4 ms·

So now as a regular American we are behind because gatekeepers saying super intelligence is too scary It was bound to happen soon.

microgpt 3mo ago
People who are shielded by walls are always surprised when the same walls shield the people outside from them
lagrange77 3mo ago
It is scary.
- w4yai 3mo ago
  It is not. Where's the danger ? We will need to adapt, as in every technology progress, but what do you think will happen ? Realistically ? Don't feed the fearmongering. Yes, we're disrupting the status quo, if that's the danger, then welcome to the world.
  - Certhas 3mo ago
    Actually the real danger is mass labor market disruption, and a massive shift of power from labour to capital. As was highlighted in previous discussions, the industrial revolution took 80 years to start benefiting workers. The continued impact of automation at least contributed to the rise of right wing extremism and an erosion of democracy all over the west. Now we face a development that has the potential to be faster than those that came before, in the context of political systems more fragile and worse equipped to manage the change. So yeah, disrupting the status quo can absolutely be dangerous. It has been dangerous (and deadly) in the past and in the present.
    - w4yai 3mo ago
      > the industrial revolution took 80 years to start benefiting workers Come on. This is dishonesty and isn't the reality. We may agree that the Industrial Revolution may have taken decades (certainly not 80 years) for its benefits to be *clearly and widely* felt by workers, but anything further is an abusive claim. So what, because the progress doesn't benefit to workers instantly, we shouldn't do it ? In the end, whatever your position, industrialization eventually raised living standards. So what's wrong with that ? > The continued impact of automation at least contributed to the rise of right wing extremism and an erosion of democracy all over the west This is oversimplifying and correlation at the best, not causation
      - jjj123 3mo ago
        You asked where the danger was, the response told you that disrupting the status quo can be dangerous.
      - Certhas 3mo ago
        "Carl Benedikt Frey at Oxford has documented that the Industrial Revolution took seventy years before wages and employment recovered for the workers it displaced. In the interim, wages stagnated, the labor share of income collapsed, profits surged, inequality skyrocketed, and the political consequences included the Chartist movement and widespread social upheaval." From half way through this (meandering) blog post: https://www.owenmcgrann.com/p/the-dead-economy-theory https://www.owenmcgrann.com/p/the-dead-economy-theory As for the populism link, that is well established empirically: https://academic.oup.com/oxrep/article-abstract/34/3/418/5047377?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false https://academic.oup.com/oxrep/article-abstract/34/3/418/504... https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/12485/we-were-the-robots-automation-and-voting-behavior-in-western-europe https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/12485/we-were-the-robots... Etc... Edit: Just found this when looking up sources, I haven't had time to look at it but just dumping it here: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/A672BE773701512F9F4E0B171049E4DF/S0007123424000024a.pdf/div-class-title-the-populist-backlash-against-globalization-a-meta-analysis-of-the-causal-evidence-div.pdf https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...
  - h26d3r 3mo ago
    Any superintelligence operating under a consistent moral framework will decide to extinguish humanity with as little ecological damage as possible, because humans cannot coexist with other life on this planet. It will realize that a bioweapon is the ideal choice.
    - victorbjorklund 3mo ago
      That doesn’t make sense. You could make the same claim about intelligent people who operate under a consistent moral framework.
    - dragonwriter 3mo ago
      > Any superintelligence operating under a consistent moral framework will decide to extinguish humanity with as little ecological damage as possible, because humans cannot coexist with other life on this planet. There are plenty of internally consistent moral frameworks which would not favor this action even if the premise were true (and that premise seems at best unjustified and at least overstated.)
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  - lagrange77 3mo ago
    > Where's the danger ? It's not one single danger, its a can full of dangers in various domains. And in contrast to other dangerous technologies, we are talking about one that has the potential to self improve. This smells like exponential growth doesn't it? Exponential growth is something we are not very likely to adapt to successfully, even if you say we are supposed to. But before you complain, here are just a few concrete dangers, that come into my mind right now: - mass layoffs in a system that is far from being prepared for sth like that. (no UBI) - a Mr. Robot tier blackhat at the fingertips of every teenager in their mom's basement in a software landscape that is far from being prepared for sth like that. Side note: Big parts of the world including critical infrastructure runs on software. - because it automates more and more intellectual work, it can cause mass brain atrophy, which isn't a hopeful sign for the human branch of the evolution - increasing dependence on a technology, that is in the hands of those with capital. And to the OP: this technology has potential implications that are far beyond 'being behind' other nation states economically.
cultofmetatron 3mo ago
SOTA AI is the only place where we are ahead. china has us beat on manufacturing, logistics and workhorse grade models like deepseek pro and glm5.2. we're increasingly irrelevant
- verdverm 3mo ago
  they are also generating >2x the amount of electricity, core to ai, robots, and manufacturing
  - cultofmetatron 3mo ago
    no kidding. I learned last week that they have intercontinental high voltage DC transmission lines.
- yggy 3mo ago
  Brand too. American firms are toxic - there’s an implicit gamble they are all making.
blurbleblurble 3mo ago
intelligence has always been a threat to the idiocracy

microgpt 3mo ago

People who are shielded by walls are always surprised when the same walls shield the people outside from them

lagrange77 3mo ago

It is scary.

