6 ms·
main position is: "a super intelligence does not _need_ anything from a lower intelligence" Think of it like social engineering by a super intelligence. If you
by apsurd 3y ago
main position is: "a super intelligence does not _need_ anything from a lower intelligence"
Think of it like social engineering by a super intelligence. If you agree that cambridge analytica influenced large groups of people's actions then it's a pretty clear line for a super intelligence to use digital social engineering to influence anything in meat space. they'll get what they want "through us" but they don't _need_ us anymore than we need animals for nutrients.
basically, a lower intelligence, (humans) is at the mercy of a super intelligence. it's not really necessary to enumerate exactly what tactics a super intelligence would use, you just have to agree that a super intelligence is by definition in a position of power.
maybe i'm incorrectly assuming that we both agree that a true AGI will inevitably be super intelligent. (though i don't necessarily see AGI itself being inevitable)
- newswasboring 3y agoThe current AGI has no physical representation beyond software. That is why I am getting tripped up by these arguments. Without actual ability to physically actuate in the world, none of what you described is possible. All forms of intelligence is still limited by physical reality so I don't think just saying "ROBOTS" is a strong argument. [I'm going to say something incredibly cruel now so this is your trigger warning]. I think we will still be useful to the AI the way child labor was useful in the industrial revolution, some things just require fineness. Of course I am not endorsing any of this. This is just a logical conclusion of my own argument. I am horrified by it too.