3 ms·

Much like the end of history wasn’t the end of history LLM-Attention centric AI isn’t the end of AI development So if they are successful at locking in it wil

Much like the end of history wasn’t the end of history LLM-Attention centric AI isn’t the end of AI development So if they are successful at locking in it will be at their own demise because it doesn’t cover the infinity many pathways for AI to continue down, specifically intersections with robotics and physical manipulation, that are ultimately way more impactful on society. Until the plurality of humans on the earth understand that human exceptionalism is no longer something to be taking for granted (and shouldn’t have been) there’s never going to be effective global governance of technology.

blind_tomato 1y ago
> Until the plurality of humans on the earth understand that human exceptionalism is no longer something to be taking for granted (and shouldn’t have been) there’s never going to be effective global governance of technology. Could you elaborate more on this? FYI fully agreed on the former sentences.
- icandoit 1y ago
  The bacteria that aren't antibacterial resistant eventually get replaced by those that are. Maybe you are alcohol, gambling, and pornography resistant but maybe you have friends and family that aren't. Are you picking up their slack? What circumstances make "going Amish" look, not just reasonable, but necessary for survival?
- AndrewKemendo 1y ago
  It’s taken for granted that humans are the best choice for how to accomplish tasks. The tasks humans are best at now are different than 10kya. The world changes, new human jobs are made and humans collectively move up the abstraction chain. Schumpeter called this creative destruction and “capital + technology” is the transition function. At the point where “capital + technology” does not need a human anymore and that will happen (if not in my lifetime then at least in the next 500 years) then there will be nothing more to argue for or retain. So unless humanity recognizes this and decides to organize as humans (not as europeans, or alabamans or han etc…) then this is the only possible outcome. Me personally, I don’t think that’s mathematically/energetically possible for humans to do because we’re not biologically capable of that level of eusocial coordination.
  - ares623 1y ago
    As some Australian video game character once said: “as long as there are two people in the world, someone is going to want someone dead”
  - cudgy 1y ago
    “So unless humanity recognizes this and decides to organize as humans (not as europeans, or alabamans or han etc…) then this is the only possible outcome.” Why do you think this is the only possible outcome? Aren’t we already organized as humans? Won’t people revolt when this really hits the fan?
    - AndrewKemendo 1y ago
      No we’re not organized as humans Revolt is a transitional process only, from one structure to another, it doesn’t change the fundamental math of the fact that humans are not eusocial
      - cudgy 1y ago
        So humans are just running around as unorganized individuals, hermits, living in small tents in the woods by themselves. There are no borders or countries or associations of humans. We are all just unorganized. Really? Either your definition of organized is different than mine or this is a silly conversation.
        AndrewKemendo 1y ago
        Yes clearly it’s different definition Organization means everyone is in the same singular organizational identity - eusocially The closest formal group seems to be the European Union - but that’s still infinitely far away from what’s needed to survive Humans either figure out how to form a biological superorganism or go extinct to non-human intelligence This isn’t happening tomorrow, but on century time scales, it’s obviously the only likely trajectory
        1y ago
Nasrudith 1y ago
I highly doubt there is ever going to be "effective governance" of technology for multiple reasons. It would require impossible foreknowledge of the impacts of every possible tech and dystopian levels of control to prevent new ideas from coming into play. We cannot even get the direction of impact right a-priori. Even if they had that this dystopia would have to remain both stable and unmutated over generations. All the while their control creates their own counterforce, incentivized to invent tech outside of their control to topple the forces of stagnation.
- AndrewKemendo 1y ago
  You might be interested in my theory. High school version: https://kemendo.com/basiccohesion.html https://kemendo.com/basiccohesion.html Full draft PDF https://kemendo.com/GTC.pdf https://kemendo.com/GTC.pdf
  - tug2024 1y ago
    [dead]
- tug2024 1y ago
  [dead]

blind_tomato 1y ago

> Until the plurality of humans on the earth understand that human exceptionalism is no longer something to be taking for granted (and shouldn’t have been) there’s never going to be effective global governance of technology. Could you elaborate more on this? FYI fully agreed on the former sentences.

icandoit 1y ago
The bacteria that aren't antibacterial resistant eventually get replaced by those that are. Maybe you are alcohol, gambling, and pornography resistant but maybe you have friends and family that aren't. Are you picking up their slack? What circumstances make "going Amish" look, not just reasonable, but necessary for survival?
AndrewKemendo 1y ago
It’s taken for granted that humans are the best choice for how to accomplish tasks. The tasks humans are best at now are different than 10kya. The world changes, new human jobs are made and humans collectively move up the abstraction chain. Schumpeter called this creative destruction and “capital + technology” is the transition function. At the point where “capital + technology” does not need a human anymore and that will happen (if not in my lifetime then at least in the next 500 years) then there will be nothing more to argue for or retain. So unless humanity recognizes this and decides to organize as humans (not as europeans, or alabamans or han etc…) then this is the only possible outcome. Me personally, I don’t think that’s mathematically/energetically possible for humans to do because we’re not biologically capable of that level of eusocial coordination.
- ares623 1y ago
  As some Australian video game character once said: “as long as there are two people in the world, someone is going to want someone dead”
- cudgy 1y ago
  “So unless humanity recognizes this and decides to organize as humans (not as europeans, or alabamans or han etc…) then this is the only possible outcome.” Why do you think this is the only possible outcome? Aren’t we already organized as humans? Won’t people revolt when this really hits the fan?
  - AndrewKemendo 1y ago
    No we’re not organized as humans Revolt is a transitional process only, from one structure to another, it doesn’t change the fundamental math of the fact that humans are not eusocial
    - cudgy 1y ago
      So humans are just running around as unorganized individuals, hermits, living in small tents in the woods by themselves. There are no borders or countries or associations of humans. We are all just unorganized. Really? Either your definition of organized is different than mine or this is a silly conversation.
      - AndrewKemendo 1y ago
        Yes clearly it’s different definition Organization means everyone is in the same singular organizational identity - eusocially The closest formal group seems to be the European Union - but that’s still infinitely far away from what’s needed to survive Humans either figure out how to form a biological superorganism or go extinct to non-human intelligence This isn’t happening tomorrow, but on century time scales, it’s obviously the only likely trajectory
        1y ago

Nasrudith 1y ago

I highly doubt there is ever going to be "effective governance" of technology for multiple reasons. It would require impossible foreknowledge of the impacts of every possible tech and dystopian levels of control to prevent new ideas from coming into play. We cannot even get the direction of impact right a-priori. Even if they had that this dystopia would have to remain both stable and unmutated over generations. All the while their control creates their own counterforce, incentivized to invent tech outside of their control to topple the forces of stagnation.

AndrewKemendo 1y ago
You might be interested in my theory. High school version: https://kemendo.com/basiccohesion.html https://kemendo.com/basiccohesion.html Full draft PDF https://kemendo.com/GTC.pdf https://kemendo.com/GTC.pdf
- tug2024 1y ago
  [dead]
tug2024 1y ago
[dead]