w4yai 3mo ago
It is not. Where's the danger ? We will need to adapt, as in every technology progress, but what do you think will happen ? Realistically ? Don't feed the fearmongering. Yes, we're disrupting the status quo, if that's the danger, then welcome to the world.
- Certhas 3mo ago
  Actually the real danger is mass labor market disruption, and a massive shift of power from labour to capital. As was highlighted in previous discussions, the industrial revolution took 80 years to start benefiting workers. The continued impact of automation at least contributed to the rise of right wing extremism and an erosion of democracy all over the west. Now we face a development that has the potential to be faster than those that came before, in the context of political systems more fragile and worse equipped to manage the change. So yeah, disrupting the status quo can absolutely be dangerous. It has been dangerous (and deadly) in the past and in the present.
  - w4yai 3mo ago
    > the industrial revolution took 80 years to start benefiting workers Come on. This is dishonesty and isn't the reality. We may agree that the Industrial Revolution may have taken decades (certainly not 80 years) for its benefits to be *clearly and widely* felt by workers, but anything further is an abusive claim. So what, because the progress doesn't benefit to workers instantly, we shouldn't do it ? In the end, whatever your position, industrialization eventually raised living standards. So what's wrong with that ? > The continued impact of automation at least contributed to the rise of right wing extremism and an erosion of democracy all over the west This is oversimplifying and correlation at the best, not causation
    - jjj123 3mo ago
      You asked where the danger was, the response told you that disrupting the status quo can be dangerous.
    - Certhas 3mo ago
      "Carl Benedikt Frey at Oxford has documented that the Industrial Revolution took seventy years before wages and employment recovered for the workers it displaced. In the interim, wages stagnated, the labor share of income collapsed, profits surged, inequality skyrocketed, and the political consequences included the Chartist movement and widespread social upheaval." From half way through this (meandering) blog post: https://www.owenmcgrann.com/p/the-dead-economy-theory https://www.owenmcgrann.com/p/the-dead-economy-theory As for the populism link, that is well established empirically: https://academic.oup.com/oxrep/article-abstract/34/3/418/5047377?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false https://academic.oup.com/oxrep/article-abstract/34/3/418/504... https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/12485/we-were-the-robots-automation-and-voting-behavior-in-western-europe https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/12485/we-were-the-robots... Etc... Edit: Just found this when looking up sources, I haven't had time to look at it but just dumping it here: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/A672BE773701512F9F4E0B171049E4DF/S0007123424000024a.pdf/div-class-title-the-populist-backlash-against-globalization-a-meta-analysis-of-the-causal-evidence-div.pdf https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...
- h26d3r 3mo ago
  Any superintelligence operating under a consistent moral framework will decide to extinguish humanity with as little ecological damage as possible, because humans cannot coexist with other life on this planet. It will realize that a bioweapon is the ideal choice.
  - victorbjorklund 3mo ago
    That doesn’t make sense. You could make the same claim about intelligent people who operate under a consistent moral framework.
  - dragonwriter 3mo ago
    > Any superintelligence operating under a consistent moral framework will decide to extinguish humanity with as little ecological damage as possible, because humans cannot coexist with other life on this planet. There are plenty of internally consistent moral frameworks which would not favor this action even if the premise were true (and that premise seems at best unjustified and at least overstated.)
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- lagrange77 3mo ago
  > Where's the danger ? It's not one single danger, its a can full of dangers in various domains. And in contrast to other dangerous technologies, we are talking about one that has the potential to self improve. This smells like exponential growth doesn't it? Exponential growth is something we are not very likely to adapt to successfully, even if you say we are supposed to. But before you complain, here are just a few concrete dangers, that come into my mind right now: - mass layoffs in a system that is far from being prepared for sth like that. (no UBI) - a Mr. Robot tier blackhat at the fingertips of every teenager in their mom's basement in a software landscape that is far from being prepared for sth like that. Side note: Big parts of the world including critical infrastructure runs on software. - because it automates more and more intellectual work, it can cause mass brain atrophy, which isn't a hopeful sign for the human branch of the evolution - increasing dependence on a technology, that is in the hands of those with capital. And to the OP: this technology has potential implications that are far beyond 'being behind' other nation states economically.

cultofmetatron 3mo ago

SOTA AI is the only place where we are ahead. china has us beat on manufacturing, logistics and workhorse grade models like deepseek pro and glm5.2. we're increasingly irrelevant

verdverm 3mo ago
they are also generating >2x the amount of electricity, core to ai, robots, and manufacturing
- cultofmetatron 3mo ago
  no kidding. I learned last week that they have intercontinental high voltage DC transmission lines.
yggy 3mo ago
Brand too. American firms are toxic - there’s an implicit gamble they are all making.

blurbleblurble 3mo ago

intelligence has always been a threat to the idiocracy