6 ms·

> we" should go into "oblivion" peacefully once AGI makes us obsolete I don't see a problem with that. I have actually expressed the same idea multiple times h

> we" should go into "oblivion" peacefully once AGI makes us obsolete I don't see a problem with that. I have actually expressed the same idea multiple times here on HN.

unlikelymordant 9y ago
I wonder how many people agree with that sort of thing (I do). It is not something I would bring up in public because I don't think most people would agree, but there are obviously some.
thinkfurther 9y ago
It's like sneaking up on someone from behind with a knife to slit their throat while talking about how they just "should" accept that, but since they won't, you have to force it on them. And of course people who say different things with different sides of their mouth don't see a problem with that. Of course people who identify with necrophilia more than biophilia don't see a problem with that. Blind people walking across paintings don't see a problem with that.
- yorwba 9y ago
  I'm not sure what you take "going into oblivion" to mean, but I interpret it as most humans no longer reproducing or even ditching their biological forms in favor of an upload. Obviously eliminating humans by violent means would be immoral, but I don't see the problem with individuals deciding not to sustain humanity as it exists now.
  - thinkfurther 9y ago
    The fact of doing it in the shadows makes that interpretation impossible though.
    - yorwba 9y ago
      I don't know who you are talking about, so I can only work from my own interpretation, but there are all kinds of reasons you might want to do something in secret, even if it does not involve killing all humans. For example, if you want to replace all human labor by robots, a lot of people would be against that, because they fear being unemployed. But if you don't intend to leave those unemployed people without food and shelter, I don't see anything wrong with still pursuing that goal.
      - thinkfurther 9y ago
        That's the best case, I'm talking about the worst case. It's a bit like you don't have unprotected sex with strangers because "they might not have HIV". You don't play around with this stuff. I'm furthermore encouraged in my "skepticism" (to put it mildly) by the abstract, alienated language some people use. > If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality. -- Stephen Hawking in a very lucid moment, https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama_series_stephen_hawking_ama_answers/cvsdmkv https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama... Those who don't address that first, who cannot ENSURE that they're building a nuclear power plant and not an atom bomb, have no excuse.
      - hueving 9y ago
        >But if you don't intend to leave those unemployed people without food and shelter, I don't see anything wrong with still pursuing that goal. Taking away peoples' roles and turning them into welfare recipients is not universally seen as a good thing. Many people get fulfillment from the work they do because feel like they contribute to society. Taking away their job and providing them food and shelter does not solve that problem.
        miguelrochefort 9y ago
        > Many people get fulfillment from the work they do because feel like they contribute to society. You don't feel like you contribute to society when your job is easily obsolete/easily automated.
- miguelrochefort 9y ago
  When species become obsolete, they go instinct or get put in a zoo. I expect the same thing will eventually happen to humans.
Noos 9y ago
People who believe this view people as things that can be replaced when they become less efficient than other things, and the idea that we all go into oblivion (nice euphemism, please use die off or go extinct instead.) because some crappy AI can mindlessly do chess, go, or make a facebook clone better than person is ludicrous at the minimum, psychotic at the maximum.
- Fricken 9y ago
  It's not psychotic, it's objective reality. People get old, they cease to be efficient, they die, and they are replaced by a younger generation. This has been going on since the dawn of life. The same organizing principle applies to capitalism, if a better way of doing things comes along, the old way is pushed aside, it can't compete.
tomaskafka 9y ago
Feel free to kill yourself (which is a real meaning of 'going into oblivion') however you like, but please leave me out.

> we" should go into "oblivion" peacefully once AGI makes us obsolete I don't see a problem with that. I have actually expressed the same idea multiple times here on HN.

unlikelymordant 9y ago

I wonder how many people agree with that sort of thing (I do). It is not something I would bring up in public because I don't think most people would agree, but there are obviously some.

thinkfurther 9y ago

It's like sneaking up on someone from behind with a knife to slit their throat while talking about how they just "should" accept that, but since they won't, you have to force it on them. And of course people who say different things with different sides of their mouth don't see a problem with that. Of course people who identify with necrophilia more than biophilia don't see a problem with that. Blind people walking across paintings don't see a problem with that.

yorwba 9y ago
I'm not sure what you take "going into oblivion" to mean, but I interpret it as most humans no longer reproducing or even ditching their biological forms in favor of an upload. Obviously eliminating humans by violent means would be immoral, but I don't see the problem with individuals deciding not to sustain humanity as it exists now.
- thinkfurther 9y ago
  The fact of doing it in the shadows makes that interpretation impossible though.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    I don't know who you are talking about, so I can only work from my own interpretation, but there are all kinds of reasons you might want to do something in secret, even if it does not involve killing all humans. For example, if you want to replace all human labor by robots, a lot of people would be against that, because they fear being unemployed. But if you don't intend to leave those unemployed people without food and shelter, I don't see anything wrong with still pursuing that goal.
    - thinkfurther 9y ago
      That's the best case, I'm talking about the worst case. It's a bit like you don't have unprotected sex with strangers because "they might not have HIV". You don't play around with this stuff. I'm furthermore encouraged in my "skepticism" (to put it mildly) by the abstract, alienated language some people use. > If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality. -- Stephen Hawking in a very lucid moment, https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama_series_stephen_hawking_ama_answers/cvsdmkv https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama... Those who don't address that first, who cannot ENSURE that they're building a nuclear power plant and not an atom bomb, have no excuse.
    - hueving 9y ago
      >But if you don't intend to leave those unemployed people without food and shelter, I don't see anything wrong with still pursuing that goal. Taking away peoples' roles and turning them into welfare recipients is not universally seen as a good thing. Many people get fulfillment from the work they do because feel like they contribute to society. Taking away their job and providing them food and shelter does not solve that problem.
      - miguelrochefort 9y ago
        > Many people get fulfillment from the work they do because feel like they contribute to society. You don't feel like you contribute to society when your job is easily obsolete/easily automated.
miguelrochefort 9y ago
When species become obsolete, they go instinct or get put in a zoo. I expect the same thing will eventually happen to humans.

Noos 9y ago

People who believe this view people as things that can be replaced when they become less efficient than other things, and the idea that we all go into oblivion (nice euphemism, please use die off or go extinct instead.) because some crappy AI can mindlessly do chess, go, or make a facebook clone better than person is ludicrous at the minimum, psychotic at the maximum.

Fricken 9y ago
It's not psychotic, it's objective reality. People get old, they cease to be efficient, they die, and they are replaced by a younger generation. This has been going on since the dawn of life. The same organizing principle applies to capitalism, if a better way of doing things comes along, the old way is pushed aside, it can't compete.

tomaskafka 9y ago

Feel free to kill yourself (which is a real meaning of 'going into oblivion') however you like, but please leave me out.