5 ms·

I am flabbergasted that an opinion like the post you’re responding to is held by anyone. AI has the potential to eliminate all menial tasks of humanity. If us

I am flabbergasted that an opinion like the post you’re responding to is held by anyone. AI has the potential to eliminate all menial tasks of humanity. If use benevolently, it can free everyone from poverty, and enable an unprecedented era of human experience. True human experience. Discovery of self and our true place in the universe, without worry of material concern. No worry of disease, hunger, shelter — an age of boundless abundance. It can be endowed to embody our best traits. All the thousands of years of accumulated wisdom, distilled into an intelligence working with the whole of humanity for good. Change like this can be scary for people who are already comfortable; I get it. But most people in my generation and younger do not have a future without radical innovation. Most of us don’t have homes, don’t have families, don’t have any prospect but slaving away in servitude until we die. I prefer freedom.

hxugufjfjf 4y ago
Is this a copypasta? It kind of reads like one.
- survirtual 4y ago
  Sorry to disappoint you, but these are my real views.
vouaobrasil 4y ago
I don't think it's a mere opinion. I think with enough documentation and research you can show that the costs will likely outweigh the benefits, but of course it's how you define what's a benefit. I guess you like the idea of all menial tasks being eliminated. I submit that some menial tasks are necessary to have a fulfilling life, and that a limited set of resources is actually better for society. Most people begin to feel boredom and useless if they have nothing essential to do with their lives. Moreover, an era of abundance is simply impossible without us crushing the natural world...at this point we are just throwing mud and not using actual data, but I think if we did, we would find that your Star Trek utopia is exceptionally unlikely given the way we are going.
- survirtual 4y ago
  I think the Star Trek utopia is not only likely, but inevitable. We just have a difference of opinion and perspective. We live in a dark time, but that course can change in an instant. We should be focused on leaving Earth and designating this entire planet a national park, to be preserved and protected. When I say “menial tasks are eliminated”, I am speaking towards essentials that no one would want to do without money. We can shift to a voluntary society. What you are saying is not fair to people who have no choices. No choice but to starve. No choice but addiction. No choice but to endlessly work deadend jobs. No choice but to be battered and beaten by dictators. No choice but to live subject to the whims of narcissists. When you have the privilege of livable wages, respect in industry, wealthy social connections, none of what I’m saying would make much sense. But the vast majority of people have none of that, and are dreaming of a day when they are liberated from the rigors of tasks they never wanted to do. People can still do art, can still woodwork, can still perform amazing feats of will, can still invent, can still discover, can still do all manner of things. They just will not longer be forced to against their will to survive; and, at minimum, they won’t be forced to by the whims of other humans who have, by circumstance and tradition, appointed themselves ruler.
  - vouaobrasil 4y ago
    Well, I would be exceptionally overjoyed if a Star Trek-like utopia like the one you describe does come to pass. If technology can solve world hunger, remove dictators, and remove dead-end jobs, I would be very happy and all for it. To some extent it does do that by providing education where it before did not exist. I hope what you are describing is right. Nevertheless, I still advocate an extreme amount of caution involving new technology, because it can also be used to subjugate as well as free, and conquer as well as liberate. If we can shift to a responsible, voluntary society where we are much more responsible and no one has to work, that would be great. I am a little more skeptical. I am not 100% anti-technology, but I do not believe it is the panacea that you make it out to be.
    - survirtual 4y ago
      I can respect that. Some caution is always warranted and improves upon the end result. Humanity has a lot of flaws, but I feel we always do the right thing together in the end. I think that getting beyond scarcity is just the start of a much larger and incredibly magical cosmic journey. Just as technology can subjugate, subjugation trains a harder human. Hardness brings about cunning, willpower, drive, and innovations which can often turn the tools of oppression against the oppressors. In the case of AI, I do acknowledge there is an easy road and a more challenging road. But I also think if we collectively believe in and embody freedom, our primary AI, whenever it arises, will amplify our collective beings. I just choose to believe in the better part of humanity. Extreme caution can turn into its own kind of oppression, withholding capabilities that might save us. Nuclear energy comes to mind. If we were more daring as a species, this planet would be powered by the energy of atoms, and there would be no climate crisis. There would be no oil puking all over us and this planet. The oil barons would have never existed, and we would have a more skilled workforce supporting nuclear infrastructure. It is a hard thing. What gives a small group the right to decree their caution upon all of us?

