5 ms·

> AI, over the long term, will render humans mostly useless. This statement is nonsensical. Unless you consider the end goal to be something other than humanit

> AI, over the long term, will render humans mostly useless. This statement is nonsensical. Unless you consider the end goal to be something other than humanity, which is obviously silly if you give it 5 minutes of thinking, various applications of ML can be either helpful or harmful but it cant make humans useless any more than a electricity and its application as washing machine can make clothing wearers useless.

piva00 3y ago
I understood from the comment, given the remark of "over the long term", the meaning over decades/centuries/millennia. Which isn't that nonsensical, if an AGI is created and follows similar processes as humans to acquire knowledge, skills, etc. it is a quite logical conclusion that it will be able to render humans useless: a very advanced AGI can imagine and develop technologies just like we do, it can direct resources and machinery to build whatever it creates, including self-replication, given access to resources it can potentially render humans useless. That's at least what I interpreted from the comment.
- strogonoff 3y ago
  No technology can render humans useless, since technology is the “how” whereas humans are the “why”. Technology can be seen as good/bad/neutral to humans in some ways, but rationally speaking—religious views aside—humans cannot logically be qualified in those terms with respect to technology. One could say some future technology might be so good that humans need to do almost nothing in order to survive. Perhaps that’d pose some challenges in terms of mental health, but that is a very different issue, assuming it would be a issue at all (and assuming such technology is even possible in theory). One could say some advanced technology could go out of control, or magically acquire self-awareness and agency (same thing in a philosophically dubious wrapper), or (more prosaically) be (intentionally or not) misused by humans so that it harms humans, but that just puts it into the bad category.
  - piva00 3y ago
    I think where we diverge is that you are assuming we will be in control of such technology. I'm in the camp which doesn't think we would be really in control of a superhuman intelligence.
    - strogonoff 3y ago
      Well, in that scenario I stand by my comment: if there is some technology that humans are in control of at all (as in, it literally performs in ways we are unable to predict), then that technology is harmful (because inability to predict significantly complicates things like survival). However, crucially, in no scenario it can make humans useless. That said, I do doubt it is likely. What is much more likely is that, more prosaically, humans can control it, but some humans misuse it and, intentionally or not, harm other humans; a story as old as civilisation itself.
BobbyJo 3y ago
Even if AGI was strictly human level, you'd have human level intelligence that was immortal, never got tired, and was instantly replicatable. Could you compete with a human that never needed sleep, had been studying for decades or centuries, and could make copies of itself on demand? I couldn't.
- mikeravkine 3y ago
  Why would you need to compete with such an entity? What does "compete" even mean here? Can't instead everyone get one (or 10) of these to.. assist them? I don't understand why we are jumping directly into dystopian scifi vs what past tool revolutions actually look like.
  - Jcowell 3y ago
    who’s going to give everyone one? How? In what world does AGI not end up being in the hands of corporations , wiping out jobs, causing mass unemployment before governments have the ability to enact effective legislation?
  - BobbyJo 3y ago
    If you have 10 "assistants" who are smarter than you, what are you actually doing that would take more than 5 minutes of your time? How could you convince yourself you're still necessary in that situation?
    - throwaway290 3y ago
      Surely it's been a reality for years world over that stupider people end up occupying higher positions. One can have 10 subordinates each 10x smarter than the higher up and all that happens is subordinates get 100x work and the higher up in question gets a promotion. But remember that this is bad analogy because it is talking about humans and assistants have basic human stuff like rights and feelings and self awareness just like their boss. If we are talking about some software tool, you can't be unnecessary because the tool exists for you not the other way around. If your tool starts occupying your place in life, getting all the praise, taking away your job, taking away all your purpose of life, living in your family, parenting your children, taking care of your parents, sleeping with your wife (OK I'm joking at this point) then maybe the tool is harming your human rights, bad tool should be banned. Maybe someone who runs this tool now gets paid more and they should answer to the law. Maybe they even trained this tool on your data and you didn't think to object back then.

piva00 3y ago

I understood from the comment, given the remark of "over the long term", the meaning over decades/centuries/millennia. Which isn't that nonsensical, if an AGI is created and follows similar processes as humans to acquire knowledge, skills, etc. it is a quite logical conclusion that it will be able to render humans useless: a very advanced AGI can imagine and develop technologies just like we do, it can direct resources and machinery to build whatever it creates, including self-replication, given access to resources it can potentially render humans useless. That's at least what I interpreted from the comment.

strogonoff 3y ago
No technology can render humans useless, since technology is the “how” whereas humans are the “why”. Technology can be seen as good/bad/neutral to humans in some ways, but rationally speaking—religious views aside—humans cannot logically be qualified in those terms with respect to technology. One could say some future technology might be so good that humans need to do almost nothing in order to survive. Perhaps that’d pose some challenges in terms of mental health, but that is a very different issue, assuming it would be a issue at all (and assuming such technology is even possible in theory). One could say some advanced technology could go out of control, or magically acquire self-awareness and agency (same thing in a philosophically dubious wrapper), or (more prosaically) be (intentionally or not) misused by humans so that it harms humans, but that just puts it into the bad category.
- piva00 3y ago
  I think where we diverge is that you are assuming we will be in control of such technology. I'm in the camp which doesn't think we would be really in control of a superhuman intelligence.
  - strogonoff 3y ago
    Well, in that scenario I stand by my comment: if there is some technology that humans are in control of at all (as in, it literally performs in ways we are unable to predict), then that technology is harmful (because inability to predict significantly complicates things like survival). However, crucially, in no scenario it can make humans useless. That said, I do doubt it is likely. What is much more likely is that, more prosaically, humans can control it, but some humans misuse it and, intentionally or not, harm other humans; a story as old as civilisation itself.

BobbyJo 3y ago

Even if AGI was strictly human level, you'd have human level intelligence that was immortal, never got tired, and was instantly replicatable. Could you compete with a human that never needed sleep, had been studying for decades or centuries, and could make copies of itself on demand? I couldn't.

mikeravkine 3y ago
Why would you need to compete with such an entity? What does "compete" even mean here? Can't instead everyone get one (or 10) of these to.. assist them? I don't understand why we are jumping directly into dystopian scifi vs what past tool revolutions actually look like.
- Jcowell 3y ago
  who’s going to give everyone one? How? In what world does AGI not end up being in the hands of corporations , wiping out jobs, causing mass unemployment before governments have the ability to enact effective legislation?
- BobbyJo 3y ago
  If you have 10 "assistants" who are smarter than you, what are you actually doing that would take more than 5 minutes of your time? How could you convince yourself you're still necessary in that situation?
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    Surely it's been a reality for years world over that stupider people end up occupying higher positions. One can have 10 subordinates each 10x smarter than the higher up and all that happens is subordinates get 100x work and the higher up in question gets a promotion. But remember that this is bad analogy because it is talking about humans and assistants have basic human stuff like rights and feelings and self awareness just like their boss. If we are talking about some software tool, you can't be unnecessary because the tool exists for you not the other way around. If your tool starts occupying your place in life, getting all the praise, taking away your job, taking away all your purpose of life, living in your family, parenting your children, taking care of your parents, sleeping with your wife (OK I'm joking at this point) then maybe the tool is harming your human rights, bad tool should be banned. Maybe someone who runs this tool now gets paid more and they should answer to the law. Maybe they even trained this tool on your data and you didn't think to object back then.