3 ms·

Just a feeling or rather educated guess is: That general AI going rogue if it gets conscious is small, more probable is narrow AI that has mistake in setting g

Just a feeling or rather educated guess is: That general AI going rogue if it gets conscious is small, more probable is narrow AI that has mistake in setting goals, given too much power by either military or corporations. Global Warming is highly probable but we still have chance if we find energy to cooperate around mutual goal. Key points: - Siberian permafrost and releasing huge amount of CH4 topping up all efforts. - Amazon forest now release more CO2 than sequester (this week news) - Species are being extinct on a rapid rate - Wildfires/droughts continue to increase devastation - Floods and heatwaves are stronger (losing ice caps will increase this to Equatorial heats once planet albedo of caps is lost ) Now, critical is next 10 years That does not mean that humanity will be wipe out in 10 years, but will set course for final destination. As no technology or amount of money will help us past that point, weather pastern and issues will be out of our hands. In bad scenario 99% reduction of population till 2100. Again guess. Underground pocket of sparse scientific communities could survive bit longer past this point, using geothermal energy and nuclear power. Nuclear war is quite probable, I think critical is next 20 years: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41421/pentagon-warns-of-an-increased-potential-for-nuclear-conflict-in-newly-disclosed-manual https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41421/pentagon-warns-o... If all weapons are fired, simply put, some people may survive, but they would wish they are dead. Let me put this way, we all have romantic dreams of surviving, go to Hiroshima, ground zero, then straight to museum, and then imagine something 2000 times more powerful multiplied by 16000. And of course everyone forgets Nuclear power plants, ~450 with similar yield. If you do not have Cheyenne Mountain complex at your disposal, your life expectancy is between 0 and 3 years. (acid rains, nuclear winter, no food, no medications, no drinking water, no animals ...). Even if someone survives it would be back to stone age - killing each other for basic necessities (even human meat), as there is nothing else to eat. China vs US, US vs Russia, India vs Pakistan, rogues nation getting a weapon on some black market ... Anyhow, if our civilization was cooperative society with higher goals, it would be fine, but from my experience, and from what I saw during my life, all governments are nothing but aristocratic mafia organisation sponsored by big business having one goal to increase wealth of their share holders justifying all means by what ever ends they have. But regardless what I wrote or how many arguments I give as Friedrich Nietzsche "Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man." many especially those in power to do something, will have tendency not to believe in the final outcome until it happens, so instead of taking actions they will continue business as usual. When I was young I lived in different country there one post WW2 leader used to say "Work and enjoy like we will live in peace 100 of years, and at the same time prepare like there will be a war tomorrow", personally I think it is a good policy for Global Warming or WW3, we should imagine the worst and then work as hard as possible so it never happens, employing all possible strategies at our disposal to save all life on planet, (DNA bank, 5d crystals, space travel, multi-planet, multi-suns ... whatever). Similar like in IT we protect systems, for me who ever uses "doom-erisam" and similar shaming terms is nothing better than those person. Ostrich burying head in the sand like will not save you from the lion. In IT good network security guys imagine all possible scenarios, and they are not afraid that by the so called "new-age quantum vibration field" if they imagine bad scenarios they will attract it just by the power of thought. Admins/devs frequently must imagine and test all bad scenarios, even play roles of bad actors, so they can employ protective techniques. In the similar way we should explore bad scenarios and see is it possible to do anything, but unfortunately, we who talk about it and comment a lot, our circle of concern is significantly bigger then our influence, and those who have huge circle of influence (money) the do not give two dimes about our concerns, and that is the reason my friend I am not optimist about our future in next 10 years...

