3 ms·

The same way we rationalize destroying our environment... Local optima. Meaning as long as the climate change problems are not felt by the people doing the mo

The same way we rationalize destroying our environment... Local optima. Meaning as long as the climate change problems are not felt by the people doing the most polution, then they wiil continue to do it. The ines developing GAI think that they can prevent it from destroying humans or at least them. When developing the atomic bomb there were several concerns, one of them being that they coul ignite the whole atmosphere... but even self destruction wasn't a deterrant.. as long as your goal is achived, destroying your enemy then all the other risks are taken.

readonthegoapp 5y ago
i agree with at least the part about people being able to basically rationalize anything (myself included), and the willingness of institutions (say, the US government during the Turkish Missile Crisis -- aka the Cuban Missile Crisis) to risk blowing up the world just to save face (fortunately JFK eventually backed down). in the case of GAI, i think it's relatively low on the totem pole of 'things that will probably end advanced human civilization on earth for at least the next several thousand years'. if we were divvying up the top causes among the 100% pie of likelihood of ending us, it'd probably be: climate 97% nukes 2% gai 1% i think some small parts of advanced civilization might continue through the worst of climate collapse - mass death, starvation, war, migration, etc. - with climate catastrophes acting as a de facto carbon tax on human life/industry. but most people in the world are trying make their rent for next month, pay their bills, feed their kids, etc. -- not worrying about the polar bears, rising sea levels, etc. it's almost like we need a new type of economy...
- wnkrshm 5y ago
  There are interactions between the first two. If the climate puts too much pressure on societies, people will become more accepting of waging war - thus maybe triggering the nuke option before the climate problem has had any chance to do all the damage.

readonthegoapp 5y ago

i agree with at least the part about people being able to basically rationalize anything (myself included), and the willingness of institutions (say, the US government during the Turkish Missile Crisis -- aka the Cuban Missile Crisis) to risk blowing up the world just to save face (fortunately JFK eventually backed down). in the case of GAI, i think it's relatively low on the totem pole of 'things that will probably end advanced human civilization on earth for at least the next several thousand years'. if we were divvying up the top causes among the 100% pie of likelihood of ending us, it'd probably be: climate 97% nukes 2% gai 1% i think some small parts of advanced civilization might continue through the worst of climate collapse - mass death, starvation, war, migration, etc. - with climate catastrophes acting as a de facto carbon tax on human life/industry. but most people in the world are trying make their rent for next month, pay their bills, feed their kids, etc. -- not worrying about the polar bears, rising sea levels, etc. it's almost like we need a new type of economy...

wnkrshm 5y ago
There are interactions between the first two. If the climate puts too much pressure on societies, people will become more accepting of waging war - thus maybe triggering the nuke option before the climate problem has had any chance to do all the damage.