61–70 of 88 posts
If AI turns evil, it will probably not discriminate on which countries to destroy. So Sanders kneecapping the USA won’t slow China, which could result in global destruction anyway.
Without global agreement ( and intrusive monitoring ), it doesn’t seem useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US has never experienced a widespread famine. In some sense I agree with you that starvation in the modern world is a political problem. Evidence for that is the common observation that famines don't occur in functioning liberal democracies. But food production relies on more than technology. Human labor is necessary to produce food, and so incentives have to exist for people to do that work (prices, free markets…
Doesn't that just shift the problem away from incentivizing humans to incentivizing the godkings who own the robots? The scarcity becomes robot manufacturing. Why should the owners undermine the value of their robots by providing free food for all? Those robots could be put to better use fighting wars instead.
The owners/workers at AI companies won't resist the redistribution. It will be seen as inevitable as AI performs a greater and greater share of labor. Also, the AI company owners/workers will accrue massive status and fame; which will become the new currency (like you noted in your first post).
In the USA, thousands of people are killed every year by car drivers. This is tolerated without a peep, relatively speaking, even though 20 times as many pedestrians are killed by drivers as are killed by mass shootings that dominate the news and voter issues. So I predict the number of people we will tolerate being killed every year to have good AI will be more than zero, much more.
We decided after the Sandy Hook massacre that it was okay for a few kids to die in shootings every year so that people could keep their gun rights. Thank the gun lobby. You can thank the Oil and Car lobby groups for Congress' silence on car issues. As long as that sweet sweet blood money keeps flowing into the pockets of politicians, nothing will get better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can do that without superintelligence. There’s no reason to have an independently acting AI which is out of control.
> We can do that without superintelligence Citation needed. History has shown that we can't do this by ourselves because the psychopaths always rise to the top.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not going to end humanity. We're going to use it to do incredible things that would otherwise be forever beyond our ability - a post-work economy, science fiction technologies, advanced mathematics, etc.
How do you know that? If an advanced alien species visited us do you suppose our interaction would be limited to their sharing their knowledge with us?
Proposed bills rarely amount to anything in the end, so it's generally better to wait for a more substantial story. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Happens when one party holds most power in govt.
May not even reach the floor for a debate, let alone vote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From > intelligence beyond human control. (1) to > that will obviously end humanity (2) There's quite an assumption on the feasibility of (1) and even a bigger jump that from (1) follows (2) Some people can have less apocalyptic / more pragmatic views of the potential of AI.
Your AI utopia requires an independently acting autonomous agent? What is the purpose of that? And you are not seriously engaging with anything I’ve written I’ll add. The definition Bernie Sanders has for superintelligence involves it having the capability to “plan and execute the disempowerment of humanity”. That is going to lead to the end of humanity but feel free to quibble in support of what Sanders had set up a…
Why should I? You've already declared me a traitor to humanity. You can't expect people to take your opinions seriously if you don't take theirs seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your AI utopia requires an independently acting autonomous agent? What is the purpose of that? And you are not seriously engaging with anything I’ve written I’ll add. The definition Bernie Sanders has for superintelligence involves it having the capability to “plan and execute the disempowerment of humanity”. That is going to lead to the end of humanity but feel free to quibble in support of what Sanders had set up a…
>And you are not seriously engaging with anything I’ve written Why should I? You've already declared me a traitor to humanity. You can't expect people to take your opinions seriously if you don't take theirs seriously.
Also I guess GP is your sock puppet else I wasn’t even talking to you. I don’t take your opinions seriously, yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can do that without superintelligence. There’s no reason to have an independently acting AI which is out of control.
> We can do that without superintelligence Citation needed. History has shown that we can't do this by ourselves because the psychopaths always rise to the top.
In my view, AI is our best shot at a post-scarcity society where massive redistribution has no/few downsides. If all labor is done by AIs then the price of everything will go to near zero and everyone can have a government mandated middle class lifestyle. Therefore I find it ironic that leftists oppose AI progress.
Whenever I hear AI (or a token predictor in its current form) will solve some universal problem like hunger etc., a picture comes to my mind. . It's a picture of a mom breaking bricks with a hammer to be used for molding concrete, with a child nearby playing, who is tied with a rope to a pole. It's not an imaginary picture, it's real, etched in my memory from childhood. It's a reality that's driven by scarcity- of food and security.
How will AI solve this to bring post scarcity society?