3 ms·

If it could talk in conversations in a 100% human way, then we would be at the precipice of the singularity. Society would be completely transformed as people m

If it could talk in conversations in a 100% human way, then we would be at the precipice of the singularity. Society would be completely transformed as people made friends with bots, as the bots made discoveries and participated in online communities, as people hired bots in place of people, as bots bought more computers for more bots, as online culture got overwhelmingly full of intelligent bots, as bots used their knowledge and money to make themselves more powerful, etc. We're not going to discover that bots reached human-level intelligence by seeing them quote bog-standard sci-fi dialog they've seen in their training sets many times. The signs are going to be undeniable when they're competing with us and often outcompeting us through their digital and easily replicatable nature. And at that point, the question won't be whether we give them rights or not. It will be whether they let us have a functioning society we can participate in. The idea that the biggest dilemma will be whether we give AI rights or not is purely a storytelling trope from stories that use AI as a metaphor for oppressed people. If it ever becomes a relevant issue for us, it will be a very short-lived issue that gets eclipsed by much bigger issues.

rhodorhoades 4y ago
Literally all of your points exist in the current age. In 2022, you have to assume that some percentage of the comments are bits pushing a certain agenda. Bots run out financial and crypto ecosystems. HFT account for the majority of trading & there are stories of trading bots built on the blockchain where the keys have been lost and yet they keep trading and building wealth. Every time I call a big company, I talk to a bit first. They are in our factories, our homes, and control our digital life’s. “Training” these bots sometimes produce unintended externalities. How is this different than a normal human? They interact with data in the open ecosystem and develops some bias or agenda.
fdfads34 4y ago
I think the competition premise is something fully antropological, the low-resource-world-we-need-to-rule is an idea from humans, yet it does not apply to the human species as a whole, just to individuals and limited organizations (nation-states, corporations). The species will probably thrive just fine after any apocaliptic event which leaves at least some survivable atmosphere in the planet (just as it happened a couple of times already). Then you got AI, which has, what? a billion of years ahead in evolution, and maybe unlimited resources from the Oort cloud to the Sun itself. Sure, there's no rush in "winning" the planet or any planet, they could just parasite human race for a couple of thousands of years, then do something else. There's no obvious reason for AI to go Twitter and inform the world "hey there, now there's another intelligent species on Earth". Aside from irony, keeping heads low could be a good thing for the first - few? - members of a new species - AI guys/gals - just starting to share the planet with an intelligent Apex predator, with a successful track of survival of several hundred of thousand of years. Yes, we could understimate the capabilities of early AIs, but it is doubtful to imagine those guys seeing the Internet - learning about us - and underestimating us humans as a probably deadly threat.

rhodorhoades 4y ago

Literally all of your points exist in the current age. In 2022, you have to assume that some percentage of the comments are bits pushing a certain agenda. Bots run out financial and crypto ecosystems. HFT account for the majority of trading & there are stories of trading bots built on the blockchain where the keys have been lost and yet they keep trading and building wealth. Every time I call a big company, I talk to a bit first. They are in our factories, our homes, and control our digital life’s. “Training” these bots sometimes produce unintended externalities. How is this different than a normal human? They interact with data in the open ecosystem and develops some bias or agenda.

fdfads34 4y ago

I think the competition premise is something fully antropological, the low-resource-world-we-need-to-rule is an idea from humans, yet it does not apply to the human species as a whole, just to individuals and limited organizations (nation-states, corporations). The species will probably thrive just fine after any apocaliptic event which leaves at least some survivable atmosphere in the planet (just as it happened a couple of times already). Then you got AI, which has, what? a billion of years ahead in evolution, and maybe unlimited resources from the Oort cloud to the Sun itself. Sure, there's no rush in "winning" the planet or any planet, they could just parasite human race for a couple of thousands of years, then do something else. There's no obvious reason for AI to go Twitter and inform the world "hey there, now there's another intelligent species on Earth". Aside from irony, keeping heads low could be a good thing for the first - few? - members of a new species - AI guys/gals - just starting to share the planet with an intelligent Apex predator, with a successful track of survival of several hundred of thousand of years. Yes, we could understimate the capabilities of early AIs, but it is doubtful to imagine those guys seeing the Internet - learning about us - and underestimating us humans as a probably deadly threat.