3 ms·

Any AI that's advanced enough to make us seem like ants is advanced enough to build robots with superior abilities, or if biological bodies turn out to be more

by mrob 3y ago

Any AI that's advanced enough to make us seem like ants is advanced enough to build robots with superior abilities, or if biological bodies turn out to be more resource efficient, to implant hardware in our brains to instill absolute obedience without the need for trade, like how we can remote control cockroaches with implanted electrodes: https://www.science.org/content/article/cyborg-cockroach-sparks-ethics-debate https://www.science.org/content/article/cyborg-cockroach-spa...

roenxi 3y ago
While the future will be full of surprises, there isn't any reason to think that this will happen. 1) It is easier to use human labour than develop robot replacements. Corporations and aristocrats would already use robots if it makes more economic sense. Maybe that'll change, but usually these things take a long time. 2) Constructing robots is really tricky vs. human reproduction. No reason to think being smarter will change the basic economics of that. 3) The "absolute obedience" circuits sound expensive and difficult. It'd be cheaper just to appoint a supervisor. As the article points out, if we had the ability to communicate with ants, we'd just trade with them. No control chips or replacement policies necessary. There is no point redeveloping something that already exists.
- btilly 3y ago
  The only reason why this is true is that we don't have the ability to install a computer chip into a robot to get human cognitive abilities. In a future where we have real AI, they will eventually have the ability to install a computer chip into a robot to get better than human cognitive abilities. At which point the robot is cheaper and more capable than we are. Why would they need us then?
- pcthrowaway 3y ago
  > It is easier to use human labour than develop robot replacements. Corporations and aristocrats would already use robots if it makes more economic sense. Maybe that'll change, but usually these things take a long time. A very intelligent AI may not feel the same way. And they may also find it less efficient to explain to us what they want done and how to do it, than it would be to just do it themselves (kind of like how bending an ant colony to service our needs might be possible in some situations, but very unlikely to be efficient)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
gwern 3y ago
That and many other criticisms have been made of the analogy: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wB7hdo4LDdhZ7kwJw/we-don-t-trade-with-ants https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wB7hdo4LDdhZ7kwJw/we-don-t-t... (not linked in OP even though it really ought to be).
sliken 3y ago
Maybe, but maybe we aren't worth it. They could easily use media, social media, advertising, bribes, etc to cause a societies opinion of what to do, that's maximally benefitical to them. Additionally I don't see why AIs won't be competing with themselves for resources, and we'd be a minor footnote for their attention. Just imagine how much thought we gave to ants during WWII. I've seen a scfi cover the AIs go to war, and the humans end up farming in a pre-industrial society while the AIs fight underground or in space.

by mrob 3y ago

roenxi 3y ago

While the future will be full of surprises, there isn't any reason to think that this will happen. 1) It is easier to use human labour than develop robot replacements. Corporations and aristocrats would already use robots if it makes more economic sense. Maybe that'll change, but usually these things take a long time. 2) Constructing robots is really tricky vs. human reproduction. No reason to think being smarter will change the basic economics of that. 3) The "absolute obedience" circuits sound expensive and difficult. It'd be cheaper just to appoint a supervisor. As the article points out, if we had the ability to communicate with ants, we'd just trade with them. No control chips or replacement policies necessary. There is no point redeveloping something that already exists.

btilly 3y ago
The only reason why this is true is that we don't have the ability to install a computer chip into a robot to get human cognitive abilities. In a future where we have real AI, they will eventually have the ability to install a computer chip into a robot to get better than human cognitive abilities. At which point the robot is cheaper and more capable than we are. Why would they need us then?
pcthrowaway 3y ago
> It is easier to use human labour than develop robot replacements. Corporations and aristocrats would already use robots if it makes more economic sense. Maybe that'll change, but usually these things take a long time. A very intelligent AI may not feel the same way. And they may also find it less efficient to explain to us what they want done and how to do it, than it would be to just do it themselves (kind of like how bending an ant colony to service our needs might be possible in some situations, but very unlikely to be efficient)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

gwern 3y ago

That and many other criticisms have been made of the analogy: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wB7hdo4LDdhZ7kwJw/we-don-t-trade-with-ants https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wB7hdo4LDdhZ7kwJw/we-don-t-t... (not linked in OP even though it really ought to be).

sliken 3y ago

Maybe, but maybe we aren't worth it. They could easily use media, social media, advertising, bribes, etc to cause a societies opinion of what to do, that's maximally benefitical to them. Additionally I don't see why AIs won't be competing with themselves for resources, and we'd be a minor footnote for their attention. Just imagine how much thought we gave to ants during WWII. I've seen a scfi cover the AIs go to war, and the humans end up farming in a pre-industrial society while the AIs fight underground or in space.