutionary were useless without humans needing the goods produced by them, so too is AI pointless without humans needs to satisfy.
i imagine the people arguing are more about which humans to satisfy when the AI makes production of goods no longer constrained by labour.
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#246> Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.
I don't care about the future of the human species as long as my mind can be reliably transferred into an AI. In fact i wouldn't mind living forever as a pet of some superior AI , it's still better than dying a cruel death because cells are unable to maintain themselves. Why is the survival of our species post-AI some goal to aspire to? It makes more sense that people will want to become cyborgs, not remain "pure humans" forever.
This statement is theological in spirit and chauvinist-conservative in practice.
Let's now spend the rest of the day debating alternative histories instead of making more man-made tools
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#247Are we supposed to keep a straight face while reading these statements? This is Sam Bankman-Fried type of behavior, but applied to gullible AI proponents and opponents rather than "crypto bros". Let me guess, the next step is a proposed set of regulations written by OpenAI, Google and other Big Corporations who Care™ about people and just want to Do What's Best For Society™, setting aside the profit motive for the fi…
Explain to me why you think Max Tegmark wants this technology to be controlled by FAANG? Has his entire life been extremely in depth performance art?
I've never made any statements about, nor do I have any personal beliefs about Max Tegmark in particular.
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#248A lot of the responses to this seem like Bulverism, ie., trying to refute an argument by psychoanalyzing the people who argue it: "Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit do…
But what argument is there to refute? It feels like Aquinas “proving” God’s existence by stating that it is self evident. They can’t point to an existing system that poses existential risk, because it doesn’t exist. They can’t point to a clear architecture for such a system, because we don’t know how to build it. So again, what can be refuted?
It's arrived at through induction. Induction is logic involving probability. Probabilistic logic and predictions of the future are valid logic that has demonstrably worked in other situations so if such logic has a level of validity then induction is a candidate for refutation.
So we know a human of human intelligence can take over a humans job and endanger other humans.
AI has been steadily increasing in intelligence. The latest leap with LLMs crossed certain boundaries of creativity and natural language.
By induction the trendline points to machines approaching human intelligence.
Also by induction if humans of human intelligence can endanger humanity then a machine of human intelligence should do the same.
Now. All of this induction is something you and everyone already knows. We know that this level of progress increases the inductive probabilities of this speculation playing out. None of us needs to be explained any of this logic as we are all well aware of it.
What's going on is that humans like to speculate on a future that's more convenient for them. Science shows human psychology is more optimistic then realistic. Hence why so many people are in denial.
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#249It seems more like an exaggeration to me, an AI will always require the inputs that a human can generate.
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#250> Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war. I don't care about the future of the human species as long as my mind can be reliably transferred into an AI. In fact i wouldn't mind living forever as a pet of some superior AI , it's still better than dying a cruel death because cells are unable to maintain themselves. Why…
> my mind can be reliably transferred into an AI
your mind can be copied, not transferred. Original mind will die with your body.