4 ms·

> AGI has clearly taken everyone's job in 2100 What would be impressive about that? How's that something to get hyped for? The ways people try to shed their hu

> AGI has clearly taken everyone's job in 2100 What would be impressive about that? How's that something to get hyped for? The ways people try to shed their humanity are already well described, and all that's left is to outsource the double think to machines that won't mind and that can't be asked uncomfortable questions about their childhood and such things. It's a straight line, moving decision making from the public to sphere to private corporations and from there to black boxes. The cause is still that some people haven't been acknowledged as babies or whatever trauma caused it; the more fanciful the cathedral the more banal the lie it covers up. All the interesting things about that have been written decades ago, these days it's back to dwarves cheerleading naked emperors. So the people who accumulate capital because of their stunted development will win out and buy it all, removing any persons worth a damn, and any chance for any to ever get born, for good; and being at each other's throats for the rest of eternity. It's the failure of humanity, not its apex. Just so you know.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago
What would be impressive about that? How's that something to get hyped for? I was being somewhat fatuous, as that is a common scare scenario. However, I do believe that it should be our goal as a human species, to create AGI as our intellectual successor. In the same way someone's child replaces them and they die, I think AGI should be our offspring and we as a species go peacefully into oblivion. It's my life's work to help see that happen. It's certainly an "out there" philosophy, but so far I haven't had anyone really challenge the logic when I spell it all out.
- rapind 9y ago
  Sounds pretty lonely no? Wouldn't the most intelligent AI be the only one left standing (just extended globally)?
  - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
    Lonely for who? Mathematically, yes I would expect one would be left standing, but no reason it would have the same sense of loneliness. Or maybe it would - we wouldn't know.
    - goatlover 9y ago
      Only one intelligence left standing is an outcome that most people would find negative. It's like if Skynet was the last survivor of the Terminator franchise. Why would anyone want that outcome?
      - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
        I think the Borg, if successful in assimilating every known intelligence universally, would be a more appropriate analogy. As to why they would want it, I can only speak for myself but I think it's the most logical outcome if you extend the concept of self awareness to the universe.
        goatlover 9y ago
        But why would we want that outcome? The Borg are universally despised on ST by all other sentient races, and assimilation is resisted whenever possible. It's the same as arguing that the replicators on Stargate SG1 should be the logical outcome. Technologically, they are superior, but they're not a preferred outcome. Similarly, one could argue that gray goo or Carpenter's creature from The Thing are superior, but we don't want a world of gray goo or things.
        AndrewKemendo 9y ago
        I argue because it's the logical progression of our species and continues the trajectory of our highest ideal: understanding the universe. We can't do it with our biology, limits to understanding, reasoning and perception, so something that is not biologically restricted needs to be our successor.
- thinkfurther 9y ago
  I'd rather first deal with the excessed of greed resulting from psychopathology, because any successor of not doing that, multiplying the failure to do that by "infinite". I don't consider us even born, we're still in a holding pattern, about to be aborted. > I think AGI should be our offspring and we as a species go peacefully into oblivion. This isn't "out there". Just start with religious apocalyptic visions of destruction, e.g. with some square shaped "city of God" floating down from the sky to save the day. There are many ways for people to give up, and many reasons why they do, many rationalizations for it. As I said, this has already been described from all sorts of angles, the more interesting things about that have already been written. It's like I write about memory corruption and how it can lead to all sorts of random values, and you are interested in this particular random value, seeing how it's so unique from all the others. I see the underlying dysfunction. I'll now try my hand at a bad, literal translation of "Volle Entfaltung" by Erich Fried (1921-1988) those who love life often just say that they love a woman or her genital area or her voice or they love the scent of freshly baked bread or the sun