4 ms·
> "We've recognized that we've reached the point as a technological civilization where the idea, there's huge abundance and huge economic value, but the idea th
by rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
> "We've recognized that we've reached the point as a technological civilization where the idea, there's huge abundance and huge economic value, but the idea that the way to distribute that value is for humans to produce economic labor, and this is where they feel their sense of self worth," he added. "Once that idea gets invalidated, we're all going to have to sit down and figure it out."
I suspect we'll just let those without the means to guarantee their well-being just die off then.
On the upside probably good for the environment & mitigating against climate change though.
- walterbell 2y ago> let those without the means to guarantee their well-being just die off then History has some entertaining responses to previous holders of such viewpoints.
- rUsHeYaFuBu 2y agoHistory doesn't have robot armies.
- walterbell 2y agoHistory has news about hackers.
- rUsHeYaFuBu 2y agoAnd that's supposed to do what exactly here?
- walterbell 2y agoYou're posting on a website called Hacker News, with countless HN discussions of security exploits of shipping products. Any recommendations on vendors of unhackable robots, a.k.a. computers?
- rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago> I don't think it will be a whole bunch longer than that when AI systems are better than humans at almost everything. Better than almost all humans at almost everything. And then eventually better than all humans at everything, even robotics." > Amodei also spoke some about the potential implications of highly intelligent AI systems when these AI models can control advanced robotics. "[If] we make good enough AI systems, they'll enable us to make better robots. And so when that happens, we will need to have a conversation..." Good luck... I'm sure some altruistic individuals will "hack" things so you don't need to be worried.
- walterbell 2y agoIf the power of _some_ humans depends on robots+AI, and there is a long track record of computers/vehicles being hacked, then there is economic incentive for competing humans to hack robots, including but not limited to competing AI systems. For a fictional treatment of this topic, see Jonathan Nolan's Person of Interest, which begins with one supercomputer, but ends with competing supercomputers and their competing human owners in an endless arms race. The incentives in this scenario are power, not altruism.
- rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago> economic incentive for competing humans That's assuming there are competing humans left and economic gain to be had.
- walterbell 2y ago> economic gain to be had Humans have one or two incentives beyond economics. > assuming there are competing humans left Indeed, one possible scenario is zero humans left.
- gizajob 2y agoWe’ve been able to nuke one another into oblivion for decades now. Constructing robot armies to do this better but worse is a huge hassle.
- rUsHeYaFuBu 2y agoHow is it a hassle? The machines can build and improve on themselves. When there's very little economic reason to keep most people around. Then you just need enough force to keep people from taking what is yours and wait it out. No need to hunt anyone down indiscriminately. Plus, nukes generally have been controlled by governments and mass use of them leaves little left for those in power and a whole lot of work for them.
- walterbell 2y ago> [nukes] mass use Modern arsenals include a range of targetable weapons. Hopefully the "strategies" of would-be predators are not based on AI hallucinations.
- rUsHeYaFuBu 2y agoIt's really helpful for discussion if you've read the article the thread is based on btw.
- walterbell 2y agoDoes the article include a statement about hallucinations? It does include this "... then magic happens" speculation: [If] we make good enough AI systems
- rUsHeYaFuBu 2y agoYeah so maybe within the context of the article it's presuming hallucination issues have been addressed? Hmmm, curious.
- Havoc 2y agoSocial nets are a thing. Not particularly worried about anyone dying off. At least in mid to rich countries. Bigger concern in those to me is what sort of existence it’ll be. State keeps you alive sure but I’d like to do a bit more than that
- rUsHeYaFuBu 2y agoWhy guarantee the social safety nets? There's no benefit for those in power to keep them and we already let those in the U.S. without means die. Why should the case be different here?
- walterbell 2y agoFuture generations will thank those asking this perennial question, for providing contemporary physical evidence of lessons long learned by earlier generations of humans with transient "power".
- Havoc 2y agoThose in power benefit from the social nets too. They want to live in a stable society. See that us insurance ceo getting shot. Lambo is more fun if you’re not at risk of getting shot
- rUsHeYaFuBu 2y agoYeah, that's when they're still economically dependent on there being masses of people to produce wealth for them. When the mass of people have no economic value to contribute to those in power, then what? Will they just feed and house those people?
- Havoc 2y ago> Yeah, that's when they're still economically dependent It goes deeper than that. Being surrounding by poor and suffering people sucks. Most people can’t block out that level of suffering and may even feel guilt. No doubt there are some clinical psychopaths out there to whom that doesn’t apply but I think it’s broadly true. It’s much easier to block out when people or poor but still sorta ok. So yes I think it’s going towards some sort of UBI. A low and grim UBI but UBI anyway