5 ms·

So, lets think, we have following issues: - Climate change - Artificial general intelligence - Biotechnology risk - Ecological collapse - Molecular nanotec

So, lets think, we have following issues: - Climate change - Artificial general intelligence - Biotechnology risk - Ecological collapse - Molecular nanotechnology - Nuclear holocaust - Overpopulation - Global pandemic - ... Most of them caused by way we use our energy and time. Oh, yes we also have excess of computing power ... hm what shell we do? Solution: Let spend even more energy on large calculations in order to create meaningless random numbers.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
numpad0 6y ago
Obvious solution to everything(to me) is to establish on-orbit 3D print space colony manufacturing by the end of this century to boldly go with. Wanna spend silly amount of energy on fake Internet points? Totally fine! Just buy a bunch of cylinders and do it there. Makes more sense anyway because they come with batteries too.
pmlnr 6y ago
Teaching people that being "rich" is not a goal would help in the progress. The goal is enough: a point when one still yearns, so they can progress, but they don't suffer or live in fear for losing warmth, shelter, food, etc. But this idea seems far from the majority of the US mindset, and it's polluting many parts of the world as well.
- marshmallow_12 6y ago
  The voice of reason right until the end. The world has problems. Lets blame the US. Even if you are right, it will help nobody to say so.
  - marshmallow_12 6y ago
    not that i don't think your points aren't good just that finger-pointing is a bit destructive.
- Joeboy 6y ago
  "Shelter" sounds like a modest expectation, but at least for me, and a lot of other people, a decent level of "shelter" requires you to be pretty well off. The average house here in the UK costs £~305k, so a mortgage on that requires like 30k deposit + 60k income, which means being a top 10% earner. I've no real aspiration to be "rich" in a superyacht sense, but I would like to be able to remain in my home city and own a modest flat, which requires me to be rich.
  - leppr 6y ago
    Good point. In most modern cities, the only individualistic solution to escape eternal rent-slavery (forgive the strong word) is to become rich. A collectivist solution would be to coordinate with other citizens to abolish the building/zoning restrictions and savings devaluation enforced by local and national governments, that cause the constant real estate price inflation in the first place.
    - satyrnein 6y ago
      Unfortunately, the "other citizens" are the ones who want the zoning restrictions.
      - leppr 6y ago
        Since most governance schemes favor entrenched players, there's a natural tendency for policies resulting in pyramid schemes to emerge. The first step is to educate enough people around this issue, so that some opportunistic countries/cities can become competitive at attracting residents using fairer policies as a differentiator.
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    The solution is simple: build more houses to increase supply. It needs to be said: there is a drastic shortage of decent housing in the UK. The cost of building a new house is approaching less than half the final sale price (if not even less) simply due to pressure from scarcity. Why aren’t people building as many new houses as there’s clearly demand? Numerous factors: greenbelt laws, height restrictions, “Right to light”, NIMBYism, etc. I don’t believe I’ve seen either major political party advance a policy of making it easier to build new houses - or tall tower blocks (the nice kind, not the 1960s council flag blocks), I suspect because it would result in immediate uproar from the Daily Mail-reading types who can’t bear to see their house-values fall (I think Sunday Observer types would be a bit miffed too, if not about house prices then certainly the ecological impact: having lived in multiple countries in my life I noticed the “rural-rights” types that advocate preserving hedgerows and rambling access have a considerably larger influence in UK politics compared to other countries).
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  Desire for superiority over other people is instinctive. I don’t believe it’s something that can be “taught” out of existence.
  - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
    citation needed
dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
> - Artificial general intelligence Not only we don't have AGI but there is an ongoing discussion whether it's possible to have it at all.
- NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
  If we had it (AI), talking about dangers of having it, would be too late (as human intelligence cannot argue with god intelligence) It is simple, as ant cannot contain human, in the same way humans won't be able to contain AGI. Can it exist, yes it can - simply, can me and you think, yes. In a way we are "device", so therefore, it is possible to make intelligence similar and/or more powerful than our is.
  - ForHackernews 6y ago
    > In a way we are "device", so therefore, it is possible to make intelligence similar and/or more powerful than our is. I mean, yes, I can have a child and raise her to be smarter than me, but I don't really think that's what you have in mind. The strong AGI proponents always resort to hand-waving and dubious analogies. There's no reason to think that building ever-larger ML models will produce an intelligence capable of comprehension and insights like a human mind unless you believe the human brain is nothing more than a bunch of weighted vectors.
    - NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
      I am just simply stating, if it (bionic intelligence) already exist - another (artificial) can be built. I am not saying anything about existing models, ways or methods, just that if exist - it is possible to build one "again" so to say.
      - ForHackernews 6y ago
        I still don't think we've proven that at all. Unless you believe in god, then no one has ever "built" an intelligence. The human brain is the result of millions of years of evolutionary pressures.
jwilber 6y ago
AGI in no way, shape, or form belongs on that list.
- rytill 6y ago
  You’re right - it belongs on a list of universal-scale risks rather than global-scale ones.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pas 6y ago
There are multiple solutions, but all requires that the our current power structure decide and commit to solving them. So far there's no consensus on any level. (Meaning there are not enough people at any level to force, or agree/compromise, or influence the economy, or make it the dominant single issue politically/culturally.) Sure, participating in it by buying, mining PoW coins (or basically any coin that then - due to hedging/diversification - leads to even more PoW coin mining/demand) while knowing about the external cost is morally problematic. However the actual harm is likely less than doing many-many other selfish (immoral/bad) acts. If the early crypto billionaires exit crypto and put their newfound wealth into effective altruism the moral calculus changes very starkly.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
Some of the items on this list - namely AGI, biotech, nanotech - are actually not problems; they're dangerous, but very desirable developments. Agree with the gist of your comment, though.
qqii 6y ago
This idea that we need to be perfect optimisers is foolish and pure whataboutism . You could say the same for any recreational, non productive activity.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

numpad0 6y ago

Obvious solution to everything(to me) is to establish on-orbit 3D print space colony manufacturing by the end of this century to boldly go with. Wanna spend silly amount of energy on fake Internet points? Totally fine! Just buy a bunch of cylinders and do it there. Makes more sense anyway because they come with batteries too.

