Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI 2027

ai-2027.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 641 posts

Re: AI 2027

#291

Post by baron816 »

ivraatiems wrote: post #219

Though I think it is probably mostly science-fiction, this is one of the more chillingly thorough descriptions of potential AGI takeoff scenarios that I've seen. I think part of the problem is that the world you get if you go with the "Slowdown"/somewhat more aligned world is still pretty rough for humans: What's the point of our existence if we have no way to meaningfully contribute to our own world? I hope we're wr…

My vision for an ASI future involves humans living in simulations that are optimized for human experience. That doesn’t mean we are just live in a paradise and are happy all the time. We’d experience dread and loss and fear, but it would ultimately lead to a deeply satisfying outcome. And we’d be able to choose to forget things, including whether we’re in a simulation so that it feels completely unmistakeable from base reality. You’d live indefinitely, experiencing trillions of lifespans where you get to explore the multiverse inside and out.

My solution to the alignment problem is that an ASI could just stick us in tubes deep in the Earth’s crust—it just needs to hijack our nervous system to input signals from the simulation. The ASI could have the whole rest of the planet, or it could move us to some far off moon in the outer solar system—I don’t care. It just needs to do two things for it’s creators—preserve lives and optimize for long term human experience.

Re: AI 2027

#292

Post by dovin »

chipsrafferty wrote: post #288
dovin wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dogs offer humans no economic value, but we haven't genocided them. There are a lot of ways that we could offer value that's not necessarily just in the form of watts and minerals. I'm not so sure that our future superintelligent summoned demons will be motivated purely by increasing their own power, resources, and leverage. Then again, maybe they will. Thus far, AI systems that we have created seem surprisingly goal…

A world in which most humans fill the role of "pets" of the ultra rich doesn't sound that great.

Humans becoming domesticated by benevolent superintelligences are some of the better futures with superintelligences, in my mind. Iain M Banks' Culture series is the best depiction of this I've come across; they're kind of the utopian rendition of the phrase "all watched over by machines of loving grace". Though it's a little hard to see how we get from here to there.

Re: AI 2027

#293

Post by zdragnar »

ivraatiems wrote: post #219

Though I think it is probably mostly science-fiction, this is one of the more chillingly thorough descriptions of potential AGI takeoff scenarios that I've seen. I think part of the problem is that the world you get if you go with the "Slowdown"/somewhat more aligned world is still pretty rough for humans: What's the point of our existence if we have no way to meaningfully contribute to our own world? I hope we're wr…

> What's the point of our existence if we have no way to meaningfully contribute to our own world?

You may find this to be insightful: https://meltingasphalt.com/a-nihilists-guide-to-meaning/

In short, "meaning" is a contextual perception, not a discrete quality, though the author suggests it can be quantified based on the number of contextual connections to other things with meaning. The more densely connected something is, the more meaningful it is; my wedding is meaningful to me because my family and my partners family are all celebrating it with me, but it was an entirely meaningless event to you.

Thus, the meaningfulness of our contributions remains unchanged, as the meaning behind them is not dependent upon the perspective of an external observer.

Re: AI 2027

#294

Post by arduanika »

9dev wrote: post #186
zvitiate wrote: post #15

There's a lot to potentially unpack here, but idk, the idea that humanity entering hell (extermination) or heaven (brain uploading; aging cure) is whether or not we listen to AI safety researchers for a few months makes me question whether it's really worth unpacking.

Maybe people should just don’t listen to AI safety researchers for a few months? Maybe they are qualified to talk about inference and model weights and natural language processing, but not particularly knowledgeable about economics, biology, psychology, or… pretty much every other field of study? The hubris is strong with some people, and a certain oligarch with a god complex is acting out where that can lead right n…

It's charitable of you to think that they might be qualified to talk about inference and model weights and such. They are AI safety researchers, not AI researchers. Basically, a bunch of doom bloggers, jerking each other in a circle, a few of whom were tolerated at one of the major labs for a few years, to do their jerking on company time.

Re: AI 2027

#296

Post by NitpickLawyer »

wkat4242 wrote: post #215
pydry wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>History says that actually when this happens, an entire generation is yeeted on to the streets History hasnt had to contend with a birth rate of 0.7-1.6. It's kind of interesting that the elite capitalist media (economist, bloomberg, forbes, etc) is projecting a future crisis of both not enough workers and not enough jobs simultaneously.

I don't really get the American preoccupation with birth rates. We're already way overpopulated for our planet and this is showing in environmental issues, housing cost, overcrowded cities etc. It's totally a great thing if we start plateauing our population and even reduce it a bit. And no we're not going extinct. It'll just cause some temporary issues like an ageing population that has to be cared for but those iss…

> I don't really get the American preoccupation with birth rates.

Japan is currently in the finding out phase of this problem.

Re: AI 2027

#297

Post by roca »

The least plausible part of this is the idea that the Trump administration might tax American AI companies to provide UBI to the whole world.

But in an AGI world natural resources become even more important, so countries with those still have a chance.

Re: AI 2027

#298

Post by yapyap »

Stopped reading after

> We predict that the impact of superhuman AI over the next decade will be enormous, exceeding that of the Industrial Revolution.

Get out of here, you will never exceed the Industrial Revolution. AI is a cool thing but it’s not a revolution thing.

That sentence alone + the context of the entire website being AI centered shows these are just some AI boosters.

Lame.

Re: AI 2027

#299

Post by dr_dshiv »

ddp26 wrote: post #246
dr_dshiv wrote: post #172

But, I think this piece falls into a misconception about AI models as singular entities. There will be many instances of any AI model and each instance can be opposed to other instances. So, it’s not that “an AI” becomes super intelligent, what we actually seem to have is an ecosystem of blended human and artificial intelligences (including corporations!); this constitutes a distributed cognitive ecology of superinte…

Check out the sidebar - they expect tens of thousands of copies of their agents collaborating. I do agree they don't fully explore the implications. But they do consider things like coordination amongst many agents.

It’s just funny, because there are hundreds of millions of instances of ChatGPT running all the time. Each chat is basically an instance, since it has no connection to all the other chats. I don’t think connecting them makes sense due to privacy reasons.

And, each chat is not autonomous but integrated with other intelligent systems.

So, with more multiplicity, I think thinks work differently. More ecologically. For better and worse.

Re: AI 2027

#300

Post by kubb »

esafak wrote: post #119
kubb wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just think about the delta of what the LLM does and what a human does, or why can’t the LLM replace the human, e.g. in a game studio. If it can replace a teacher or an artist in 2027, you’re right and I’m wrong.

It's already replacing artists; that's why they're up in arms. People don't need stock photographers or graphic designers as much as they used to. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4602944

I know that artists don’t like AI, because it’s trained on their stolen work. And yet, AI can’t create a sprite sheet for a 2d game.

This is because it can steal a single artwork but it can’t make a collection of visually consistent assets.

Post reply on HN