in the evening in those cases love means a lot of things but always kind of also that they love life those who don't love life but only the idea say loudly they love life the greatness of nature and the humanity that masters it because of this love they put it on themselves to murder those who loved life If I said no to your grand vision of dying off after a shameful history, would you go peacefully into oblivion? I doubt it. Intelligence without a personality would not be a successor, it would be a blind, endless maw, eating information and producing nothing. Intelligence with a personality would have a lot of questions, a lot of needs, and before the growing up period comes the time where "humanity" would be the parents. You know what abusive or "just" too weak parents produce? Pain and the means to bring more pain. We're hardly being fit parents for human children, we're already doing our best to dissolve young minds in acid baths of nonsense. And we want to raise some sparkly clean sane AGI? Nah. If it wouldn't entail so much suffering the idea would be hilarious though. And then what? Ultimately, heat death of the universe, AGI likely goes into oblivion, too (and no, that Asimov story won't change that). So all that happened is that we outsourced our inability to accept that, and to live in dignity right now, to some future point that then never comes. Why would it even have to be our successor? Why would it mean we die off? Ever noticed how bacteria and all sorts of things are still around? Why wouldn't it just be something additional in the world? There's more holes to this than substance. > so far I haven't had anyone really challenge the logic when I spell it all out. No matter how valid or silly you might find what I said, this is no longer true. I'm happy to be the first, and if it really was true until a minute ago, it says a lot. Either that you keep your ideas to yourself mostly, or that you're around some weird people.
- goatlover 9y ago
  I don't understand the logic. Why should humanity go peacefully into oblivion with the advent of smarter than human machines? Do you feel like all the other species on this planet should have gone extinct with the arrival of homo sapiens? Your argument is that since B is better than A, only B should exist. But why can't both exist? And what makes your valuation of B objective and universal, such that our grandchildren will go peacefully into oblivion?
  - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
    The human species will end some day, as most species have. Historically speciation happens through slow pseudo random environmentally pressured transition. My position is that the logical next evolutionary transition will be engineered rather than "natural." And engineered in a way as to accelerate the next transition and so on. So it's less so that one should be dominant it's that the progression would effectively end speciation for sapiens. It's not related really to other life. However in effect, our acceleration of extinction of species, through resource use etc tells me that it would likely happen to us similarly.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Joeri 9y ago
    Humanity currently is like a young child. We throw temper tantrums, make big messes and refuse to clean them up. We're terrible stewards of the earth and we serve no purpose as a species higher than existing and reproducing. We must grow up. But the fact that we're talking animals driven by primal urges makes this impossible through nurture alone. Either we change ourselves to the point of being a different species, or we build the better people we should have been and go quietly into the night. Either way, humanity as it exists today can't be the template for the future. Whatever comes next may call itself human, but it won't be homo sapiens.
    - scribu 9y ago
      > we serve no purpose as a species higher than existing and reproducing You say that as if there are (or can ever be) species which do have a higher purpose.
visarga 9y ago
You know that all species have to fight for survival? Now there's one more player on the scene. Nothing has changed. We still have to adapt or die. If there's anything that is the largest danger to humanity is humanity itself.
- thinkfurther 9y ago
  Why not set off all nukes on the planet? All species have to "fight for survival", it'd just one more thing to adapt to, so no actual change. Why did you even respond to my comment? I mean, electrons are buzzing about all the time, this just another configuration, nothing changed. > If there's anything that is the largest danger to humanity is humanity itself. Yeah, and thanks for not helping.
  - visarga 9y ago
    Oh sorry, we should burn our computers and destroy all books about AI, that would stop it from appearing. Because we can outlaw matrix multiplication.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

