Well, this definitely got pushed down in the HN ranks. 49 points in 1 hour, but let's not talk about anything that might cause people to rethink technofascist human replacement.
1984. Brave New World. We.
The people who actually want AI to replace humanity
51–60 of 99 posts
Re: The people who actually want AI to replace humanity
#52> Since they believe AIs could become our moral superiors, they argue it’s actually wrong to try to keep the machines down, or even to align them with human values, as most AI companies aim to do. It's possible that human morality is not sufficient to solve the problems with the world. It wasn't designed to operate at that scale. It's also quite likely that a "superior" morality — the one that's actually built for a…
*not yet willing to do it... But look at the generations coming up who are dealing with this technological capture of humanity. They don't like it.
Re: The people who actually want AI to replace humanity
#53This assumes that “more intelligence” is the objective. Higher intelligence does not imply better values, and even “better values” depends on whose moral framework gets encoded.
Intelligence alone does not, but when combined with knowledge I think it may do. Having a wide breadth of knowledge and the ability to consider it tends to provide a good foundation of perspectives for positive values. Most harms that people do are through some form of ignorance. Either by not comprehending the consequences of their actions or by not knowing better ways to express themselves. Geoffrey Hinton mentions…
[flagged]
Re: The people who actually want AI to replace humanity
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
So for you the solution is not to dismantle a model like that one but just accept it and displace the quasi-slaves? I swear you people have lost your fucking mind and will push people to violence
> but just accept it and displace the quasi-slaves? Well, the quasi-slavery is the problem, right? And replacing the Bangladeshi slave labor with robots and AI solves that problem, no?
What happens to that labor if everyone that would hire them previously is now using cheaper artificial labor? They don't exactly have the capital to make use of artificial labor themselves, nor do they have the skills to work other jobs. The problem is solved for the 10% who are citizens. Great! They don't have a moral quandary regarding slave labor anymore (notwithstanding that there are other ways to prevent being in that situation). But, the 90% of the population that is now displaced has a very serious problem if they cannot earn an income with which to feed or home themselves or their families.
Re: The people who actually want AI to replace humanity
#55> Since they believe AIs could become our moral superiors, they argue it’s actually wrong to try to keep the machines down, or even to align them with human values, as most AI companies aim to do. It's possible that human morality is not sufficient to solve the problems with the world. It wasn't designed to operate at that scale. It's also quite likely that a "superior" morality — the one that's actually built for a…
I agree with all these observations.
This is the best argument for successionism IMO. If you can be confident that you are creating a BDFL that is genuinely better than human leaders (a quite low bar) then it seems a good trade, unless you are quite optimistic about humanity’s prospects for improvement.
The problem of course is how to be confident you are creating a good BDFL and not handing control of humanity’s future to an indifferent-at-best, deceptive/malicious at worst successor.
An especially thorny problem - even supposing success on all these difficult alignment problems; supposing Claude Omega really is super-rational / super-moral, and we all vote to make them president of Earth. Things might go great for a while. How would you be confident that a self-modifying agent can retain its values as it grows and re-trains itself?
This is where the LessWrong folks’ explorations into decision theory really come to bear: morality in the face of self-modifying agents becomes very weird. A lot of human moral intuitions break when the principals are able to modify their own code. (See Timeless Decision Theory for an attempt to solve these problems.)
I think the summary is, if you hand control over to a self-modifying AI anything like our current systems, it will go very badly.
Re: The people who actually want AI to replace humanity
#56More psychosis within the industry. The mental disconnect that is required to go from using an LLM to believing they are working on a replacement for humanity is staggering. It’s not going to work, and when it doesn’t, these imps will try to sink back into the darkness. We can’t let that happen.
Like picking up a tamagotchi and envisioning how it will replace the desire for humans to have children
Re: The people who actually want AI to replace humanity
#57> Since they believe AIs could become our moral superiors, they argue it’s actually wrong to try to keep the machines down, or even to align them with human values, as most AI companies aim to do. It's possible that human morality is not sufficient to solve the problems with the world. It wasn't designed to operate at that scale. It's also quite likely that a "superior" morality — the one that's actually built for a…
I agree with all these observations. This is the best argument for successionism IMO. If you can be confident that you are creating a BDFL that is genuinely better than human leaders (a quite low bar) then it seems a good trade, unless you are quite optimistic about humanity’s prospects for improvement. The problem of course is how to be confident you are creating a good BDFL and not handing control of humanity’s fut…
Any supposed "AI BDFL" will be controlled by a human. The base concept is inherently flawed.
Re: The people who actually want AI to replace humanity
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with all these observations. This is the best argument for successionism IMO. If you can be confident that you are creating a BDFL that is genuinely better than human leaders (a quite low bar) then it seems a good trade, unless you are quite optimistic about humanity’s prospects for improvement. The problem of course is how to be confident you are creating a good BDFL and not handing control of humanity’s fut…
Any supposed "AI BDFL" will be controlled by a human. The base concept is inherently flawed.
No.. that’s not what AI succession means. This all supposes a powerful and capable enough AI entity that there is no human in control.
Rather than simply asserting that your interlocutors are wrong, you are welcome to advance an argument for why you think this is the case.
Re: The people who actually want AI to replace humanity
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any supposed "AI BDFL" will be controlled by a human. The base concept is inherently flawed.
No.. that’s not what AI succession means. This all supposes a powerful and capable enough AI entity that there is no human in control. Rather than simply asserting that your interlocutors are wrong, you are welcome to advance an argument for why you think this is the case.
The burden of proof is not on us to show why wishful, magical thinking is wrong.
People who claim that AI will take over can’t point to any evidence. All they have is speculation.
Re: The people who actually want AI to replace humanity
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
> quasi-human automatons They are humans. Full on people. They are not quasy humam, they are fully absolutely human
Please read what I wrote: "all the work is done by people who are, from the perspective of citizens , quasi-human automatons." The citizens of the Gulf states do not regard the workers as people. That's bad, but if you replace those workers with actual automatons--AIs and robots--then it seems like the system would keep working (from the perspective of the citizens) while removing the immoral aspect of it.
They do regard them as people and know they are people. They are comfortable with abusing people, that is what it is.
In fact, they are not treating them as robots or quasi robots. People dont sexually harass robots for example, they do it to people.