4 ms·
Sorry, my gun analogy was unclear. I meant that, just because some agents on a planet have an ability, doesn't mean that everyone on that planet benefits. I a
by duvenaud 3y ago
Sorry, my gun analogy was unclear. I meant that, just because some agents on a planet have an ability, doesn't mean that everyone on that planet benefits.
I agree that we probably won't see human extinction before robotics gets much better, and that robot factories will require lots of infrastructure. But I claim that robotics + automated infrastructure will eventually get good enough that they don't need humans in the loop. In the meantime, humans can still become mostly disempowered in the same way that e.g. North Koreans citizens are.
Again I agree that this all might be a ways away, but I'm trying to reason about what the stable equilibria of the future are, not about what current capabilities are.
- jvanderbot 3y agoI think we've converged on a partial agreement, but I wanted to clarify the gun analogy part. I would also be afraid of chipmunks if I knew that 1/100 or even 1/1000 could explode me with their mind powers or something. I think AI is not like that, but the analogy is that if some can do something better, then when required, we can leverage those chosen few for a task. This connects back to the alien chess tournament as "Humans are now much harder to beat at chess because they can find a slave champion named COMPUTER who can guarantee at least a draw".