5 ms·

It is my moral obligation to express to you the fact that AI, even this kind of AI, is a death sentence for humanity. The progress of automation will eventually

by nuguy 8y ago

It is my moral obligation to express to you the fact that AI, even this kind of AI, is a death sentence for humanity. The progress of automation will eventually meet and surpass the human mind. But even before it does, perhaps long before it does, it will cause massive economic disruption and unemployment. The more complete automation becomes, the less power humans will have, the less influence humans will have over the powerful entities that hold the keys to critical resources such as jobs. The economics of automation leave little doubt that the outcome will be bad for humans. I’m sorry I can’t explain it more effectively here. But I think it’s clear to anyone who thinks it through carefully. Please stop applying your intillenge to AI. Edit: substantive counter-arguments would be highly appreciated

Tenoke 8y ago
Can you imagine any ways in which that kind of AI can be used for good (or less bad), however unlikely? If yes, become an AI researcher/policy shaper or donate to groups that might be able to make progress towards the better outcomes.
- nuguy 8y ago
  The individual use-cases don’t matter. What matters are the points of contact between AI as a concept and the fundamental economics of human life as we know it. AI will change the economics of life in very fundamental and very negative ways. Why does it matter or help to be active some branch of AI in particular? It won’t change this! The only solution to this problem is the banishment of AI. There is no other way to preserve life as we know it. AI might not provoke these changes within my lifetime. But people are very happy to protest and march for global warming even though it also will not end the world within our lifetime. There is a strange cognitive dissonance there. The logic is very similar: even if there is a small chance that it could end the world, better to err on the side of caution. The consequences of AI will be indescribably worse for humans than global warming, so why not exercise caution?
  - feanaro 8y ago
    Because the arguments for global warming eventually ending the world are so far much stronger. The endgame for AI is much less clear and therefore the final outcome much less certain.
    - Tenoke 8y ago
      I admit, I don't understand people who think that 'Global Warming will eventually end the world'. I'm not denying it exists, nor that it can be devastating but end the world? No credible projections I've seen suggest that it will end up killing every human or blow up the planet or whatever you mean by that. Is it a case that 'the enemy' is saying Global Warming isn't real, so there is a push to reply that not only is it real, but even worse than we expect? A concious hyperbole so people will pay more attention to a real problem you perceive as neglected? An actual belief that it will genuinely end the world because you've heard it will be very bad so you conflate it with being the worst thing possible?
      - feanaro 8y ago
        You're reading too much into what I said. I didn't mean to imply that global warming will end the world with certainty and definitely not that the planet will blow up. I simply meant that the probability of the world (in the sense of the human civilization in its current form; definitely not the planet itself) ending from global warming is greater than it ending from god-like AGI. I don't consider this a controversial statement. From my own reading of the relevant studies, I think there is definitely a non-negligible probability that runaway effects may make Earth very harsh or even completely unsuitable for human life, eventually. Are you saying the current studies outrule this scenario entirely or with near certainty?
        nuguy 8y ago
        AI is much more severe. Whether just automation or otherwise. We can come back from global warming. We can never come back from AI.
CamperBob2 8y ago
Edit: substantive counter-arguments would be highly appreciated I think the biggest problem with your argument is its lack of originality. Every labor-saving innovation in history has been greeted with "This is a death sentence for humanity" or equivalent sentiments, and the naysayers have never once been correct. You need to flesh out your argument by explaining exactly how It's Different This Time. Your purpose as a human being is not to do a machine's job poorly. Think more of yourself and your fellow humans.
- nuguy 8y ago
  The lack of critical thought is entirely on your side of the court. Automation has not yet lead to negative things, therefore it never will? Once a job or task is automated, it can never be done by humans again. This is because within any market, the most competitive entity propagates and the others do not. The less competitive entities are starved of resources and stop existing. As AI approaches sentience, it will become the most competitive entity in more and more cases. When AI becomes comparable to humans, it will displace humans in every instance unless there is a conscious effort to subvert the market economy model and intentionally use less competitive options, otherwise known as abstaining from AI. However, some entities don’t care about a consensus to abstain and will use AI anyway. A country for example will always win against its adversaries if it uses AI. At the end of the day, AI will ratchet forward uncontrollably and the only entities left standing will be those who use AI. This is an inescapable and inherit characteristic of AI. Most AI experts concede to this, but wave their hands and say it’s a long way off. The only way for humanity to continue is for AI to be banished. And by the way, this is all assuming that AI never maliciously targets human life on its own or otherwise for any reason whatsoever.
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    The lack of critical thought is entirely on your side of the court. (Shrug) At least I have historical precedent on my side, so I don't have to fall back on a list of bare-assertion fallacies.
    - 8y ago
trashtester 8y ago
Simple counter argument: If all "good people" stop researching AI, it will eventually end up in the hands of "bad people", whoever you deem those to be.
- nuguy 8y ago
  That has nothing to do with the substance of my argument. Your suggestion is just to walk into it without trying anything? The “bad people” will have access to AI regardless of who creates it, when they create it or what manner they create it in.
  - trashtester 8y ago
    If your primary concern is just job loss, my reply does not address it. Also, I don't really share your concern, or at least the strength that you seem to hold it with. My concern is with superintelligence. A hostile superintelligence would probably end humanity, or at least the part of it that I care about. Basically I share Elon Musk's view on this. I think superintelligence is quite likely within a few decades or at least a century or two, and if/when it happens, our only hope is that is imbued with values we share. Ideally, the first organizations to discover how to do this should be open or under the control of democratic governments, or secondarily, under the control of corporations that can be regulated by such governments.
    - nuguy 8y ago
      Don’t you see the logic of what I’m saying? How can you read my comment history and still think that automation is not a problem? But the answer is the same for automation and super-intelligence: you have to prevent it from existing in the first place. People who advocate for containment of SI usually prefer prevention but think it’s too difficult and go to containment as a last resort, including Elon musk. Fight as hard as you can for prevention.
ppod 8y ago
I'm undecided on the issue, but the best and most detailed response I've read to your view is this one: https://idlewords.com/talks/superintelligence.htm https://idlewords.com/talks/superintelligence.htm
- nuguy 8y ago
  That was a huge useless ramble. And anyway, it seems to focus on the danger of hyper-intelligence, not the economics of automation. That guy doesn’t have any idea what he’s talking about.
ajnin 8y ago
The current economic model is by no means a rule of nature that humans need to follow unless they disappear. That model gives power into the hands of the minority that possesses the most capital (as machines or money to buy machines), up until now that capital has needed workers to create useful stuff, I agree with you that automation is causing that less and less workers are needed to create value, causing a widening of the inequality gap. The solution to that problem is not to stop working on AI, it is to rethink how capital and power is shared among the society. Indeed advanced AI and automation may well be our way out of the exploitation of man by man.
- nuguy 8y ago
  You completely misinterpret what I’ve said. The way capital and power are shared is determined by economics. Not by us. The presence of AI will cause capital and power and etc to naturally shift away from humans in general. It is inescapable.

