4 ms·

'We all benefit either way'? I am not sure that making labour obsolete, and putting the replacement in the hands of a handful of investor will result in everyb

by frotaur 11mo ago

'We all benefit either way'? I am not sure that making labour obsolete, and putting the replacement in the hands of a handful of investor will result in everybody benefiting.

labrador 11mo ago
That's a different conversation. I believe AGI will be a net benefit.
- Zardoz84 11mo ago
  There isn't AGI
  - labrador 11mo ago
    Exactly. That's why I called them speculative.
- grayhatter 11mo ago
  I feel as though you're ignoring the most important part of that sentence. I assume you meant to write; I believe that AGI will be a net benefit to whomever controls it. I would argue that if a profit driven company rents something valuable out to others, you should expect it would benefit them just as much if not more, than those paying for that privilege. Rented things may be useful, but they certainly are not a net benefit to the system as a whole.
  - labrador 11mo ago
    No, I believe AGI will have a net benefit for all of humanity. The telephone system was a net benefit for all Americans even though for a time AT& T (Ma Bell) controlled it.
    - grayhatter 11mo ago
      Your pattern matching skills leave a lot of room for improvement. Information interconnection is meaningfully different from AGI, and the environment ATT and Bell existed within no longer exist.
      - labrador 11mo ago
        AGI is fantasy at this point and your assumption that AGI would give OpenAI unprecented powers is the Musk/Yudkowsky/Hinton argument that AI will dominate and enslave us. Drop those assumptions and my point stands that throughout history, monopolistically-controlled transformative technologies (telephones, electricity, vaccines, railroads) have still delivered net benefits to society, even if imperfectly distributed. This is just historical fact.
        grayhatter 11mo ago
        > AGI is fantasy at this point and your assumption that AGI would give OpenAI unprecented powers is the Musk/Yudkowsky/Hinton argument that AI will dominate and enslave us. Yeah, like I said, room for improvement. I find the argument that AGI or sAGI should be feared, or is likely to turn "evil" absurd in the best case. So your arguing against a strawman I already find stupid. Telephones, increased the speed of information transfer, it couldn't produce on it's own. Electricity allowed transmission of energy from one place to another, and doesn't produce inherent value in isolation, vaccines are in an entirely different class of advancement, (so I have to idea how you mean to apply it to the expected benefits of AGI? I assume you believe AGI will have something to do with reducing disability), railroads again, like energy or telephones, involved moving something of value from one place to another. AGI is supposed to produce a potentially limitless amount of inherent value on its own, right? It will do more than just move around components of value, but more like a diamond mine, it will output something valuable as a commodity. Something that can easily be controlled... oh but it's also not concrete, you can never have your own, it's only available for rental, and you have to agree to the ToS. That sounds just like all previous inventions, right? You're welcome to cite any historical facts you like, but when you're unwilling or unable to draw concrete parallels, or form convincing conclusions yourself, and hand wave, well most impressivive inventions in the past were good so I feel AGI will be cool too! Also, the critical difference (ignoring the environmental differences between then and now) between the inventions you cited, and AGI, is the difficulty in replicating any technology. Other than "it happened before to most technologies" is there reason I should believe that AGI would be easy to replicate for any company that wants to compete against the people actively working to increase the size of their moat? copper wire, and train tracks are easy to install. Do you expect AGI will be easy for everyone to train?

by frotaur 11mo ago

'We all benefit either way'? I am not sure that making labour obsolete, and putting the replacement in the hands of a handful of investor will result in everybody benefiting.

labrador 11mo ago

That's a different conversation. I believe AGI will be a net benefit.

Zardoz84 11mo ago
There isn't AGI
- labrador 11mo ago
  Exactly. That's why I called them speculative.
grayhatter 11mo ago
I feel as though you're ignoring the most important part of that sentence. I assume you meant to write; I believe that AGI will be a net benefit to whomever controls it. I would argue that if a profit driven company rents something valuable out to others, you should expect it would benefit them just as much if not more, than those paying for that privilege. Rented things may be useful, but they certainly are not a net benefit to the system as a whole.
- labrador 11mo ago
  No, I believe AGI will have a net benefit for all of humanity. The telephone system was a net benefit for all Americans even though for a time AT& T (Ma Bell) controlled it.
  - grayhatter 11mo ago
    Your pattern matching skills leave a lot of room for improvement. Information interconnection is meaningfully different from AGI, and the environment ATT and Bell existed within no longer exist.
    - labrador 11mo ago
      AGI is fantasy at this point and your assumption that AGI would give OpenAI unprecented powers is the Musk/Yudkowsky/Hinton argument that AI will dominate and enslave us. Drop those assumptions and my point stands that throughout history, monopolistically-controlled transformative technologies (telephones, electricity, vaccines, railroads) have still delivered net benefits to society, even if imperfectly distributed. This is just historical fact.
      - grayhatter 11mo ago
        > AGI is fantasy at this point and your assumption that AGI would give OpenAI unprecented powers is the Musk/Yudkowsky/Hinton argument that AI will dominate and enslave us. Yeah, like I said, room for improvement. I find the argument that AGI or sAGI should be feared, or is likely to turn "evil" absurd in the best case. So your arguing against a strawman I already find stupid. Telephones, increased the speed of information transfer, it couldn't produce on it's own. Electricity allowed transmission of energy from one place to another, and doesn't produce inherent value in isolation, vaccines are in an entirely different class of advancement, (so I have to idea how you mean to apply it to the expected benefits of AGI? I assume you believe AGI will have something to do with reducing disability), railroads again, like energy or telephones, involved moving something of value from one place to another. AGI is supposed to produce a potentially limitless amount of inherent value on its own, right? It will do more than just move around components of value, but more like a diamond mine, it will output something valuable as a commodity. Something that can easily be controlled... oh but it's also not concrete, you can never have your own, it's only available for rental, and you have to agree to the ToS. That sounds just like all previous inventions, right? You're welcome to cite any historical facts you like, but when you're unwilling or unable to draw concrete parallels, or form convincing conclusions yourself, and hand wave, well most impressivive inventions in the past were good so I feel AGI will be cool too! Also, the critical difference (ignoring the environmental differences between then and now) between the inventions you cited, and AGI, is the difficulty in replicating any technology. Other than "it happened before to most technologies" is there reason I should believe that AGI would be easy to replicate for any company that wants to compete against the people actively working to increase the size of their moat? copper wire, and train tracks are easy to install. Do you expect AGI will be easy for everyone to train?