myrmidon 5y ago
> "doom-erisam" and similar shaming terms is nothing better than those person First: I use the term because I see NO factual basis for assuming that humankind is going extinct. Your post did not change my view on that: 1) I fully agree that global warming is a massive problem. But assuming that it's going to lead to human extinction is IMO straight up delusional. The only plausible mechanism is full-runaway "hot-venus" greenhouse effect (evaporating our oceans), and that is a scenario that--pretty much all scientists agree--we are NOT going to reach no matter how much fossil fuel we burn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect#Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect#Eart...). Rising sea levels and climate change might lead to international crises and cost countless human lifes, but there is simply NO WAY for this to kill ALL humans by itself. 2) With nuclear threats it's a similar situation: There are simply not enough nukes to cover the inhabited surface (even assuming worst-case full escalation!): The highest estimates I found were between 1.6 and 3 billion victims, assuming that every last nuke was used on the most effective target and killing every person there (which are both completely unrealistic assumptions). Both fallout and nuclear winter are completely insufficient for extinction purposes, because there is not enough radioactive material for the fallout and not enough dust in the atmosphere for nuclear winter to kill all (we had somewhat comparable volcanic events in the past). 3) Corrupt leadership is something humankind has survived with since leaders exist; there is simply no reason to assume that they are suddenly going to cause our all extinction.
- NiceWayToDoIT 5y ago
  > I use the term because I see NO factual basis for assuming that humankind is going extinct. Your post did not change my view on that: There is a huge difference between I do NOT want to see, and there is NO factual basis. From https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities only 1170 cities have population of 2,179,929,822, RS-28 Sarmat yield is 10 heavy warheads, each yield of 1.5Mt. Currently there is 3,700 nukes deployed and 13,132 nukes total. We do not know what China has so those number are without it. With the new hyper-sonic weapons time to react and go to shelter which in London practically does not exist except underground transport, so to get to nearest station you would need 30 min but nuke needs 15 min to arrive. Let's suppose that one Sarmat is enough to level town size of London or Paris. So only with firstly deployed there would be 2200 nukes to spare. But what about heavier nukes those 10Mt yields, what about revamping Tsar Bomba with 50Mt (8km fireball, 68 km mushroom cloud and shock waves circling Earth 3 times). So, what exactly will intercept hyper-sonic? So when you say estimate 1.6 to 3bn I would rather say it is very optimistic, and that only from the blasts. Next goes fallout... are you saying no one will die out cancer in full exchange? It will be all ok after 5 years? EMP would wiped out grid and internet, what will exactly pump water? What are you going to drink? Quickly made filter from charcoal and that will do? And to what hospital are you going to go if you scratch on rusty nail for instance? Next, what are you going to eat, 80% of food in UK is imported, https://www.businessinsider.com/no-deal-brexit-percentage-british-food-imported-shortages-2019-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/no-deal-brexit-percentage-br... there is no more ships with food and oil? Where are you going to get money banks are out, no plastic cards, cash does not worth anything? do you have silver or gold? How many will die out of hunger in next 10 years? And what about nuclear power plants 450 of them? They are not the same like nukes, nukes burn their fission material, but as we know from Fukushima Daiichi Accident and Chernobyl disaster, they were quite tricky, and there we managed to do something about it. Who will go to "fix" nuclear power planets after exchange, so plenty of fallout there? As I said it would not be extinction but 99% reduction, and those who survive would wish they have not. By the way I am not trying to convince anyone people have had too many video survival games with happy ending, and to test reality you just need to go to near by woods for 7 days without food and water, and what ever experience you have just multiply by 300 times. Going back to first line, > your post did not change my view I somehow find more frighting and delusional that way of thinking, as it leaves possibility to use mentioned as solution for fixing problem as people optimistically believe they are the one that will survive. There is a reason why "Mutually assured destruction" and "nuclear deterrence" exist as such, as no one will ever attempt any such idiotic thing. As what we model usually does not correspond with reality. And when you know that everyone will loose like in the move "War games" then only way to win is not to play a game. And if current narrow AI can do it today I hope you as far superior intelligence can come to the same conclusion.

