4 ms·

Efficient for what? What reason has AI to exist?

moffkalast 9mo ago
Well our purpose is to turn low entropy into high entropy, that's what drove the existence of life. If machines can do it faster then they'll win out eventually.
- tekne 9mo ago
  It's interesting: on balance life increases entropy. Yet it also produces pockets of ultra-low entropy; states which would be staggeringly, astronomically unlikely to be witnessed in nature. So perhaps what life does is increase entropy-entropy -- the diversity of entropy, versus a consistent entropic smear -- even as it increases entropy...
  - eru 9mo ago
    > So perhaps what life does is increase entropy-entropy -- the diversity of entropy, versus a consistent entropic smear -- even as it increases entropy... Life is a rounding error in the energy and entropy balance of the solar system. And even on earth we barely amount to much.
    - tekne 9mo ago
      Nice username -- very fitting. Yes, and yet if we instead look for low-entropy peaks, I'd be shocked if anything in the solar system is even nearly as low-entropy as a single bacterium, let alone a brain. Then there's potential...
pixl97 9mo ago
What reason do you?
- WithinReason 9mo ago
  to propagate my genes
  - pixl97 9mo ago
    So you're saying that we just have to give the AI a command like "Make as many paperclips as possible" and that's all we need, right?
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
  - immibis 9mo ago
    AI will be better at propagating copies of itself than you at yourself. In that sense, it will be more efficient and you will be obsolete. When thinking about evolution we should be careful not to confuse description with prescription. Evolution theory says that we have lots of copies of things that replicated in the past, and since they are copies, they themselves are likely to be replicators. But it does not say that things should replicate, or that things which don't replicate are defective. It is merely explaining observations of the world. If we create an AI that replicates more than humans, and do nothing to prevent that, we can end up in an AI-dominated world, or even one where multicellular carbon life is extinct, but that's absolutely not inevitable, just one possibility. We don't have to create a paperclip-maximized world. We totally have the possibility to declare the goal is human happiness or something, not maximum number of replicators.
  - lymbo 9mo ago
    I got a vasectomy a number of years ago in my mid 20s with 0 kids. I exist to experience things like love, hydrofoil surfing, skiing, and the journey to try to do more of these things. There are many people or trained models that could say I have a wasted existence of sorts, but the universe’s ending will always be the same no matter how many times the power dynamics on earth and beyond shift.
    - 9mo ago

Well our purpose is to turn low entropy into high entropy, that's what drove the existence of life. If machines can do it faster then they'll win out eventually.

tekne 9mo ago
It's interesting: on balance life increases entropy. Yet it also produces pockets of ultra-low entropy; states which would be staggeringly, astronomically unlikely to be witnessed in nature. So perhaps what life does is increase entropy-entropy -- the diversity of entropy, versus a consistent entropic smear -- even as it increases entropy...
- eru 9mo ago
  > So perhaps what life does is increase entropy-entropy -- the diversity of entropy, versus a consistent entropic smear -- even as it increases entropy... Life is a rounding error in the energy and entropy balance of the solar system. And even on earth we barely amount to much.
  - tekne 9mo ago
    Nice username -- very fitting. Yes, and yet if we instead look for low-entropy peaks, I'd be shocked if anything in the solar system is even nearly as low-entropy as a single bacterium, let alone a brain. Then there's potential...

pixl97 9mo ago

What reason do you?

WithinReason 9mo ago
to propagate my genes
- pixl97 9mo ago
  So you're saying that we just have to give the AI a command like "Make as many paperclips as possible" and that's all we need, right?
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
- immibis 9mo ago
  AI will be better at propagating copies of itself than you at yourself. In that sense, it will be more efficient and you will be obsolete. When thinking about evolution we should be careful not to confuse description with prescription. Evolution theory says that we have lots of copies of things that replicated in the past, and since they are copies, they themselves are likely to be replicators. But it does not say that things should replicate, or that things which don't replicate are defective. It is merely explaining observations of the world. If we create an AI that replicates more than humans, and do nothing to prevent that, we can end up in an AI-dominated world, or even one where multicellular carbon life is extinct, but that's absolutely not inevitable, just one possibility. We don't have to create a paperclip-maximized world. We totally have the possibility to declare the goal is human happiness or something, not maximum number of replicators.
- lymbo 9mo ago
  I got a vasectomy a number of years ago in my mid 20s with 0 kids. I exist to experience things like love, hydrofoil surfing, skiing, and the journey to try to do more of these things. There are many people or trained models that could say I have a wasted existence of sorts, but the universe’s ending will always be the same no matter how many times the power dynamics on earth and beyond shift.
  - 9mo ago