pmlnr 6y ago

Teaching people that being "rich" is not a goal would help in the progress. The goal is enough: a point when one still yearns, so they can progress, but they don't suffer or live in fear for losing warmth, shelter, food, etc. But this idea seems far from the majority of the US mindset, and it's polluting many parts of the world as well.

marshmallow_12 6y ago
The voice of reason right until the end. The world has problems. Lets blame the US. Even if you are right, it will help nobody to say so.
- marshmallow_12 6y ago
  not that i don't think your points aren't good just that finger-pointing is a bit destructive.
Joeboy 6y ago
"Shelter" sounds like a modest expectation, but at least for me, and a lot of other people, a decent level of "shelter" requires you to be pretty well off. The average house here in the UK costs £~305k, so a mortgage on that requires like 30k deposit + 60k income, which means being a top 10% earner. I've no real aspiration to be "rich" in a superyacht sense, but I would like to be able to remain in my home city and own a modest flat, which requires me to be rich.
- leppr 6y ago
  Good point. In most modern cities, the only individualistic solution to escape eternal rent-slavery (forgive the strong word) is to become rich. A collectivist solution would be to coordinate with other citizens to abolish the building/zoning restrictions and savings devaluation enforced by local and national governments, that cause the constant real estate price inflation in the first place.
  - satyrnein 6y ago
    Unfortunately, the "other citizens" are the ones who want the zoning restrictions.
    - leppr 6y ago
      Since most governance schemes favor entrenched players, there's a natural tendency for policies resulting in pyramid schemes to emerge. The first step is to educate enough people around this issue, so that some opportunistic countries/cities can become competitive at attracting residents using fairer policies as a differentiator.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  The solution is simple: build more houses to increase supply. It needs to be said: there is a drastic shortage of decent housing in the UK. The cost of building a new house is approaching less than half the final sale price (if not even less) simply due to pressure from scarcity. Why aren’t people building as many new houses as there’s clearly demand? Numerous factors: greenbelt laws, height restrictions, “Right to light”, NIMBYism, etc. I don’t believe I’ve seen either major political party advance a policy of making it easier to build new houses - or tall tower blocks (the nice kind, not the 1960s council flag blocks), I suspect because it would result in immediate uproar from the Daily Mail-reading types who can’t bear to see their house-values fall (I think Sunday Observer types would be a bit miffed too, if not about house prices then certainly the ecological impact: having lived in multiple countries in my life I noticed the “rural-rights” types that advocate preserving hedgerows and rambling access have a considerably larger influence in UK politics compared to other countries).
DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
Desire for superiority over other people is instinctive. I don’t believe it’s something that can be “taught” out of existence.
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  citation needed

dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago

> - Artificial general intelligence Not only we don't have AGI but there is an ongoing discussion whether it's possible to have it at all.

NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
If we had it (AI), talking about dangers of having it, would be too late (as human intelligence cannot argue with god intelligence) It is simple, as ant cannot contain human, in the same way humans won't be able to contain AGI. Can it exist, yes it can - simply, can me and you think, yes. In a way we are "device", so therefore, it is possible to make intelligence similar and/or more powerful than our is.
- ForHackernews 6y ago
  > In a way we are "device", so therefore, it is possible to make intelligence similar and/or more powerful than our is. I mean, yes, I can have a child and raise her to be smarter than me, but I don't really think that's what you have in mind. The strong AGI proponents always resort to hand-waving and dubious analogies. There's no reason to think that building ever-larger ML models will produce an intelligence capable of comprehension and insights like a human mind unless you believe the human brain is nothing more than a bunch of weighted vectors.
  - NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
    I am just simply stating, if it (bionic intelligence) already exist - another (artificial) can be built. I am not saying anything about existing models, ways or methods, just that if exist - it is possible to build one "again" so to say.
    - ForHackernews 6y ago
      I still don't think we've proven that at all. Unless you believe in god, then no one has ever "built" an intelligence. The human brain is the result of millions of years of evolutionary pressures.

jwilber 6y ago

AGI in no way, shape, or form belongs on that list.

rytill 6y ago
You’re right - it belongs on a list of universal-scale risks rather than global-scale ones.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

pas 6y ago

There are multiple solutions, but all requires that the our current power structure decide and commit to solving them. So far there's no consensus on any level. (Meaning there are not enough people at any level to force, or agree/compromise, or influence the economy, or make it the dominant single issue politically/culturally.) Sure, participating in it by buying, mining PoW coins (or basically any coin that then - due to hedging/diversification - leads to even more PoW coin mining/demand) while knowing about the external cost is morally problematic. However the actual harm is likely less than doing many-many other selfish (immoral/bad) acts. If the early crypto billionaires exit crypto and put their newfound wealth into effective altruism the moral calculus changes very starkly.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

Some of the items on this list - namely AGI, biotech, nanotech - are actually not problems; they're dangerous, but very desirable developments. Agree with the gist of your comment, though.

qqii 6y ago

This idea that we need to be perfect optimisers is foolish and pure whataboutism . You could say the same for any recreational, non productive activity.