by nuguy 8y ago

Tenoke 8y ago

Can you imagine any ways in which that kind of AI can be used for good (or less bad), however unlikely? If yes, become an AI researcher/policy shaper or donate to groups that might be able to make progress towards the better outcomes.

nuguy 8y ago
The individual use-cases don’t matter. What matters are the points of contact between AI as a concept and the fundamental economics of human life as we know it. AI will change the economics of life in very fundamental and very negative ways. Why does it matter or help to be active some branch of AI in particular? It won’t change this! The only solution to this problem is the banishment of AI. There is no other way to preserve life as we know it. AI might not provoke these changes within my lifetime. But people are very happy to protest and march for global warming even though it also will not end the world within our lifetime. There is a strange cognitive dissonance there. The logic is very similar: even if there is a small chance that it could end the world, better to err on the side of caution. The consequences of AI will be indescribably worse for humans than global warming, so why not exercise caution?
- feanaro 8y ago
  Because the arguments for global warming eventually ending the world are so far much stronger. The endgame for AI is much less clear and therefore the final outcome much less certain.
  - Tenoke 8y ago
    I admit, I don't understand people who think that 'Global Warming will eventually end the world'. I'm not denying it exists, nor that it can be devastating but end the world? No credible projections I've seen suggest that it will end up killing every human or blow up the planet or whatever you mean by that. Is it a case that 'the enemy' is saying Global Warming isn't real, so there is a push to reply that not only is it real, but even worse than we expect? A concious hyperbole so people will pay more attention to a real problem you perceive as neglected? An actual belief that it will genuinely end the world because you've heard it will be very bad so you conflate it with being the worst thing possible?
    - feanaro 8y ago
      You're reading too much into what I said. I didn't mean to imply that global warming will end the world with certainty and definitely not that the planet will blow up. I simply meant that the probability of the world (in the sense of the human civilization in its current form; definitely not the planet itself) ending from global warming is greater than it ending from god-like AGI. I don't consider this a controversial statement. From my own reading of the relevant studies, I think there is definitely a non-negligible probability that runaway effects may make Earth very harsh or even completely unsuitable for human life, eventually. Are you saying the current studies outrule this scenario entirely or with near certainty?
      - nuguy 8y ago
        AI is much more severe. Whether just automation or otherwise. We can come back from global warming. We can never come back from AI.

