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

61–70 of 88 posts

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

#61

Post by adonovan »

narrator wrote: post #41
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…

I like to think that all the crazy kids running around doing stupid and disruptive things for TikTok views is an early form of AI autonomously inducing mass psychosis.

Stuart J. Russell (he of the AI textbook) claims in Human Compatible that YouTube is already an example of a runaway feedback loop between AI (YouTube's recommender "algorithm") and humanity (viewers, content producers, YouTube staff, and society at large). The AI doesn't have a body, a voice, a conscience, or a purpose yet it is busily working away to maximize engagement by changing people's minds, and in particular by bringing extremism into mainstream discourse.

(It seems to me that framing it this way does seem to absolve YouTube executives of responsibility by making the AI, not them, seem like the agent.)

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

#62

Post by fwipsy »

adonovan wrote: post #61
narrator wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like to think that all the crazy kids running around doing stupid and disruptive things for TikTok views is an early form of AI autonomously inducing mass psychosis.

Stuart J. Russell (he of the AI textbook) claims in Human Compatible that YouTube is already an example of a runaway feedback loop between AI (YouTube's recommender "algorithm") and humanity (viewers, content producers, YouTube staff, and society at large). The AI doesn't have a body, a voice, a conscience, or a purpose yet it is busily working away to maximize engagement by changing people's minds, and in particular…

I've been thinking along similar lines recently. It seems to me that the earlier form of nonhuman intelligence is a corporation (or any group which is not under one individual's control.) Each person following their own incentives can result in emergent behavior where the corporation follows its own incentives. If we can't reliably "align" corporations, and corporations create AI, will AI be aligned as well?

It's not totally disconnected, though. A corporation is constrained by what its members are willing to do. I read that the reason Gemini has fallen behind is because Googlers have been quitting over Google's DoD contract. Conversely, if engineers are willing to work hard for you, you can go far. I suspect this is behind both Anthropic's success and also Tesla/SpaceX.

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

#63

Post by Terr_ »

Nursie wrote: post #51
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.

I assumed that the author's Australia choice was not so much about politics but about the geographical mood, so that the Slightly-Better-Promise(d) Land could plausibly be an autarky with natural borders.

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

#64

Post by deepsun »

Borealid wrote: post #54
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.

Exactly my point: power, resources -- it's just so little of it here on this tiny planet. Humans are so funny to think they have resources, ha.

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

#65

Post by wyrdcurt »

khazhoux wrote: post #57
jazzyjackson wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 scena…

Eschatological is a perfectly fine word. The post is about doomsday scenarios, but perhaps the commenter is equally tired of people who think AI will be salvation!

Anyway, if the word confuses anyone, they're in luck: dictionaries still exist :)

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

#66

Post by Borealid »

deepsun wrote: post #64
Borealid wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly my point: power, resources -- it's just so little of it here on this tiny planet. Humans are so funny to think they have resources, ha.

I think you've entirely missed what I'm trying to say.

If your objective is to expend as little energy as possible, it would be irrational to expand into space - that's a waste of effort.

If your objective is to experience as much of Earth as possible, it would be irrational to expand beyond the solar system - there's nothing there that could aid experiencing Earth.

If your objective is to exterminate all life on Earth, it would be irrational to leave the planet - everything you need to accomplish your objective is right here.

"rationality" is when you understand the impact of your own choices. "irrationality" is when you act in a way counter to your own goals, due to misunderstanding or lack of self-control. Whether one is rational or irrational is entirely separate from what their goals are.

Creating a non-human intelligence necessarily means it might have non-human goals. It is absolutely not the case that those goals would require leaving the planet, or be optimally accomplished by leaving the planet.

In other words, being intelligent does not mean somehow being interested in the same things intelligent humans are often interested in. Your argument is critically flawed because it assumes that only certain goals are "rational goals", when in reality an intelligent being could have any objective, including objectives that are alien to most humans.

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

#67

Post by lproven »

mym1990 wrote: post #59
encrypted_bird wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No: you get downvoted for not using an ad-blocker, and then complaining about not using one.

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

#68

Post by lproven »

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…

> Another interesting read that addresses these themes is “Manna – Two Views of Humanity’s Future” by Marshal Brain

As it happens, I recently read Manna, and it is excellent and a good recommendation.

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

#69

Post by khazhoux »

wyrdcurt wrote: post #65
khazhoux wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 scena…

Eschatological is a perfectly fine word. The post is about doomsday scenarios, but perhaps the commenter is equally tired of people who think AI will be salvation! Anyway, if the word confuses anyone, they're in luck: dictionaries still exist :)

I thought it was lexiphanic and sesquipedalian, but to each their own.

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

#70

Post by Nursie »

Terr_ wrote: post #63
Nursie wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I assumed that the author's Australia choice was not so much about politics but about the geographical mood, so that the Slightly-Better-Promise(d) Land could plausibly be an autarky with natural borders.

Yeah I'm sure you're right, it's just used as a "Meanwhile, somewhere with a different take on how this could all play out...."

TBH I was just looking for an excuse to share that link because the stupidity on display there has blown my mind.

Post reply on HN