10 ms·

I think death, and most extreme pain/suffering should be optional. Superintelligence, if done safely, lets us solve most of our problems.

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
tomashubelbauer 3mo ago
What is your position on middle of the road pain and suffering?
- Rapzid 3mo ago
  There's an app for that.
ethbr1 3mo ago
If humans could politically-economically deploy superintelligence safely, then we'd already have less extreme pain/suffering. Unless there are countervailing forces, it will be deployed, capital will hoard the benefits, and everyone else will be told to fuck off. I don't have faith in any of the AI labs to make hard financial decisions to deploy hypothetical future AGI in a way that's good for humanity as a whole. There are too many incentives against, including extreme personal financial incentives for key AI lab stakeholders against. And if we should take anything from tech history, it's that an exceedingly small number of people look fuck-you money in the face and say "Naw, I'd rather do what I believe in."
- solenoid0937 3mo ago
  Capital hoards benefits because resource scarcity and cost of production are a thing Post scarcity societies would likely have entirely different dynamics
  - a2ff6eeb0 3mo ago
    We're already physically running out of materials to cheaply build infrastructure. I'm not sure how solving the economy needing humans translates to humans having more things -- short of "turning off" the consumers to conserve resources, and taking the things that they may have otherwise consumed.
  - ethbr1 3mo ago
    Transitioning to a post scarcity society requires broad, accessible dissemination of post scarcity production methods. What was the first thing we did when we digitized media and therefore made it copyable at negligible per unit cost? Spent a huge amount of time and money to artificially reimplement scarcity via DRM. Scarcity-based capital interests (read: most) are not going to willingly give up their profit engines.
coldtrait 3mo ago
No it won't.
sumeno 3mo ago
The vast majority of pain and suffering in the world is already entirely optional, but as people we allow it to exist. How is another computer going to fix that? It is far more likely that whoever controls a super intelligence uses it to gain more power and inflict far more suffering
- refesgesg 3mo ago
  what an asinine opinion. who allows death?
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  - versteegen 3mo ago
    You misread. "Pain and suffering" not "death". Of all the pain and suffering in the world, a vast amount of it really is our own fault. Famines and wars shouldn't happen. And if you see a country border with poverty and one side and prosperity on the other you can't say that was the only possibility.
sheeshkebab 3mo ago
What? psychologists are for that (or drugs and alcohol).
- solenoid0937 3mo ago
  Neat. I didn't know psychologists could cure terminal cancer!
  - sheeshkebab 3mo ago
    The idea that agi would help us cure all the human deceases, esp house built into our generics or developed over millions of years gotta be the top indicator of our own stupidity.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
redsocksfan45 3mo ago
[dead]
a2ff6eeb0 3mo ago
I agree, we're doing a wonderful job of safely letting the leaders of various countries and companies, at their option, cause death, extreme pain, and suffering. Look at the innovation of AI companies in the police and military sectors. I'm extremely bullish on our future ability to make autonomous death an option for anyone.
gniv 3mo ago
> Superintelligence, if done safely, lets us solve most of our problems. This is an interesting problem to explore. IMO most problems in the world are political. It's still likely that SI will solve them but it will take (many) years.
- gregw2 2mo ago
  If certain political problems to be solved are zero-sum, and others are win-win, I'm not sure how adding more intelligence will solve the problem of the zero-sum ones that are the source of conflict and resource constraints. The premise (hypothesis?) that all political problems are resource problems is also a curious one.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

tomashubelbauer 3mo ago

What is your position on middle of the road pain and suffering?

Rapzid 3mo ago
There's an app for that.

ethbr1 3mo ago

If humans could politically-economically deploy superintelligence safely, then we'd already have less extreme pain/suffering. Unless there are countervailing forces, it will be deployed, capital will hoard the benefits, and everyone else will be told to fuck off. I don't have faith in any of the AI labs to make hard financial decisions to deploy hypothetical future AGI in a way that's good for humanity as a whole. There are too many incentives against, including extreme personal financial incentives for key AI lab stakeholders against. And if we should take anything from tech history, it's that an exceedingly small number of people look fuck-you money in the face and say "Naw, I'd rather do what I believe in."

solenoid0937 3mo ago
Capital hoards benefits because resource scarcity and cost of production are a thing Post scarcity societies would likely have entirely different dynamics
- a2ff6eeb0 3mo ago
  We're already physically running out of materials to cheaply build infrastructure. I'm not sure how solving the economy needing humans translates to humans having more things -- short of "turning off" the consumers to conserve resources, and taking the things that they may have otherwise consumed.
- ethbr1 3mo ago
  Transitioning to a post scarcity society requires broad, accessible dissemination of post scarcity production methods. What was the first thing we did when we digitized media and therefore made it copyable at negligible per unit cost? Spent a huge amount of time and money to artificially reimplement scarcity via DRM. Scarcity-based capital interests (read: most) are not going to willingly give up their profit engines.

coldtrait 3mo ago

No it won't.

sumeno 3mo ago

The vast majority of pain and suffering in the world is already entirely optional, but as people we allow it to exist. How is another computer going to fix that? It is far more likely that whoever controls a super intelligence uses it to gain more power and inflict far more suffering

refesgesg 3mo ago
what an asinine opinion. who allows death?
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- versteegen 3mo ago
  You misread. "Pain and suffering" not "death". Of all the pain and suffering in the world, a vast amount of it really is our own fault. Famines and wars shouldn't happen. And if you see a country border with poverty and one side and prosperity on the other you can't say that was the only possibility.

sheeshkebab 3mo ago

What? psychologists are for that (or drugs and alcohol).

solenoid0937 3mo ago
Neat. I didn't know psychologists could cure terminal cancer!
- sheeshkebab 3mo ago
  The idea that agi would help us cure all the human deceases, esp house built into our generics or developed over millions of years gotta be the top indicator of our own stupidity.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]

redsocksfan45 3mo ago

[dead]

a2ff6eeb0 3mo ago

I agree, we're doing a wonderful job of safely letting the leaders of various countries and companies, at their option, cause death, extreme pain, and suffering. Look at the innovation of AI companies in the police and military sectors. I'm extremely bullish on our future ability to make autonomous death an option for anyone.

gniv 3mo ago

> Superintelligence, if done safely, lets us solve most of our problems. This is an interesting problem to explore. IMO most problems in the world are political. It's still likely that SI will solve them but it will take (many) years.

gregw2 2mo ago
If certain political problems to be solved are zero-sum, and others are win-win, I'm not sure how adding more intelligence will solve the problem of the zero-sum ones that are the source of conflict and resource constraints. The premise (hypothesis?) that all political problems are resource problems is also a curious one.