71–80 of 99 posts
I see the scenario where AI kills us all as an optimistic one. I'm more afraid of the one where they keep us around and align us with their needs, like https://i.imgflip.com/2s99vy.jpg
> 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…
> 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…
Congratulations, you just reinvented the ineffability of God.
I can only hope there are enough of us that would destroy the data-centers and robots involved at the first sign of this. Hold on to some of those massive non-computerized bulldozers and excavators, we may need them. Oh and bring back the sanitariums.
I can only hope there are enough of us that would destroy the data-centers and robots involved at the first sign of this. Hold on to some of those massive non-computerized bulldozers and excavators, we may need them. Oh and bring back the sanitariums.
Yes, put the people who think that they should destroy data-centers because they read fiction once inside them first.
I see the scenario where AI kills us all as an optimistic one. I'm more afraid of the one where they keep us around and align us with their needs, like https://i.imgflip.com/2s99vy.jpg
I can only hope there are enough of us that would destroy the data-centers and robots involved at the first sign of this. Hold on to some of those massive non-computerized bulldozers and excavators, we may need them. Oh and bring back the sanitariums.
> trying to preserve the human species as it is would be silly There are a few related concepts being conflated here. The quote above is a Transhumanist position; they think that humans need to evolve. I don’t think most transhumanists are AI successionists, though one path is “merge with AI” whatever you think that means. Genetic engineering being the other obvious path. You could argue in some sense that “post-huma…
...What about some billionaire with any-promise-is-good-as-gold brain-implant tech convinces some powerful billionaire with immortal-power dreams that a merge with AI is the inevitable best way to bring about their big win?
Any half-done faked alignment partly inside some dry old dude's skull can then forever pretend the Panem-2100 hunterdrone games is what we desired all along!
> 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…
> 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. > i.e. it would look immoral to us. I doubt it actually solves the problem then. Especially because I would be willingly to bet it would be almost impossible to get large enough groups of people to agree what the actual problem is.
Whether the arbiter is a human or a machine, the appropriate training set has to come from somewhere :\
Until then there's got to be some defect remaining to be overcome before a truly adequate training set can be accessed that can help with morality.
Which appears to be elusive enough a problem to potentially outlast a species, as we have seen so far.
As to the training sets, people are just using what they already had, some since prehistoric times, because so many of them don't have anything better.
I see the scenario where AI kills us all as an optimistic one. I'm more afraid of the one where they keep us around and align us with their needs, like https://i.imgflip.com/2s99vy.jpg
The plot twist is that we're already the 2nd picture, we domesticated ourselves