4 ms·

I have been arguing for a decade: The only moral thing for any of us to be doing is that we mandate every single human available stops what they are doing and i

I have been arguing for a decade: The only moral thing for any of us to be doing is that we mandate every single human available stops what they are doing and immediately puts 100% of their effort into helping to develop AGI. The logic is that AGI will save countless lives and arguably make EVERY job easier and better. So not developing it is utterly immoral. Doing anything else you are literally (not literally) killing people. Its like we are on a sinking life raft, 1 guy is bailing out water while the other 8 billion people are fishing, check their phones trying to call for help, making plans about who sleep where, whos going to be the captain...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jebarker 3y ago
Nobody knows if building AGI is even possible (or what that even means). So it would seem reckless to put all of our eggs in that basket. Not to mention that it seems immoral to mandate what every single human being does with their lives.
- graypegg 3y ago
  +1 for “what that even means”. I keep seeing people say “AGI” but no one will define it for me. It’s always “you know it when you see it” or “when software can do anything”. I’m alright with “things will continue to advance” but people assume it’s a single event that happens, not a goal post that represents “the dream” that moves 1 step further away every 1 step we advance. Just shouting random platitudes and religious grandiosity at people is just annoying.
  - kylebenzle 3y ago
    This is a good write-up below, but why not just say AGI is something that is indistinguishable from a human? That definition seems to work. https://towardsdatascience.com/beyond-the-turing-test-two-scenarios-for-the-future-of-agi-868fce138d2 https://towardsdatascience.com/beyond-the-turing-test-two-sc...
    - Filligree 3y ago
      Because we'll never have something indistinguishable from human. Once AI is as good as a human at everything, it'll also be far better than human at something. Possibly most things.
- kylebenzle 3y ago
  The human mind is arguably proof that AGI is possible.
  - jebarker 3y ago
    No, it’s proof that human intelligence is possible. Since we don’t know how that works either we can’t really draw any conclusions about the viability of replicating it artificially (if that’s the definitions of AGI).
kcpm 3y ago
This is pretty funny. Anytime you throw a theoretically infinite payoff into the calculation it blows up immediately. It's like a religious argument. If this god is real than everyone must worship them and achieve ultimate paradise. Another comparison actually is the GameStop stocks phenomenon. At least some of them expected such high returns (in some cases nearly infinite), that it would be fiscally insane to invest in anything but GME.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > Anytime you throw a theoretically infinite payoff into the calculation it blows up immediately. The payoff doesn't even need to be theoretically infinite. A sufficiently large finite payoff is enough. The real problem, as you say, is that these theoretically large payoffs are just pulled out of thin air (or someplace less savory...). In the case of AGI, there is also the well known viewpoint that AGI will result in a huge negative payoff, as soon as the AGI realizes that it can use the atoms you are made of for something that, in its view, is more productive. AGI evangelists like the GP fail to factor that in as well. When such considerations are taken into account, the expected payoff from AGI is basically zero, even without factoring in the issue I described above.
JohnFen 3y ago
I could not disagree with this position more. But ignoring that, I think there's no reason currently to think that AGI is something that's even possible[1], let alone something that will happen in our lifetimes. [1] I'm not saying it isn't possible, just that I see no solid reason to think it is.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jebarker 3y ago

Nobody knows if building AGI is even possible (or what that even means). So it would seem reckless to put all of our eggs in that basket. Not to mention that it seems immoral to mandate what every single human being does with their lives.

graypegg 3y ago
+1 for “what that even means”. I keep seeing people say “AGI” but no one will define it for me. It’s always “you know it when you see it” or “when software can do anything”. I’m alright with “things will continue to advance” but people assume it’s a single event that happens, not a goal post that represents “the dream” that moves 1 step further away every 1 step we advance. Just shouting random platitudes and religious grandiosity at people is just annoying.
- kylebenzle 3y ago
  This is a good write-up below, but why not just say AGI is something that is indistinguishable from a human? That definition seems to work. https://towardsdatascience.com/beyond-the-turing-test-two-scenarios-for-the-future-of-agi-868fce138d2 https://towardsdatascience.com/beyond-the-turing-test-two-sc...
  - Filligree 3y ago
    Because we'll never have something indistinguishable from human. Once AI is as good as a human at everything, it'll also be far better than human at something. Possibly most things.
kylebenzle 3y ago
The human mind is arguably proof that AGI is possible.
- jebarker 3y ago
  No, it’s proof that human intelligence is possible. Since we don’t know how that works either we can’t really draw any conclusions about the viability of replicating it artificially (if that’s the definitions of AGI).

kcpm 3y ago

This is pretty funny. Anytime you throw a theoretically infinite payoff into the calculation it blows up immediately. It's like a religious argument. If this god is real than everyone must worship them and achieve ultimate paradise. Another comparison actually is the GameStop stocks phenomenon. At least some of them expected such high returns (in some cases nearly infinite), that it would be fiscally insane to invest in anything but GME.

pdonis 3y ago
> Anytime you throw a theoretically infinite payoff into the calculation it blows up immediately. The payoff doesn't even need to be theoretically infinite. A sufficiently large finite payoff is enough. The real problem, as you say, is that these theoretically large payoffs are just pulled out of thin air (or someplace less savory...). In the case of AGI, there is also the well known viewpoint that AGI will result in a huge negative payoff, as soon as the AGI realizes that it can use the atoms you are made of for something that, in its view, is more productive. AGI evangelists like the GP fail to factor that in as well. When such considerations are taken into account, the expected payoff from AGI is basically zero, even without factoring in the issue I described above.

JohnFen 3y ago

I could not disagree with this position more. But ignoring that, I think there's no reason currently to think that AGI is something that's even possible[1], let alone something that will happen in our lifetimes. [1] I'm not saying it isn't possible, just that I see no solid reason to think it is.