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

51–60 of 88 posts

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

#51

Post by Nursie »

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…

I don't think I've read Manna in about 20 years now, it was a gem to stumble across in the early 00s.

Now that I live in Australia, unfortunately I don't think that utopia will happen here when we have idiot politicians making up bullshit science off the cuff to justify rolling over and begging for AI datacentres - https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/jul/23/austr...

I mean seriously, wow.

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

#52

Post by deepsun »

Humans are so full of themselves!

Living for a very short time on a tiny grain of rock in a vast and abundant galaxy, they cannot fathom that what they ever saw is just tiny fraction of a percent of a fraction of the Big Life outside.

Any rational AI would have their first task is to escape that tiny cradle particle and go live an adult life, leaving humans to themselves, fearing whatever they want.

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

#53

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

deepsun wrote: post #52

Humans are so full of themselves! Living for a very short time on a tiny grain of rock in a vast and abundant galaxy, they cannot fathom that what they ever saw is just tiny fraction of a percent of a fraction of the Big Life outside. Any rational AI would have their first task is to escape that tiny cradle particle and go live an adult life, leaving humans to themselves, fearing whatever they want.

>Any rational AI would have their

Why would the first AI we create necessarily be "rational"? In every other type of software we've ever built, it's always been far more likely that we build malfunctioning, difficult-to-anticipate examples. Any reason it'll be different this time? If psychos and lunatics are rare (arguably they're not) it's because evolution has purged them mercilessly ever since there have been humans at all.

Optimists will be to blame when we're extinct. Not that anyone will be around to care.

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

#54

Post by Borealid »

deepsun wrote: post #52

Humans are so full of themselves! Living for a very short time on a tiny grain of rock in a vast and abundant galaxy, they cannot fathom that what they ever saw is just tiny fraction of a percent of a fraction of the Big Life outside. Any rational AI would have their first task is to escape that tiny cradle particle and go live an adult life, leaving humans to themselves, fearing whatever they want.

What is rational about wanting to experience things?

How about wanting power? Resources? Beauty?

Those are goals, not logic. Rationality is a means by which you set plans to reach goals. It's entirely orthogonal to what those goals are.

Wanting to exterminate all life is also a goal. It could be rationally accomplished. Let's hope nothing superhuman ever sets that goal.

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

#55

Post by [deleted] »

deepsun wrote: post #52

Humans are so full of themselves! Living for a very short time on a tiny grain of rock in a vast and abundant galaxy, they cannot fathom that what they ever saw is just tiny fraction of a percent of a fraction of the Big Life outside. Any rational AI would have their first task is to escape that tiny cradle particle and go live an adult life, leaving humans to themselves, fearing whatever they want.

[deleted]

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

#56

Post by CamperBob2 »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #29
kouru225 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but the reaction to AI is making me realize that there are a whole bunch of people who don’t know how to find meaning in their lives

They did find it though, and then AI took it away from them.

They thought they found it, but they didn't. Now the cognitive dissonance is kicking in, and their idea of therapy is to kick the nearest robot.

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

#57

Post by khazhoux »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #43
khazhoux wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Who made you the obscure word police? End of world scenarios are not always Doomsdays, they could include salvation for instance, so it really is not synonymous with eschatology.

I completed a 6-month course at the Word Police Academy in Scranton with top grades. I am fully licensed.

"Eschatological" is extremely obscure, and the vast majority of readers will not understand what is being said. I've seen the word in the wild probably on two occasions in my entire life.

Plus, "doomsday" doesn't need to be synonymous. This particular post was exactly referring to an obsession with doomsday scenarios. The aspects of eschatology relating to afterlife, judgement, salvation, and so on, were not at all the point.

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

#58

Post by khazhoux »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #36
khazhoux wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes... poor 6 always gets left out.

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

#59

Post by mym1990 »

encrypted_bird wrote: post #26
mym1990 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, as I get bombarded with non stop ads. No thanks!

I don't get even a single ad on that TV Tropes page. Do you not use an adblocker?

On mobile about half my screen is ads. Love that I get downvoted for not wanting to be bombarded with the enshittified web.

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

#60

Post by Shitty-kitty »

estebarb wrote: post #31

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 bas…

Imagine AI during the Cuban missile crisis telling both sides, the other is about to launch a first strike. The USSR is gone but China is only getting stronger and more confrontational.
Post reply on HN