hxugufjfjf 4y ago

Is this a copypasta? It kind of reads like one.

survirtual 4y ago
Sorry to disappoint you, but these are my real views.

vouaobrasil 4y ago

I don't think it's a mere opinion. I think with enough documentation and research you can show that the costs will likely outweigh the benefits, but of course it's how you define what's a benefit. I guess you like the idea of all menial tasks being eliminated. I submit that some menial tasks are necessary to have a fulfilling life, and that a limited set of resources is actually better for society. Most people begin to feel boredom and useless if they have nothing essential to do with their lives. Moreover, an era of abundance is simply impossible without us crushing the natural world...at this point we are just throwing mud and not using actual data, but I think if we did, we would find that your Star Trek utopia is exceptionally unlikely given the way we are going.

survirtual 4y ago
I think the Star Trek utopia is not only likely, but inevitable. We just have a difference of opinion and perspective. We live in a dark time, but that course can change in an instant. We should be focused on leaving Earth and designating this entire planet a national park, to be preserved and protected. When I say “menial tasks are eliminated”, I am speaking towards essentials that no one would want to do without money. We can shift to a voluntary society. What you are saying is not fair to people who have no choices. No choice but to starve. No choice but addiction. No choice but to endlessly work deadend jobs. No choice but to be battered and beaten by dictators. No choice but to live subject to the whims of narcissists. When you have the privilege of livable wages, respect in industry, wealthy social connections, none of what I’m saying would make much sense. But the vast majority of people have none of that, and are dreaming of a day when they are liberated from the rigors of tasks they never wanted to do. People can still do art, can still woodwork, can still perform amazing feats of will, can still invent, can still discover, can still do all manner of things. They just will not longer be forced to against their will to survive; and, at minimum, they won’t be forced to by the whims of other humans who have, by circumstance and tradition, appointed themselves ruler.
- vouaobrasil 4y ago
  Well, I would be exceptionally overjoyed if a Star Trek-like utopia like the one you describe does come to pass. If technology can solve world hunger, remove dictators, and remove dead-end jobs, I would be very happy and all for it. To some extent it does do that by providing education where it before did not exist. I hope what you are describing is right. Nevertheless, I still advocate an extreme amount of caution involving new technology, because it can also be used to subjugate as well as free, and conquer as well as liberate. If we can shift to a responsible, voluntary society where we are much more responsible and no one has to work, that would be great. I am a little more skeptical. I am not 100% anti-technology, but I do not believe it is the panacea that you make it out to be.
  - survirtual 4y ago
    I can respect that. Some caution is always warranted and improves upon the end result. Humanity has a lot of flaws, but I feel we always do the right thing together in the end. I think that getting beyond scarcity is just the start of a much larger and incredibly magical cosmic journey. Just as technology can subjugate, subjugation trains a harder human. Hardness brings about cunning, willpower, drive, and innovations which can often turn the tools of oppression against the oppressors. In the case of AI, I do acknowledge there is an easy road and a more challenging road. But I also think if we collectively believe in and embody freedom, our primary AI, whenever it arises, will amplify our collective beings. I just choose to believe in the better part of humanity. Extreme caution can turn into its own kind of oppression, withholding capabilities that might save us. Nuclear energy comes to mind. If we were more daring as a species, this planet would be powered by the energy of atoms, and there would be no climate crisis. There would be no oil puking all over us and this planet. The oil barons would have never existed, and we would have a more skilled workforce supporting nuclear infrastructure. It is a hard thing. What gives a small group the right to decree their caution upon all of us?