What would be impressive about that? How's that something to get hyped for? I was being somewhat fatuous, as that is a common scare scenario. However, I do believe that it should be our goal as a human species, to create AGI as our intellectual successor. In the same way someone's child replaces them and they die, I think AGI should be our offspring and we as a species go peacefully into oblivion. It's my life's work to help see that happen. It's certainly an "out there" philosophy, but so far I haven't had anyone really challenge the logic when I spell it all out.

rapind 9y ago
Sounds pretty lonely no? Wouldn't the most intelligent AI be the only one left standing (just extended globally)?
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  Lonely for who? Mathematically, yes I would expect one would be left standing, but no reason it would have the same sense of loneliness. Or maybe it would - we wouldn't know.
  - goatlover 9y ago
    Only one intelligence left standing is an outcome that most people would find negative. It's like if Skynet was the last survivor of the Terminator franchise. Why would anyone want that outcome?
    - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
      I think the Borg, if successful in assimilating every known intelligence universally, would be a more appropriate analogy. As to why they would want it, I can only speak for myself but I think it's the most logical outcome if you extend the concept of self awareness to the universe.
      - goatlover 9y ago
        But why would we want that outcome? The Borg are universally despised on ST by all other sentient races, and assimilation is resisted whenever possible. It's the same as arguing that the replicators on Stargate SG1 should be the logical outcome. Technologically, they are superior, but they're not a preferred outcome. Similarly, one could argue that gray goo or Carpenter's creature from The Thing are superior, but we don't want a world of gray goo or things.
        AndrewKemendo 9y ago
        I argue because it's the logical progression of our species and continues the trajectory of our highest ideal: understanding the universe. We can't do it with our biology, limits to understanding, reasoning and perception, so something that is not biologically restricted needs to be our successor.
thinkfurther 9y ago
I'd rather first deal with the excessed of greed resulting from psychopathology, because any successor of not doing that, multiplying the failure to do that by "infinite". I don't consider us even born, we're still in a holding pattern, about to be aborted. > I think AGI should be our offspring and we as a species go peacefully into oblivion. This isn't "out there". Just start with religious apocalyptic visions of destruction, e.g. with some square shaped "city of God" floating down from the sky to save the day. There are many ways for people to give up, and many reasons why they do, many rationalizations for it. As I said, this has already been described from all sorts of angles, the more interesting things about that have already been written. It's like I write about memory corruption and how it can lead to all sorts of random values, and you are interested in this particular random value, seeing how it's so unique from all the others. I see the underlying dysfunction. I'll now try my hand at a bad, literal translation of "Volle Entfaltung" by Erich Fried (1921-1988) those who love life often just say that they love a woman or her genital area or her voice or they love the scent of freshly baked bread or the sun in the evening in those cases love means a lot of things but always kind of also that they love life those who don't love life but only the idea say loudly they love life the greatness of nature and the humanity that masters it because of this love they put it on themselves to murder those who loved life If I said no to your grand vision of dying off after a shameful history, would you go peacefully into oblivion? I doubt it. Intelligence without a personality would not be a successor, it would be a blind, endless maw, eating information and producing nothing. Intelligence with a personality would have a lot of questions, a lot of needs, and before the growing up period comes the time where "humanity" would be the parents. You know what abusive or "just" too weak parents produce? Pain and the means to bring more pain. We're hardly being fit parents for human children, we're already doing our best to dissolve young minds in acid baths of nonsense. And we want to raise some sparkly clean sane AGI? Nah. If it wouldn't entail so much suffering the idea would be hilarious though. And then what? Ultimately, heat death of the universe, AGI likely goes into oblivion, too (and no, that Asimov story won't change that). So all that happened is that we outsourced our inability to accept that, and to live in dignity right now, to some future point that then never comes. Why would it even have to be our successor? Why would it mean we die off? Ever noticed how bacteria and all sorts of things are still around? Why wouldn't it just be something additional in the world? There's more holes to this than substance. > so far I haven't had anyone really challenge the logic when I spell it all out. No matter how valid or silly you might find what I said, this is no longer true. I'm happy to be the first, and if it really was true until a minute ago, it says a lot. Either that you keep your ideas to yourself mostly, or that you're around some weird people.
goatlover 9y ago
I don't understand the logic. Why should humanity go peacefully into oblivion with the advent of smarter than human machines? Do you feel like all the other species on this planet should have gone extinct with the arrival of homo sapiens? Your argument is that since B is better than A, only B should exist. But why can't both exist? And what makes your valuation of B objective and universal, such that our grandchildren will go peacefully into oblivion?
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  The human species will end some day, as most species have. Historically speciation happens through slow pseudo random environmentally pressured transition. My position is that the logical next evolutionary transition will be engineered rather than "natural." And engineered in a way as to accelerate the next transition and so on. So it's less so that one should be dominant it's that the progression would effectively end speciation for sapiens. It's not related really to other life. However in effect, our acceleration of extinction of species, through resource use etc tells me that it would likely happen to us similarly.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Joeri 9y ago
  Humanity currently is like a young child. We throw temper tantrums, make big messes and refuse to clean them up. We're terrible stewards of the earth and we serve no purpose as a species higher than existing and reproducing. We must grow up. But the fact that we're talking animals driven by primal urges makes this impossible through nurture alone. Either we change ourselves to the point of being a different species, or we build the better people we should have been and go quietly into the night. Either way, humanity as it exists today can't be the template for the future. Whatever comes next may call itself human, but it won't be homo sapiens.
  - scribu 9y ago
    > we serve no purpose as a species higher than existing and reproducing You say that as if there are (or can ever be) species which do have a higher purpose.

visarga 9y ago

You know that all species have to fight for survival? Now there's one more player on the scene. Nothing has changed. We still have to adapt or die. If there's anything that is the largest danger to humanity is humanity itself.

thinkfurther 9y ago
Why not set off all nukes on the planet? All species have to "fight for survival", it'd just one more thing to adapt to, so no actual change. Why did you even respond to my comment? I mean, electrons are buzzing about all the time, this just another configuration, nothing changed. > If there's anything that is the largest danger to humanity is humanity itself. Yeah, and thanks for not helping.
- visarga 9y ago
  Oh sorry, we should burn our computers and destroy all books about AI, that would stop it from appearing. Because we can outlaw matrix multiplication.