2 ms·
The question to ask is: why would you want to say "no" here? Other than a hypothetical intrinsic existential risk, socio-economic risks could be addressed by so
by RandomLensman 3y ago
The question to ask is: why would you want to say "no" here? Other than a hypothetical intrinsic existential risk, socio-economic risks could be addressed by social technologies.
- patcon 3y agoMaybe the "no" is "no" to a specific accelerated pace. Social technology (assuming it involves human minds) likely has a hard cap on how fast it can move. So the "no" can be "not yet", and I believe it can materially affect outcomes. I think we very often say "not yet". It's one of the main things policy does, even if it disguises itself as "no, never"
- RandomLensman 3y agoArguably, it tends to lag, but not sure you can leap ahead much before changes are required/the changes to be addressed can be observed at least somewhat (other than just completely changing the social model, perhaps). Then social technologies can actually move quite fast.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago> why would you want to say "no" here? We're in an age of rising fascism, authoritarianism and inequality. With regard to "AI", it's a technology that disproportionately favours established power and threatens democracy. If "AI" really was a leveller, if it threatened to split monopolies, reign in government, redistribute wealth and build social capital then I think you'd hear a good deal more enthusiasm for it. Right now even the dumbest people can see which way that wind is blowing.
- RandomLensman 3y agoAI won't do any of that on its own, only people could do that. The bleak outlook is easy to take, but not sure that it will come true.
- nonrandomstring 3y agoIt's the people I worry about. Anyway your few optimistic words cheer me up, so thank you.
- RandomLensman 3y agoThank you - happy to.