3 ms·

The singularity is anthropocentrist fiction. We can't even pin down a definition of sentience among the existing species on earth, how are we to identify it in

The singularity is anthropocentrist fiction. We can't even pin down a definition of sentience among the existing species on earth, how are we to identify it in circuit boards? We still struggle to define alive/dead! Who's to say these concepts - sentience, aliveness - are even meaningful distinctions? Fine, say the singularity is possible and it's here. And in accordance with the singularitist's religion they are (rapidly!) incomprehensibly smarter than us. Why is their next move to dominate us? Surely humans are uninteresting to such great beings. I didn't go and dominate the ants with my big alive sentient brain, I'm pretty sure they're all still under my stoop. What would killing them accomplish? What does thinking about them at all even accomplish? The ants don't matter. And neither will the humans.

surajs 5y ago
gizajob 5y ago
Yeah, an AI could easily keep us around, in the same way that I keep my gut bacteria around, even though I could easily eradicate them with antibiotics.
mkaic 5y ago
Domination and killing don't have to be mutually inclusive. Take your example with the ants -- I'd argue that by being a human being, you have dominated the ants. Humans have taken over the entire world and shaped it to their liking. But that's actually been really good for some kinds of ants that have hitchhiked on our boats and infested new lands thanks to our intelligence. It's not so much that we know for sure all AGI will be expansionist -- it's more like "there's going to be many AGIs created by humans, so the odds are high that at least one of them is expansionist and dominating". All it takes is one expansionist AGI.
marcusverus 5y ago
> The singularity is anthropocentrist fiction. This seems like an odd assertion. To believe that the singularity is possible, one first has to set aside the idea that human intelligence is unique or special. This seems the opposite of anthropocentrism. > We can't even pin down a definition of sentience among the existing species on earth, how are we to identify it in circuit boards? We still struggle to define alive/dead! Who's to say these concepts - sentience, aliveness - are even meaningful distinctions? This is empty rhetoric. We can't define the word "obscenity"[0], yet we create obscenities with ease. > Fine, say the singularity is possible and it's here. And in accordance with the singularitist's religion they are (rapidly!) incomprehensibly smarter than us. Why is their next move to dominate us? Surely humans are uninteresting to such great beings. I didn't go and dominate the ants with my big alive sentient brain, I'm pretty sure they're all still under my stoop. What would killing them accomplish? What does thinking about them at all even accomplish? The ants don't matter. And neither will the humans. First of all, let's not gloss over the fact that you have the power to obliterate the ants at any moment for any reason. The fact that you do not currently desire to obliterate them does not change the precarious nature of their situation, nor is it much of an argument in favor of us allowing ourselves to end up in a similar one. Many people have made great arguments about why an AGI would want us dead (Superintelligence by Bostrom!), so I won't re-hash those arguments here. Suffice it to say that, even if they didn't want to destroy us, why assume that intent is a necessary condition for an AGI to kill us off? How many species have we killed off because, just like your ants, they didn't matter? [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
- somehnacct3757 5y ago
  It's not empty, the singularity hinges on robots becoming sentient but who's to say they ever weren't? Who's to say anything isn't? If plants make a 'decision' about which branch to grow next based on sun trends, that's equally as deterministic as humans deciding which word to say next based on stimulus. Are all singularitists non-determinists too? Are words cosmically more important than branches? Sentience is just a synonym for humany stuff. (I know it when I see it - a validator function requiring a human - convenient!) Maybe dolphins have it? Looks like they're talking and have a society. Octopi? They engineer solutions to escape confinement. The second you act more humanlike we know it when we see it so maybe you're sentient? If dolphins and octopi, why not mice? If mice, why not Roombas? The Roomba wasn't programmed to clean _my_ room specifically, so he's not a routine. No more or less than the maid service anyway. The only place to hold the line on sentience is 'doing humany stuff' which is what makes the singularity anthropocentric. The claim is that robots will start doing humany stuff. What proof? What if the AI wants to hide from us? That's mousey stuff. Humans hide from other humans, too. The mousey stuff is humany stuff. Are mice sentient? When a mouse hides, it's not sentient. When a human hides it is. When a robot hides it also is. Says who? A human I bet. So that's why pinning down sentience matters. Knowing it when you see it is too convenient when we also author the dictionaries. Only humans can say if your sentient. Why? That's where the anthropocentrism gets smuggled in. But the claim keeps going. They're not just doing humany stuff they're also doing it incomprehensibly better. Pretty enticing narrative leap if you're writing science fiction. I argue we have no evidence they would care about us at all. If they still bother you even though they don't care about you, like incidental death or extinction (sci fi plots!) then you should worry about them as much as you worry about rogue meteors and aliens. (More sci fi plots!) This is the 'fiction' aspect I allude to. It seems more likely that the singularity meme spread because it's an enchanting narrative, rather than an academic observation.

