7 ms·

So in the end, you envision addiction destroying humanity. It's an interesting insight but I can't really see it happening the way you describe. There are alr

by cubano 11y ago

So in the end, you envision addiction destroying humanity. It's an interesting insight but I can't really see it happening the way you describe. There are already many substances (opiates, crack, meth to name a few), some that have been around for centuries, that give intense dopamine-release rushes. Yet, only a small percentage of people, around 5-10%, seem to have the addictive personality required to completely disengage from reality and destroy their lives with these substances. The human species has millions of years of evolutionary programming to survive the nuerodystopia you predict.

NathanKP 11y ago
People who don't get addicted to chemical drugs don't get addicted because they have things in their lives (rewarding work, good relationships/sex, religion and other forms of self actualization) which gives them dopamine triggers that are more enjoyable than the drug. On the other hand people who lack things that give them the natural dopamine trigger tend to get highly addicted to chemicals that trigger the dopamine release artificially. I'll admit I'm a highly pessimistic person but from what I see we are trending more and more towards automation and AI that will remove the need and even the possibility of having many of those natural dopamine triggers. Imagine a world where its impossible to invent or create anything new because an AI more capable than you has already created it, and what's more the frontier of what the AI is capable of is expanding faster than your mind can physically catch up with so you will never be able to match it, ever. And in this world when it comes to work or art there is always an AI/robot that can do it astronomically better than you can. Maybe you still get a feeling of reward from relationships with other people, but more likely the AI is better at relationships than you are, and most people in the world only have relationships with instances of the AI because that is more rewarding. My nihilistic prediction is that our evolutionary programming won't be able to keep up with technology past a certain point, and instead we'll just be held back by our animal programming.
- kaybe 11y ago
  A less pessimistic view on the future would be not a divergence of humans and AI/computers but a co-development. If we can merge we might be able to keep up.
- Retra 11y ago
  >People who don't get addicted to chemical drugs don't get addicted because they have things in their lives (rewarding work, good relationships/sex, religion and other forms of self actualization) which gives them dopamine triggers that are more enjoyable than the drug. That sounds like something you should back up with unambiguous evidence.
  - tremon 11y ago
    I urge you to look up that evidence for yourself, it is easily found. There is both empirical evidence, from e.g. rats, and sociological experiments, from rehab centers. Also, I reject your use of "unambiguous". Ambiguity is a given, we're not discussing a mathematical proof here.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - CamperBob2 11y ago
      The research I've seen suggests that rats and other creatures will give up everything you listed for another hit of the right drug.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - not_kurt_godel 11y ago
        Not necessarily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
      - kalmi10 11y ago
        I seem to remember a study that attributed this behavior to the captive environment of the subjects (rats), and once the environment was changed, they weaned off on their own. Can't find it right now, but will keep looking. Edit: sibling post found it, apparently its results couldn't be replicated :/
- ams6110 11y ago
  I know a lot of people who hate or are ambivalant their jobs, have bad or no relationships/sex, and are not drug addicts or even recreational users.
- misja111 11y ago
  Well written answer but there's a contradiction in what you're saying. You say: "Maybe you still get a feeling of reward from relationships with other people, but more likely the AI is better at relationships than you are, and most people in the world only have relationships with instances of the AI because that is more rewarding." And your conclusion is that the result of this will be that people will get addicted on drugs rather than seeking relationships with other people. But you just said that most people will have relationships with instances of AI instead. So people will not get addicted on drugs, they will just have amazingly happy relationships with uber social AI instances.
dev1n 11y ago
We now face the danger, which in the past has been the most destructive to the humans: Success, plenty, comfort and ever-increasing leisure. No dynamic people has ever survived these dangers. - John Steinbeck [1] [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/559551-we-now-face-the-danger-which-in-the-past-has https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/559551-we-now-face-the-dang...
- Razengan 11y ago
  They are "dangers" only when your neighbors don't have them. When the whole world has success, plenty, comfort and ever-increasing leisure, there's little reason for anyone to become agitated and attack someone. At least until we run into an agitated alien species with better toys than us.
Malician 11y ago
"There are already many substances (opiates, crack, meth to name a few), some that have been around for centuries, that give intense dopamine-release rushes." Yeah, but consider something that directly stimulates the brain - the best first hit of heroin anyone has ever experienced, under the best conditions, would be nothing by comparison. We can't even imagine the results of that kind of hit.

