6 ms·
One of the strong arguments in favor of AI accelerationism is net pain reduction by making the transition period as short as possible. Ideas like “pacing” or a
by mosura 3mo ago
One of the strong arguments in favor of AI accelerationism is net pain reduction by making the transition period as short as possible. Ideas like “pacing” or a crash and reboot will prolong the inevitable.
- contagiousflow 3mo agoWhat is inevitable?
- phoronixrly 3mo agoThat all persons doing intellectual work die of hunger as they cannot find a job. At least that's how I understand what the parent commenter is implying. They say that all people doing intellectual work better die quickly so they don't suffer a long 'transition period' to inevitably being dead of hunger.
- zero_shift 3mo agoWonderful. And these people call themselves utilitarians too. God / Buddha / Allah / Batman, save me from their kindness!
- N_Lens 3mo agoThe pacing and the prolonging, obviously!
- mosura 3mo agoArtificial intelligence. If humans are machines executing on some medium eventually it will be possible to emulate them on some other medium. Believing otherwise requires some essentially religious convictions on the existence of the soul or similar.
- contagiousflow 3mo agoSure, but that only stands if you believe the only purpose of human intelligence is for economic benefit.
- Marha01 3mo agoThat does not follow. The argument about the possibility of artificial intelligence makes absolutely no claims about the purpose of human or artificial intelligence. One is a claim about "is", another is a claim about "ought".
- jplusequalt 3mo ago>Believing otherwise requires some essentially religious convictions on the existence of the soul or similar. My doubt has nothing to do with religion. I believe we'll never be able to harness the amount of technology required to replicate human intelligence.
- zero_shift 3mo agoWe already have human intelligence. Creating new humans is easy (and fun) The only reason to emulate human intelligence is to capture it, exploit it, and reduce the negotiating power of those who have it naturally. Anyone who wants this is not a friend of human beings
- Marha01 3mo ago> Creating new humans is easy (and fun) This could not be further from the truth. Creating a new educated, competent human takes ~25 years, and significant costs and resources. AGI can be just copy-pasted at essentially no cost. Even a robot that is mass-produced for tens of thousands of dollars is still much less expensive and takes much less time to make than a competent human.
- la64710 3mo agoBut it is more than just fun , it gives purpose to our existence … pardon me but it is idiotic to look at bringing up a child so objectively.
- Marha01 3mo agoYes, but I think we should separate human economic value from the true purpose of our existence. If AI can replace us in economically valuable tasks, we will have no choice but to do so. The economic value part should be looked at objectively.
- SpicyLemonZest 3mo agoTechnological changes to economic conditions in general are not possible to opt out of forever. I'm not an AI accelerationist myself, because I think there are severe risks beyond the merely economic, but the auto industry is a good example of where many countries are engaging in what one might call "EV accelerationism". In principle you don't have to, it's possible to let them roll out only to the extent that the market naturally demands, but if you know internal combustion engines will become a niche hobbyist thing by 2050 there's a lot of value in making that transition faster and intentional.
- zero_shift 3mo agoThat is an absurd position to take. Nobody benefits by having less time to adapt to changes in their employability I am not calling you out personally here, but this comment bears many hallmarks of the "accelerationist disease": thinking in abstract models rather than in concrete terms; optimising for the fangs of capital rather than human beings, imaginary infinite bets that lead participants to nonsensical conclusions
- Marha01 3mo ago> Nobody benefits by having less time to adapt Not exactly true. If AI goes from 0 to 100 quickly (human level AGI in a few years), we will all lose our jobs together and will have to confront this fact. There is no ignoring such massive societal elephant in the room. If instead AI improves slowly, lots of people will lose their jobs, but majority will not. Those still with jobs may not be persuaded by the sizable jobless minority to support any societal changes, since they are still OK. This means the jobless will be screwed.
- zero_shift 3mo agoFirstly, this generation of AI is not going to take away all jobs Secondly, we already know what happens when sectors face mass unemployment from the 1980s, when steel and coal workers were laid off en-masse: nobody came to help Accelerationists want to see their jobs go up in smoke because they think that if enough white collar workers are impoverished, everyone who was formerly poorer than them, will chip in to rescue us Just like they didn't in 1985... In a context where the state already has less tax revenue due to mass unemployment! It's completely bananas thinking that only survives on internet brainrot forums
- Marha01 3mo ago> Firstly, AI is not going to take away all jobs Human-level AGI is by definition able to take away all human jobs. > Secondly, we already know what happens when sectors face mass unemployment from the 1980s, when steel and coal workers were laid off en-masse: nobody came to help There is a massive difference between 20-30% of people in a country being unemployed (historical sector-wide collapses), and 80-100% of people in a country being unemployed (human-level AGI unemployment). The second situation is completely historically unprecedented and will *not* lead to the same results. > In a context where the state already has less tax revenue due to mass unemployment! If human-level AGI is an actual reality, taxation (and money itself) is no longer relevant. Only energy and resources may still matter.