myrmidon 5y ago

> "doom-erisam" and similar shaming terms is nothing better than those person First: I use the term because I see NO factual basis for assuming that humankind is going extinct. Your post did not change my view on that: 1) I fully agree that global warming is a massive problem. But assuming that it's going to lead to human extinction is IMO straight up delusional. The only plausible mechanism is full-runaway "hot-venus" greenhouse effect (evaporating our oceans), and that is a scenario that--pretty much all scientists agree--we are NOT going to reach no matter how much fossil fuel we burn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect#Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect#Eart...). Rising sea levels and climate change might lead to international crises and cost countless human lifes, but there is simply NO WAY for this to kill ALL humans by itself. 2) With nuclear threats it's a similar situation: There are simply not enough nukes to cover the inhabited surface (even assuming worst-case full escalation!): The highest estimates I found were between 1.6 and 3 billion victims, assuming that every last nuke was used on the most effective target and killing every person there (which are both completely unrealistic assumptions). Both fallout and nuclear winter are completely insufficient for extinction purposes, because there is not enough radioactive material for the fallout and not enough dust in the atmosphere for nuclear winter to kill all (we had somewhat comparable volcanic events in the past). 3) Corrupt leadership is something humankind has survived with since leaders exist; there is simply no reason to assume that they are suddenly going to cause our all extinction.

NiceWayToDoIT 5y ago
> I use the term because I see NO factual basis for assuming that humankind is going extinct. Your post did not change my view on that: There is a huge difference between I do NOT want to see, and there is NO factual basis. From https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities only 1170 cities have population of 2,179,929,822, RS-28 Sarmat yield is 10 heavy warheads, each yield of 1.5Mt. Currently there is 3,700 nukes deployed and 13,132 nukes total. We do not know what China has so those number are without it. With the new hyper-sonic weapons time to react and go to shelter which in London practically does not exist except underground transport, so to get to nearest station you would need 30 min but nuke needs 15 min to arrive. Let's suppose that one Sarmat is enough to level town size of London or Paris. So only with firstly deployed there would be 2200 nukes to spare. But what about heavier nukes those 10Mt yields, what about revamping Tsar Bomba with 50Mt (8km fireball, 68 km mushroom cloud and shock waves circling Earth 3 times). So, what exactly will intercept hyper-sonic? So when you say estimate 1.6 to 3bn I would rather say it is very optimistic, and that only from the blasts. Next goes fallout... are you saying no one will die out cancer in full exchange? It will be all ok after 5 years? EMP would wiped out grid and internet, what will exactly pump water? What are you going to drink? Quickly made filter from charcoal and that will do? And to what hospital are you going to go if you scratch on rusty nail for instance? Next, what are you going to eat, 80% of food in UK is imported, https://www.businessinsider.com/no-deal-brexit-percentage-british-food-imported-shortages-2019-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/no-deal-brexit-percentage-br... there is no more ships with food and oil? Where are you going to get money banks are out, no plastic cards, cash does not worth anything? do you have silver or gold? How many will die out of hunger in next 10 years? And what about nuclear power plants 450 of them? They are not the same like nukes, nukes burn their fission material, but as we know from Fukushima Daiichi Accident and Chernobyl disaster, they were quite tricky, and there we managed to do something about it. Who will go to "fix" nuclear power planets after exchange, so plenty of fallout there? As I said it would not be extinction but 99% reduction, and those who survive would wish they have not. By the way I am not trying to convince anyone people have had too many video survival games with happy ending, and to test reality you just need to go to near by woods for 7 days without food and water, and what ever experience you have just multiply by 300 times. Going back to first line, > your post did not change my view I somehow find more frighting and delusional that way of thinking, as it leaves possibility to use mentioned as solution for fixing problem as people optimistically believe they are the one that will survive. There is a reason why "Mutually assured destruction" and "nuclear deterrence" exist as such, as no one will ever attempt any such idiotic thing. As what we model usually does not correspond with reality. And when you know that everyone will loose like in the move "War games" then only way to win is not to play a game. And if current narrow AI can do it today I hope you as far superior intelligence can come to the same conclusion.