4 ms·
> We kill millions of humans with agency every day on this planet. And none of them immediately die if we stop providing them with electrical power ... well I g
by tivert 2y ago
> We kill millions of humans with agency every day on this planet. And none of them immediately die if we stop providing them with electrical power ... well I guess a small amount of them do. Anyway, we'll be fine. If the AI come, can they immediately stop us from growing food? How can an AI prevent my orchard from giving apples next year? Sure, it can mess up Facebook, but at this point that'd be a benefit.
1. IMHO, genocidal apocalypse scenarios like you describe are the wrong way to think about the societal danger of AGI. I think a far more likely outcome, and nearly as disastrous, is AGI eliminating the dependency of capital on labor, leading to a global China Shock on steroids (e.g. unimaginable levels of inequality and wealth concentration, which no level of personal adaptability could overcome).
2. Even in your apocalypse scenario, I think you underestimate the damage that could be done. I don't have an orchard, so I know I'm fucked if urban life-support systems get messed up over large enough area that no aid is coming to my local area afterwards. And a genocidal AI that wasn't blindingly stupid would wait until it had control of enough robots to act in the real world, after which it could agent-orange your orchard.
- philistine 2y ago1. A massive loss of jobs like that would lead to a better redistribution of wealth. I don't believe the US would adequately react, but I trust the rest of the world to protect people from the problem. 2. Which robots?? Until robots can, without any human input, make any sort of other robots, then there is nothing to fear from AGI. Right now they barely walk, and the really big boys can solder one joint real good. That's not enough.
- tivert 2y ago> A massive loss of jobs like that would lead to a better redistribution of wealth... How do you come to that conclusion? I think we'll get massive inequality because it'll be far easier to develop new technology than change the core ideology of capitalist society through some secular process. If a "better redistribution of wealth" were in the cards, it probably should have happened already, and probably cannot happen after the 99% loose most of their economic power by being replaced by automation. If the 1% are forward-thinking, they'll push a UBI scheme to keep the 99% from getting too disruptive before they become irrelevant.