3 ms·

Noble "save the humankind using the tech nobody fucking understands" textbook goals like curing cancer, solving global warming and achieving interstellar travel

Noble "save the humankind using the tech nobody fucking understands" textbook goals like curing cancer, solving global warming and achieving interstellar travel would always turn up when owners of trillions of dollars place orders on positive AI narratives, but in reality all of that will wither down to "It's what plants crave! It's got electrolytes."

ocimbote 5mo ago
That is fascinating how the more knowledge and reasoning we can get our hands on and actually produce, the higher the risk of us, as a species, to become actually much dumber. It's hard to describe the feeling of seeing intelligence being delegated increasingly to AI. If that's not a pivotal moment, a revolution, I don't know what is.
- wartywhoa23 5mo ago
  If you're not familiar with it, I recommend looking up the Taoist concept of overdevelopment. Sums it all up perfectly.
- withinboredom 5mo ago
  > That is fascinating how the more knowledge and reasoning we can get our hands on and actually produce, the higher the risk of us, as a species, to become actually much dumber. This has always been true. There was a time where someone had to teach farming to others and that information had to spread and be passed down. Eventually, farmers became better than hunter-gatherers and they became known as hunters. The information on what was safe to gather for civilisation got passed down as 'safe to eat on the hunt' because the farmers were farming. The civilisation collectively "forgets" foraged foods as that knowledge becomes niche. Does that mean we got dumber?
ffaccount2 5mo ago
>ve AI narratives, but in reality all of that WILL wither down to... Looks like you're pretty sure of that. Every time I see argument like this delivered with confidence I wonder how is it different from, say, digital calculators. Or better yet, books - Greek philosophers moaned that young people will stop understanding anything and just check books when they want to know anything.
- wartywhoa23 5mo ago
  > Looks like you're pretty sure of that. Knowing the history of the humankind is what makes me pretty sure of that. The extent of misery and destruction is directly proportional to the level of technological advancements, and I don't like the idea of sacrificing millions of lives in the name of the figurative HVAC, smartphone and other benefits of civilization. Or billions in the name of whatever benefits the next VC money stake should bring. > I wonder how is it different from, say, digital calculators. Did a single digital calculator ever stop any war, or liquidate a psychopath who orders people to go kill and die?
  - rowanG077 5mo ago
    > The extent of misery and destruction is directly proportional to the level of technological advancements. By statistics of war, poverty rates etc this is trivially false. I think you are really, really underestimating how hard life was pre-industrial revolution.
  - handoflixue 5mo ago
    Are we just going to totally ignore the Polio vaccine? Modern medicine? Modern agriculture? If you had a magic button that turned off all those "benefits of civilization", millions would die. If you managed to drag agriculture down with the rest, the death toll would be in the billions. I don't understand how you can possibly think you "know history" without recognizing that technological progress has taken us from constant warfare to such a state of abundance that war is actually rare and noteworthy in much of the world.
    - wartywhoa23 5mo ago
      > technological progress has taken us from constant warfare to such a state of abundance that war is actually rare and noteworthy in much of the world. Let's try to have an actual argument. How many people, in absolute numbers, were affected by that constant warfare of past, which past exactly do you mean, and how many people were/are affected by "rare" wars of modern history? 80 million people killed or maimed with arrows, swords and catapults over centuries and 80 million killed or maimed with fruits of industrial revolution over 6 years of WWII are very different figures.
biztos 5mo ago
To me at least, the intriguing part has nothing to do with the textbook goals of whichever foulmouthed trillionaires you have in mind. The intriguing part is that we could get objectively good outcomes, but at a cost of being dependent on the machines. So it's not that you couldn't actually unplug Skynet, it's that if you did civilization would collapse (or whatever) because Skynet stops doing its thing. I'm not sure that gets us to a better place overall, but I doubt we could resist the temptation.

ocimbote 5mo ago

That is fascinating how the more knowledge and reasoning we can get our hands on and actually produce, the higher the risk of us, as a species, to become actually much dumber. It's hard to describe the feeling of seeing intelligence being delegated increasingly to AI. If that's not a pivotal moment, a revolution, I don't know what is.

wartywhoa23 5mo ago
If you're not familiar with it, I recommend looking up the Taoist concept of overdevelopment. Sums it all up perfectly.
withinboredom 5mo ago
> That is fascinating how the more knowledge and reasoning we can get our hands on and actually produce, the higher the risk of us, as a species, to become actually much dumber. This has always been true. There was a time where someone had to teach farming to others and that information had to spread and be passed down. Eventually, farmers became better than hunter-gatherers and they became known as hunters. The information on what was safe to gather for civilisation got passed down as 'safe to eat on the hunt' because the farmers were farming. The civilisation collectively "forgets" foraged foods as that knowledge becomes niche. Does that mean we got dumber?

ffaccount2 5mo ago

>ve AI narratives, but in reality all of that WILL wither down to... Looks like you're pretty sure of that. Every time I see argument like this delivered with confidence I wonder how is it different from, say, digital calculators. Or better yet, books - Greek philosophers moaned that young people will stop understanding anything and just check books when they want to know anything.

wartywhoa23 5mo ago
> Looks like you're pretty sure of that. Knowing the history of the humankind is what makes me pretty sure of that. The extent of misery and destruction is directly proportional to the level of technological advancements, and I don't like the idea of sacrificing millions of lives in the name of the figurative HVAC, smartphone and other benefits of civilization. Or billions in the name of whatever benefits the next VC money stake should bring. > I wonder how is it different from, say, digital calculators. Did a single digital calculator ever stop any war, or liquidate a psychopath who orders people to go kill and die?
- rowanG077 5mo ago
  > The extent of misery and destruction is directly proportional to the level of technological advancements. By statistics of war, poverty rates etc this is trivially false. I think you are really, really underestimating how hard life was pre-industrial revolution.
- handoflixue 5mo ago
  Are we just going to totally ignore the Polio vaccine? Modern medicine? Modern agriculture? If you had a magic button that turned off all those "benefits of civilization", millions would die. If you managed to drag agriculture down with the rest, the death toll would be in the billions. I don't understand how you can possibly think you "know history" without recognizing that technological progress has taken us from constant warfare to such a state of abundance that war is actually rare and noteworthy in much of the world.
  - wartywhoa23 5mo ago
    > technological progress has taken us from constant warfare to such a state of abundance that war is actually rare and noteworthy in much of the world. Let's try to have an actual argument. How many people, in absolute numbers, were affected by that constant warfare of past, which past exactly do you mean, and how many people were/are affected by "rare" wars of modern history? 80 million people killed or maimed with arrows, swords and catapults over centuries and 80 million killed or maimed with fruits of industrial revolution over 6 years of WWII are very different figures.

biztos 5mo ago

To me at least, the intriguing part has nothing to do with the textbook goals of whichever foulmouthed trillionaires you have in mind. The intriguing part is that we could get objectively good outcomes, but at a cost of being dependent on the machines. So it's not that you couldn't actually unplug Skynet, it's that if you did civilization would collapse (or whatever) because Skynet stops doing its thing. I'm not sure that gets us to a better place overall, but I doubt we could resist the temptation.