CamperBob2 8y ago

Edit: substantive counter-arguments would be highly appreciated I think the biggest problem with your argument is its lack of originality. Every labor-saving innovation in history has been greeted with "This is a death sentence for humanity" or equivalent sentiments, and the naysayers have never once been correct. You need to flesh out your argument by explaining exactly how It's Different This Time. Your purpose as a human being is not to do a machine's job poorly. Think more of yourself and your fellow humans.

nuguy 8y ago
The lack of critical thought is entirely on your side of the court. Automation has not yet lead to negative things, therefore it never will? Once a job or task is automated, it can never be done by humans again. This is because within any market, the most competitive entity propagates and the others do not. The less competitive entities are starved of resources and stop existing. As AI approaches sentience, it will become the most competitive entity in more and more cases. When AI becomes comparable to humans, it will displace humans in every instance unless there is a conscious effort to subvert the market economy model and intentionally use less competitive options, otherwise known as abstaining from AI. However, some entities don’t care about a consensus to abstain and will use AI anyway. A country for example will always win against its adversaries if it uses AI. At the end of the day, AI will ratchet forward uncontrollably and the only entities left standing will be those who use AI. This is an inescapable and inherit characteristic of AI. Most AI experts concede to this, but wave their hands and say it’s a long way off. The only way for humanity to continue is for AI to be banished. And by the way, this is all assuming that AI never maliciously targets human life on its own or otherwise for any reason whatsoever.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  The lack of critical thought is entirely on your side of the court. (Shrug) At least I have historical precedent on my side, so I don't have to fall back on a list of bare-assertion fallacies.
  - 8y ago

trashtester 8y ago

Simple counter argument: If all "good people" stop researching AI, it will eventually end up in the hands of "bad people", whoever you deem those to be.

nuguy 8y ago
That has nothing to do with the substance of my argument. Your suggestion is just to walk into it without trying anything? The “bad people” will have access to AI regardless of who creates it, when they create it or what manner they create it in.
- trashtester 8y ago
  If your primary concern is just job loss, my reply does not address it. Also, I don't really share your concern, or at least the strength that you seem to hold it with. My concern is with superintelligence. A hostile superintelligence would probably end humanity, or at least the part of it that I care about. Basically I share Elon Musk's view on this. I think superintelligence is quite likely within a few decades or at least a century or two, and if/when it happens, our only hope is that is imbued with values we share. Ideally, the first organizations to discover how to do this should be open or under the control of democratic governments, or secondarily, under the control of corporations that can be regulated by such governments.
  - nuguy 8y ago
    Don’t you see the logic of what I’m saying? How can you read my comment history and still think that automation is not a problem? But the answer is the same for automation and super-intelligence: you have to prevent it from existing in the first place. People who advocate for containment of SI usually prefer prevention but think it’s too difficult and go to containment as a last resort, including Elon musk. Fight as hard as you can for prevention.

ppod 8y ago

I'm undecided on the issue, but the best and most detailed response I've read to your view is this one: https://idlewords.com/talks/superintelligence.htm https://idlewords.com/talks/superintelligence.htm

nuguy 8y ago
That was a huge useless ramble. And anyway, it seems to focus on the danger of hyper-intelligence, not the economics of automation. That guy doesn’t have any idea what he’s talking about.

ajnin 8y ago

The current economic model is by no means a rule of nature that humans need to follow unless they disappear. That model gives power into the hands of the minority that possesses the most capital (as machines or money to buy machines), up until now that capital has needed workers to create useful stuff, I agree with you that automation is causing that less and less workers are needed to create value, causing a widening of the inequality gap. The solution to that problem is not to stop working on AI, it is to rethink how capital and power is shared among the society. Indeed advanced AI and automation may well be our way out of the exploitation of man by man.

nuguy 8y ago
You completely misinterpret what I’ve said. The way capital and power are shared is determined by economics. Not by us. The presence of AI will cause capital and power and etc to naturally shift away from humans in general. It is inescapable.