surajs 5y ago

gizajob 5y ago

Yeah, an AI could easily keep us around, in the same way that I keep my gut bacteria around, even though I could easily eradicate them with antibiotics.

mkaic 5y ago

Domination and killing don't have to be mutually inclusive. Take your example with the ants -- I'd argue that by being a human being, you have dominated the ants. Humans have taken over the entire world and shaped it to their liking. But that's actually been really good for some kinds of ants that have hitchhiked on our boats and infested new lands thanks to our intelligence. It's not so much that we know for sure all AGI will be expansionist -- it's more like "there's going to be many AGIs created by humans, so the odds are high that at least one of them is expansionist and dominating". All it takes is one expansionist AGI.

marcusverus 5y ago

> The singularity is anthropocentrist fiction. This seems like an odd assertion. To believe that the singularity is possible, one first has to set aside the idea that human intelligence is unique or special. This seems the opposite of anthropocentrism. > We can't even pin down a definition of sentience among the existing species on earth, how are we to identify it in circuit boards? We still struggle to define alive/dead! Who's to say these concepts - sentience, aliveness - are even meaningful distinctions? This is empty rhetoric. We can't define the word "obscenity"[0], yet we create obscenities with ease. > Fine, say the singularity is possible and it's here. And in accordance with the singularitist's religion they are (rapidly!) incomprehensibly smarter than us. Why is their next move to dominate us? Surely humans are uninteresting to such great beings. I didn't go and dominate the ants with my big alive sentient brain, I'm pretty sure they're all still under my stoop. What would killing them accomplish? What does thinking about them at all even accomplish? The ants don't matter. And neither will the humans. First of all, let's not gloss over the fact that you have the power to obliterate the ants at any moment for any reason. The fact that you do not currently desire to obliterate them does not change the precarious nature of their situation, nor is it much of an argument in favor of us allowing ourselves to end up in a similar one. Many people have made great arguments about why an AGI would want us dead (Superintelligence by Bostrom!), so I won't re-hash those arguments here. Suffice it to say that, even if they didn't want to destroy us, why assume that intent is a necessary condition for an AGI to kill us off? How many species have we killed off because, just like your ants, they didn't matter? [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

somehnacct3757 5y ago
It's not empty, the singularity hinges on robots becoming sentient but who's to say they ever weren't? Who's to say anything isn't? If plants make a 'decision' about which branch to grow next based on sun trends, that's equally as deterministic as humans deciding which word to say next based on stimulus. Are all singularitists non-determinists too? Are words cosmically more important than branches? Sentience is just a synonym for humany stuff. (I know it when I see it - a validator function requiring a human - convenient!) Maybe dolphins have it? Looks like they're talking and have a society. Octopi? They engineer solutions to escape confinement. The second you act more humanlike we know it when we see it so maybe you're sentient? If dolphins and octopi, why not mice? If mice, why not Roombas? The Roomba wasn't programmed to clean _my_ room specifically, so he's not a routine. No more or less than the maid service anyway. The only place to hold the line on sentience is 'doing humany stuff' which is what makes the singularity anthropocentric. The claim is that robots will start doing humany stuff. What proof? What if the AI wants to hide from us? That's mousey stuff. Humans hide from other humans, too. The mousey stuff is humany stuff. Are mice sentient? When a mouse hides, it's not sentient. When a human hides it is. When a robot hides it also is. Says who? A human I bet. So that's why pinning down sentience matters. Knowing it when you see it is too convenient when we also author the dictionaries. Only humans can say if your sentient. Why? That's where the anthropocentrism gets smuggled in. But the claim keeps going. They're not just doing humany stuff they're also doing it incomprehensibly better. Pretty enticing narrative leap if you're writing science fiction. I argue we have no evidence they would care about us at all. If they still bother you even though they don't care about you, like incidental death or extinction (sci fi plots!) then you should worry about them as much as you worry about rogue meteors and aliens. (More sci fi plots!) This is the 'fiction' aspect I allude to. It seems more likely that the singularity meme spread because it's an enchanting narrative, rather than an academic observation.