what if we are already the replacement AI? —- never let them know
Replacement.ai
61–70 of 725 posts
Re: Replacement.ai
#62The hypothesized superintelligent AI will be essentially immortal. If it destroys us, it will be entirely alone in the known Universe, forever. That thought should terrify it enough to keep us around... even if only in the sense that I keep cats.
I think there's a theory out there that if something can't die, it's more of a "library" than "immortal"... because being born and dying (and the fact that you sharing resources with another living thing is possibly you sharing/shortening your one finite life with another) is so essential for any social bonding. so a machine that has obtained all the knowledge of the universe and enabled to act upon that knowledge is still just a library with controllers attached (no more sophisticated of a concept than a thermostat)
in the end, if synthetic super intelligence results in the end of mankind, it'll be because a human programmed it to do so. more of a computer virus than a malevolent synthetic alien entity. a digital nuclear bomb.
Re: Replacement.ai
#63I'm confused, I don't see what they're offering in this website, looks like a blog post. They just got their hands on a catchy domain name.
Re: Replacement.ai
#64I kind of get it, but at the same time...isn't "we made a machine to do something that people used to do" basically the entire history of of technology? It feels like somehow we should have figured out how to cope with the "but what about the old jobs" problem
Hasn't every such technological development been accompanied by opponents of its implementation? At least now, things aren't so bad, and today's Luddites aren't trashing offices of ai-companies and hanging their employees and executives on nearby poles and trees.
The vast majority of the movement was peaceful. There is one verified instance where a mill owner was killed and it was condemned by leaders of the movement. It was not a violent movement at its core.
Second, the movement was certainly attacked first. It was mill owners who petitioned the government to use “all force necessary” against the luddites and the government acting on behalf of them killed and maimed people who engaged in peaceful demonstrations before anyone associated with the Luddite movement reacted violently, and again, even in the face of violence the Luddite movement was at its core non violent.
Re: Replacement.ai
#65I kind of get it, but at the same time...isn't "we made a machine to do something that people used to do" basically the entire history of of technology? It feels like somehow we should have figured out how to cope with the "but what about the old jobs" problem
Replacing dirty, dangerous jobs, and allowing people to upskill and work better jobs is one thing.
Firing educated workers en mass for software that isn’t as good but cheaper, doesn’t have the same benefits to society at large.
What is the goal of replacing humans with robots? More money for the ownership class, or freeing workers from terrible jobs so they can contribute to society in a greater way?
Re: Replacement.ai
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
If ML is limited to replacing some tasks that humans do, yes it will be much like any past technological innovation. If we build AGI, we don't have a past comparison for that. Technologies so far have always replaced a subset of what humans currently do, not everything at once.
AGI does not replace "everything". It might replace most of the work that someone can do behind a desk, but there are a lot of jobs that involve going out there and working with reality outside of the computer.
AGI as defined these days is typically “can perform at competent human level on all knowledge work tasks” so somewhat tautologically it does threaten to substitute for all these jobs.
It’s a good thing to keep in mind that plumbers are a thing, my personal take is if you automated all the knowledge work then physical/robot automation would swiftly follow for the blue-collar jobs: robots are software-limited right now, and as Baumol’s Cost Disease sets in, physical labor would become more expensive so there would be increased incentive to solve the remaining hardware limitations.
Re: Replacement.ai
#67I kind of get it, but at the same time...isn't "we made a machine to do something that people used to do" basically the entire history of of technology? It feels like somehow we should have figured out how to cope with the "but what about the old jobs" problem
I always compare it to the age of the industrial revolution. I have no doubt you had stubborn old people saying: "Why would I need a machine to do what I can do just fine by hand??" Those people quickly found themselves at a disadvantage to those who choose not to fight change, but to embrace it and harness technological leaps to improve their productivity and output.
Most people are not in a position to choose whether to embrace or reject. An individual is generally in a position to be harmed by or helped by the new thing, based on their role and the time they are alive.
Analogies are almost always an excuse to oversimplify. Just defend the thing on its own properties - not the properties of a conceptually similar thing that happened in the past.
Re: Replacement.ai
#68[deleted]
Re: Replacement.ai
#69I kind of get it, but at the same time...isn't "we made a machine to do something that people used to do" basically the entire history of of technology? It feels like somehow we should have figured out how to cope with the "but what about the old jobs" problem
that is the point of Luddism! the original Luddite movement was not ipso facto opposed to progress, but rather to the societal harm caused by society-scale economic obsolescence. the entire history of technology is also powerful business interests smearing this movement as being intrinsically anti-progress, rather than directly addressing these concerns…
I think the concern in this case is that, unlike before where machines were built for other people to use, we’re now building machines that may be able to use themselves.
Re: Replacement.ai
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
If ML is limited to replacing some tasks that humans do, yes it will be much like any past technological innovation. If we build AGI, we don't have a past comparison for that. Technologies so far have always replaced a subset of what humans currently do, not everything at once.
AGI does not replace "everything". It might replace most of the work that someone can do behind a desk, but there are a lot of jobs that involve going out there and working with reality outside of the computer.
"Everything" might be hyperbole but a huge percentage of the workforce in my country is office/desk based. Included in that % is a lot of the middleclass and stepping stone jobs to get out of manual work.
If AI kills the middle and transitional roles i anticipate anarchy.