3 ms·

how long until humans optimized out of the technological advancement loop * It's uncertain that we will be optimized out. We may go full symbiotic. We may re

by gtop3 4y ago

how long until humans optimized out of the technological advancement loop * It's uncertain that we will be optimized out. We may go full symbiotic. We may reach a technological plateau. We may run out of natural resources before the singularity. * Ray Kurzweil estimates the singularity, an explosion of intelligence, will occur around 2045. what will that mean for humans? * An adversarial relationship is possible. It seems like a small but potentially fatal possibility. The likelihood is a topic of debate, and any answer from AI would be heavily scrutinized. * Research Universal Paperclips for an interesting take on competing for finite resources. * More intelligence means we can solve more human problems. Potentially massive problems like aging, grand unified theory or poverty. * Many people live entire lives without advancing technology. Maybe all of us technologist just go do that.

gnramires 4y ago
> * More intelligence means we can solve more human problems. Potentially massive problems like aging, grand unified theory or poverty. We already have the intelligence, and already know how to do it (in a way), for many of those problems. For example, if most people gave 10% of their income to charity, poverty would essentially be a trivial issue.[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtWINl3C_7s&t=8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtWINl3C_7s&t=8s The somewhat harder part is convincing people to help others, and cooperate to solve the most pressing issues, which we definitely could do :) That includes wars, climate change, social conflicts, and taking care of individuals mental and physical health properly. We already have the means to address all of those.
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  Don't people already give large percentages of their income to an organization that is supposed to provide services for the impoverished? How would giving another 10% solve poverty?
  - gnramires 4y ago
    Please watch Beth's video, it's very good. Most governments aren't super focused on addressing poverty, in part because some don't consider it fair to directly lift people out of poverty, there is a taboo against giving, or because it's not in the common conscience that we should eradicate poverty as soon as we can. Some countries for example in Western Europe or elsewhere do have almost eliminated poverty, but it still persists in often much more grave conditions elsewhere. The good news is there are several organizations (I give to GiveDirectly, but there are probably others) that track the most poor and needy people worldwide and you can just give them money to get out of poverty. There are many other effective interventions that address poverty, and Effective Altruism[2] is one of the movements looking at attacking them directly (although I'm not a fundamental opponent to governments doing so as well; the problem is that governments act very locally and at least in the west are more focused on education, infrastructure, etc. than charity) [1] https://www.givedirectly.org/ https://www.givedirectly.org/ [2] https://www.effectivealtruism.org/ https://www.effectivealtruism.org/
    - throwaway4aday 4y ago
      No thanks
- Teever 4y ago
  When I see political comments in threads about leading edge technical advancements I feel like the person writing them doesnt know anything avout the technical topic at hand, doesnt want to, and feels uncomfortable with this and so they decide tl shift thw conversation to something they feel more comfortable with. Don't soapbox.
  - gnramires 4y ago
    Well, I have written a few NNs from scratch (using p5.js though, not C++... or pytorch nns), and a few very rudimentary RL algorithms. Also have thought extensively about AI for the past 1 or 2 decades. In fact, about a decade ago I saw the AI revolution coming and was very excited for an utopia (I supposed in the form of Universal Basic Income). It was a wild ride since then, but I've come to believe we need to actively promote ethics and good things if we want to realize any near-utopia, and that simply advancing the technology in 1 direction won't get us to utopia, or where we deserve as humanity. That said, I avoid soapboxing too much, but I make no guarantees :)

by gtop3 4y ago

gnramires 4y ago

> * More intelligence means we can solve more human problems. Potentially massive problems like aging, grand unified theory or poverty. We already have the intelligence, and already know how to do it (in a way), for many of those problems. For example, if most people gave 10% of their income to charity, poverty would essentially be a trivial issue.[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtWINl3C_7s&t=8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtWINl3C_7s&t=8s The somewhat harder part is convincing people to help others, and cooperate to solve the most pressing issues, which we definitely could do :) That includes wars, climate change, social conflicts, and taking care of individuals mental and physical health properly. We already have the means to address all of those.

throwaway4aday 4y ago
Don't people already give large percentages of their income to an organization that is supposed to provide services for the impoverished? How would giving another 10% solve poverty?
- gnramires 4y ago
  Please watch Beth's video, it's very good. Most governments aren't super focused on addressing poverty, in part because some don't consider it fair to directly lift people out of poverty, there is a taboo against giving, or because it's not in the common conscience that we should eradicate poverty as soon as we can. Some countries for example in Western Europe or elsewhere do have almost eliminated poverty, but it still persists in often much more grave conditions elsewhere. The good news is there are several organizations (I give to GiveDirectly, but there are probably others) that track the most poor and needy people worldwide and you can just give them money to get out of poverty. There are many other effective interventions that address poverty, and Effective Altruism[2] is one of the movements looking at attacking them directly (although I'm not a fundamental opponent to governments doing so as well; the problem is that governments act very locally and at least in the west are more focused on education, infrastructure, etc. than charity) [1] https://www.givedirectly.org/ https://www.givedirectly.org/ [2] https://www.effectivealtruism.org/ https://www.effectivealtruism.org/
  - throwaway4aday 4y ago
    No thanks
Teever 4y ago
When I see political comments in threads about leading edge technical advancements I feel like the person writing them doesnt know anything avout the technical topic at hand, doesnt want to, and feels uncomfortable with this and so they decide tl shift thw conversation to something they feel more comfortable with. Don't soapbox.
- gnramires 4y ago
  Well, I have written a few NNs from scratch (using p5.js though, not C++... or pytorch nns), and a few very rudimentary RL algorithms. Also have thought extensively about AI for the past 1 or 2 decades. In fact, about a decade ago I saw the AI revolution coming and was very excited for an utopia (I supposed in the form of Universal Basic Income). It was a wild ride since then, but I've come to believe we need to actively promote ethics and good things if we want to realize any near-utopia, and that simply advancing the technology in 1 direction won't get us to utopia, or where we deserve as humanity. That said, I avoid soapboxing too much, but I make no guarantees :)