by cubano 11y ago

NathanKP 11y ago

People who don't get addicted to chemical drugs don't get addicted because they have things in their lives (rewarding work, good relationships/sex, religion and other forms of self actualization) which gives them dopamine triggers that are more enjoyable than the drug. On the other hand people who lack things that give them the natural dopamine trigger tend to get highly addicted to chemicals that trigger the dopamine release artificially. I'll admit I'm a highly pessimistic person but from what I see we are trending more and more towards automation and AI that will remove the need and even the possibility of having many of those natural dopamine triggers. Imagine a world where its impossible to invent or create anything new because an AI more capable than you has already created it, and what's more the frontier of what the AI is capable of is expanding faster than your mind can physically catch up with so you will never be able to match it, ever. And in this world when it comes to work or art there is always an AI/robot that can do it astronomically better than you can. Maybe you still get a feeling of reward from relationships with other people, but more likely the AI is better at relationships than you are, and most people in the world only have relationships with instances of the AI because that is more rewarding. My nihilistic prediction is that our evolutionary programming won't be able to keep up with technology past a certain point, and instead we'll just be held back by our animal programming.

kaybe 11y ago
A less pessimistic view on the future would be not a divergence of humans and AI/computers but a co-development. If we can merge we might be able to keep up.
Retra 11y ago
>People who don't get addicted to chemical drugs don't get addicted because they have things in their lives (rewarding work, good relationships/sex, religion and other forms of self actualization) which gives them dopamine triggers that are more enjoyable than the drug. That sounds like something you should back up with unambiguous evidence.
- tremon 11y ago
  I urge you to look up that evidence for yourself, it is easily found. There is both empirical evidence, from e.g. rats, and sociological experiments, from rehab centers. Also, I reject your use of "unambiguous". Ambiguity is a given, we're not discussing a mathematical proof here.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    The research I've seen suggests that rats and other creatures will give up everything you listed for another hit of the right drug.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - not_kurt_godel 11y ago
      Not necessarily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
    - kalmi10 11y ago
      I seem to remember a study that attributed this behavior to the captive environment of the subjects (rats), and once the environment was changed, they weaned off on their own. Can't find it right now, but will keep looking. Edit: sibling post found it, apparently its results couldn't be replicated :/
ams6110 11y ago
I know a lot of people who hate or are ambivalant their jobs, have bad or no relationships/sex, and are not drug addicts or even recreational users.
misja111 11y ago
Well written answer but there's a contradiction in what you're saying. You say: "Maybe you still get a feeling of reward from relationships with other people, but more likely the AI is better at relationships than you are, and most people in the world only have relationships with instances of the AI because that is more rewarding." And your conclusion is that the result of this will be that people will get addicted on drugs rather than seeking relationships with other people. But you just said that most people will have relationships with instances of AI instead. So people will not get addicted on drugs, they will just have amazingly happy relationships with uber social AI instances.

dev1n 11y ago

We now face the danger, which in the past has been the most destructive to the humans: Success, plenty, comfort and ever-increasing leisure. No dynamic people has ever survived these dangers. - John Steinbeck [1] [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/559551-we-now-face-the-danger-which-in-the-past-has https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/559551-we-now-face-the-dang...

Razengan 11y ago
They are "dangers" only when your neighbors don't have them. When the whole world has success, plenty, comfort and ever-increasing leisure, there's little reason for anyone to become agitated and attack someone. At least until we run into an agitated alien species with better toys than us.

Malician 11y ago

"There are already many substances (opiates, crack, meth to name a few), some that have been around for centuries, that give intense dopamine-release rushes." Yeah, but consider something that directly stimulates the brain - the best first hit of heroin anyone has ever experienced, under the best conditions, would be nothing by comparison. We can't even imagine the results of that kind of hit.