51–60 of 117 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
of course there’s things we could do on a societal level. nothing’s actually inevitable. but we won’t do anything, because the normative argument (we’re condemning people to die of cancer if we don’t put all our resources into the fastest possible AI development) will win every time.
If we're going to go that direction, let's get the AI to re-write some of our DNA and go the full transgenic sci-fi arc
I wonder if the author has ever played Diplomacy. You have to fight the perennial sense that you have nothing and can be replaced. All your opponents have to do is band together against you. A similar generalization to OP would say everyone loses. And it would be wrong. This post shows the dangers of over-generalization more than anything else. The state isn't just about war. Each person in the line of dominoes the a…
> Billionaires won't just sit around and not develop military power, for one. I argue against this here: https://borretti.me/article/on-vulgar-materialism Of course I don't expect a single post to erase a huge divergence in worldview about the relationship between money and power, but that's my argument.
We accelerate capitalism (which AI is becoming synonymous with). The process described here will occur (it's probably inevitable anyway, as the essay's author would agree), giving us an economy of global capital completely decoupled from the desires of mankind. Then, man and machine can part ways; indeed, we'll have no choice on our end but to do this, because the machine won't need us. Anything man can contribute to it will have long since been rendered economically net-negative, as it already is for many (and possibly most of the world).
Now we have two worlds from our currently intermeshed one: in one, the machine proceeds to accelerate further and further away from anything resembling its origin of man's desiring-production (in the Deleuzian sense); in the other, man is forced to return to the purely human existence, the unmediated and unsurrogated world of authentic being-in-the-world.
We can assist this transition's smoothness in two ways, each serving one end of this divergence. Those of us embedded in the capitalist technosphere can continue to contribute what we can to the machine's dialectical progression towards a machinic absolute Geist. The rest of us, who have already been negated into economic irrelevance, can work on building that authentic human world, both by borrowing from the purely-human past and imagining a future that was previously impossible as it need not be some form of primitivism. Both sides of this revolution can be compiled, and can be structured in a way that represents something we might call freedom for both capitalism and man.
FTA: "And who will stop this? Sam Altman? How many divisions does he have? The state doesn’t let corporations own nuclear weapons or fighter jets, it won’t let them have access to autonomous AI weapons either." Elon Musk's SpaceX. He could land a large rocket wherever he wants, it's basically a missile.
If we’re supposing that a superintelligence can be made, that doesn’t necessarily mean we should anthropomorphize ideas like “bored” onto it. Or greed. Perhaps it will just interact with us and produce us things because… that’s what it was trained to do, and anyway, it doesn’t have any motivations to do anything else.
I wonder if the author has ever played Diplomacy. You have to fight the perennial sense that you have nothing and can be replaced. All your opponents have to do is band together against you. A similar generalization to OP would say everyone loses. And it would be wrong. This post shows the dangers of over-generalization more than anything else. The state isn't just about war. Each person in the line of dominoes the a…
I agree with your last sentence, but its prophetic value depends on exactly what you mean by “people”. Some people will indeed play their cards well and come out on top, but they won’t be made out of meat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. This guy didn't read hacker news a few weeks ago when that article about the Samuri came up. There are a lot of premises this article takes for granted besides that one too, but yeah, I get it, its fun to make up what the future is going to be like on a super-grand scale where everything is a simple absolute. People were doing the same thing 100 years ago.
If you mean: https://worksinprogress.co/issue/samurai-city/ Doesn't this prove my point? In feudal Japanese society, wealthy merchants were lower status than poor samurai, i.e., they rich could not buy political power. "The wealthy" and "the ruling class" are not always the same group of people.
My reading was that the Samurai were part of the overclass but were pretty useless, albiet still potentially dangerous, and just sat around devouring resources for hundreds of years, so perhaps the overclass of the future could do the same. The samuri weren't all rich, but they didn't dishonor themselves with labor, which is a similar thing and they certainly held power over the state. The end of the samuri was, perhaps, an example of the state getting what it wants despite the desires of the permanant overclass, supporting what you said, but it took a long time to get there.
I suppose you are thinking of the Samuri as an arm of the state and not "the rich".