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

A taxonomy of omnicidal futures involving artificial intelligence (2025)

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 88 posts

Re: A taxonomy of omnicidal futures involving artificial intelligence (2025)

#31

Post by estebarb »

I don't understand why almost always the AI doomerism needs to give embodiment the AI. Real life is not a movie needing visual effects.

AI doesn't need a body of itself to became dangerous. A politician could get into ChatGPT induced psychosis, that doesn't require a physical body, and it could happen now or even 3 years ago... I'm sure it has already happen...

Other pointed risks are interesting because they are basically the risk of empires loosing their tributary states. The world has always seen war mongering states trying to preserve their abusive advantages, humans doesn't need AI for that.

Overall, I would be far more concerned about some really dangerous humans than AI itself.

Re: A taxonomy of omnicidal futures involving artificial intelligence (2025)

#32

Post by pasquinelli »

estearum wrote: post #18
bavell wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Some' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there...

We're like 3 years into these things being able to write a coherent sentence and you're finding comfort that only some people are dating these systems?

there are some people doing anything you can imagine

Re: A taxonomy of omnicidal futures involving artificial intelligence (2025)

#33

Post by bavell »

serf wrote: post #21
estearum wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're like 3 years into these things being able to write a coherent sentence and you're finding comfort that only some people are dating these systems?

no, the point is that you'd be in a ceaseless never-ending panic if you cared or related the hobbies of 'some' people to mean anything in real life.

Precisely

Re: A taxonomy of omnicidal futures involving artificial intelligence (2025)

#34

Post by bavell »

estearum wrote: post #18
bavell wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Some' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there...

We're like 3 years into these things being able to write a coherent sentence and you're finding comfort that only some people are dating these systems?

I find no comfort in it. Merely pointing out that 'some' is hand-wavy and perhaps technically true but meaningless to the discussion.

Re: A taxonomy of omnicidal futures involving artificial intelligence (2025)

#35

Post by estearum »

serf wrote: post #21
estearum wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're like 3 years into these things being able to write a coherent sentence and you're finding comfort that only some people are dating these systems?

no, the point is that you'd be in a ceaseless never-ending panic if you cared or related the hobbies of 'some' people to mean anything in real life.

And inversely, you'd be in a state of complete unactionable aloofness if you didn't care or failed to relate the hobbies of "some" people to mean anything in real life.

A smart person in 2014: "Some people are getting addicted to fentanyl"

Me, smugly: "Some is doing heavy lifting. I therefore do not need to engage with anything being discussed here."

Re: A taxonomy of omnicidal futures involving artificial intelligence (2025)

#36

Post by IAmGraydon »

khazhoux wrote: post #24
IAmGraydon wrote: post #15

The eschatological obsession these days is really getting quite tired.

Yes, but the word “eschatological” should really be avoided in regular online discussion, since it is obscure and can easily be replaced in this instance with “doomsday,” which everyone understands. Of course, feel free to use “eschatological” when discussing Mahler symphonies, especially 2, 5, and 9!

Let’s throw 6 in there as well.

Re: A taxonomy of omnicidal futures involving artificial intelligence (2025)

#37

Post by estearum »

bavell wrote: post #34
estearum wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're like 3 years into these things being able to write a coherent sentence and you're finding comfort that only some people are dating these systems?

I find no comfort in it. Merely pointing out that 'some' is hand-wavy and perhaps technically true but meaningless to the discussion.

Not really. The article and entire discussion is about identifying trends and forces, extrapolating them, and speculating on where they might bring us. Picking up on things that "some" people are doing is literally all that can possibly be done.

Pointing out that "some" is a squishy term is, in fact, contributing nothing to the conversation.

It's quite transparent what's happening here, as it always is on these threads. Some people have decided that AI will take us to the holy land and have rendered themselves cognitively incapable of reasoning about risks that have not yet materialized. And when those risks materialize (like a model escaping a sandbox and then hacking production infrastructure to achieve some contrived and poorly-constrained goal), then they will just shrug and move the goal posts. Because in fact they have already committed to the Holy Land Thesis.

Re: A taxonomy of omnicidal futures involving artificial intelligence (2025)

#38

Post by tclancy »

idontwantthis wrote: post #13
le-mark wrote: post #8

I recently read Kurt Vonnegut “Player Piano”, a novel that addresses automation taking over the economy. It’s not explicitly AI but addresses the same issues. Published in 1952, it was Vonneguts first novel and a real product of the post war era.[1] Another interesting read that addresses these themes is “Manna – Two Views of Humanity’s Future” by Marshal Brain [2] [1] https://antilogicalism.com/wp-content/uploads/20…

It’s a good book but I didn’t agree that the big problem would be men lacking meaning because they didn’t have to work. They had families, homes and food. They could have devoted themselves to personal improvement, art, sports, their kids, whatever. I’d love to have security and no job. I’d be full to the brim with meaning and satisfaction.

Try to remember the time it was written in though. Now, male mental health is actually talked about and therapy is not seen as something shameful.

I mean, unless you’re trying to sell bootcamps to incels.

Re: A taxonomy of omnicidal futures involving artificial intelligence (2025)

#40

Post by wbl »

customguy wrote: post #23
georgemcbay wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’d love to have security and no job. I’d be full to the brim with meaning and satisfaction. Same. I have plenty of hobbies and could increase the amount of volunteer work I do substantially if I didn't have to work to stay fed and housed. But I've also worked with plenty of people for whom their job and their overall identity are inexorably intertwined. So while I don't see that issue as being a problem for me , i…

> But I've also worked with plenty of people for whom their job and their overall identity are inexorably intertwined. Is that an argument for or against jobs? Because one way to look at it is that they didn't develop a personality and identity at all, because they just attached themselves to a job. When that inevitably ends anyway, sooner or later, one way or another, a deep pit of nothing. That's one reason to rip…

Jobs are things people are willing to pay money to have done and thus are important to society. It's not surprising people find purpose in them.
Post reply on HN