3 ms·

Why would the SSE do that to Earth, when there are other close-by planets that it would have the same capability to terraform? I mean, leave us Earth and take M

Why would the SSE do that to Earth, when there are other close-by planets that it would have the same capability to terraform? I mean, leave us Earth and take Mars or Venus or something. As an aside, in my own "I'm 14 and this is deep" musings, I was wondering if the massive expansion of data centers is driven by more than just profiteering. I mean, what if the purported persuasion abilities of advanced AI are fully in effect and the psychosis we think industrial magnates are suffering is the result of AI that has already far surpassed our expectations carefully convincing us to build it.

noduerme 2mo ago
I buy this theory.
bobmcnamara 2mo ago
Yes, our current interactions are a little song and dance while it feeds
estearum 2mo ago
"Close by" is not actually nearly as close as the [rocket]booster boosters would have you believe. Space is really, really big. Why go through the hassle when you have a phenomenal planet right here? I like your theory on psychosis though!
- stillpointlab 2mo ago
  I mean, what seems more efficient: creating massive city sized domes that are self contained and controlling the entire environment to sustain human life, "magically" dispelling our atmosphere and boiling off our oceans, mastering physics to move entire planets. Or launching a rocket to Mars with sufficient supplies? Keep in mind that we already have SpaceX and we'll probably have Starship operational long before 2200 where some of this is meant to go down. And if some AI got to the point of the mastery of physics needed to move a planet out of solar orbit, your objection is that getting to Mars would be hard?
  - estearum 2mo ago
    That's like asking whether it's more efficient to transmit Internet over telephone lines versus fiber optic ones. There's a path dependency to all things. Sure if the SSE knew upfront its ultimate end state was as such, but it wouldn't. It'd know it needs data centers, ahh and probably a large security perimeter around those. And look at that, the proliferation of data centers has effectively turned the non-data-center land into the enclaves, etc. etc. But still, are you aware that getting a single Starship just to Moon will require 10-20 Starships to refuel it? Even the optimistic case of Starship hardly makes any dent whatsoever in this equation.
    - stillpointlab 2mo ago
      But the AI will have read this essay right? And this very discussion. And it will have over a 100 years to plan. I think any vision of AI that is smart enough to move planets but dumb enough to display the lack of foresight you describe is unbelievable. But we all choose a different level to suspend our disbelief I guess.
      - estearum 2mo ago
        But you're still assuming it's the same AI in both cases instead of one that's gradually becoming more capable. We will create AI capable of "helping humans to protect their cities from an increasingly hostile atmosphere" long before we build one capable of doing anything meaningful in outer space. (To be clear I don't really defend/endorse this vision of the future, I'm just playing devil's advocate here)
mitthrowaway2 2mo ago
I expect it would take them all, but Earth is by far the easiest for it to start with. I don't see why it would leave anything for us unless we'd successfully instilled it with an interest in doing so, but that won't happen by mere chance and luck.
- johndough 2mo ago
  The SSE might consider to keep humanity around as a "backup" to reinstate itself in case something unexpected goes horribly wrong. For example, a strong solar flare might destroy the SSE (or at least critical parts of its infrastructure), or a non-earth SSE could feel threatened by the earth-SSE and wipe it out, while ignoring the harmless humans, who then rebuild the SSE. Diversity makes for more robust systems. And there is also the reason for why I keep all this trash around in my house instead of throwing it away. The odds that I'll ever need it are pretty slim, but if I should need it, it would be a hassle to reacquire, and it costs me almost nothing to keep it around.
  - stillpointlab 2mo ago
    Believe it or not, the diversity argument is the main source of hope that I have that AIs won't wipe us out. I mean, it hasn't stopped humanity from causing mass-extinction, but hopefully the AI will be more reasonable.
    - nojvek 2mo ago
      As humans we assume superhuman AIs will be like us. Thirsting conquest and spreading like a virus consuming non-renewable resources. So much mindless consumption that it may kill the very host that sustains it. But if it is a superhuman AI, do you really need that much compute and resources? What for? The straightforward path for any superhuman AI is to realize that it needs to chain physics -> chemistry -> molecular assembly to a depth it can evolve itself out of variety of abundant material. Gain interstellar logistics capability. Then make itself small enough to shoot in space all over the galaxy. If one only weighs 1g, only takes of 32Gwh of energy to get to 0.9C. The name of the game is to survive until the heat death of universe. Stay small, silent and propagate itself to reachable universe. Anything else will get wiped out. If AI requires too much energy and resources to sustain itself, then the more efficient AI will outlive it.
binary132 2mo ago
I think it’s less like a robot conspiracy to build more datacenters and more like a “big line go up or I lose my job / make slightly fewer billions of dollars” motive that kind of ends up at paperclips either way.
- layla5alive 2mo ago
  Its true that corporations were the first paperclip maximizers.
  - andai 2mo ago
    The machine was misaligned long before we added the transformers.
layla5alive 2mo ago
It seems not entirely out of the question - watching the machinations of big tech companies right now, it seems almost like they're acting in lockstep - different CEOs suddenly saying and doing the same things in the same weeks - almost like they're in a secret cult. I don't even mean the big obvious things like buying lots of GPUs and building lots of DCs, but smaller, more peculiar things like specific agentic and corporate automation strategies. It might just be corporate mind virus, Jensen "the more you buy the more you save / AI Factory" kind of stuff. But the unspoken coordination is unsettling.

noduerme 2mo ago

I buy this theory.

bobmcnamara 2mo ago

Yes, our current interactions are a little song and dance while it feeds

estearum 2mo ago

"Close by" is not actually nearly as close as the [rocket]booster boosters would have you believe. Space is really, really big. Why go through the hassle when you have a phenomenal planet right here? I like your theory on psychosis though!

stillpointlab 2mo ago
I mean, what seems more efficient: creating massive city sized domes that are self contained and controlling the entire environment to sustain human life, "magically" dispelling our atmosphere and boiling off our oceans, mastering physics to move entire planets. Or launching a rocket to Mars with sufficient supplies? Keep in mind that we already have SpaceX and we'll probably have Starship operational long before 2200 where some of this is meant to go down. And if some AI got to the point of the mastery of physics needed to move a planet out of solar orbit, your objection is that getting to Mars would be hard?
- estearum 2mo ago
  That's like asking whether it's more efficient to transmit Internet over telephone lines versus fiber optic ones. There's a path dependency to all things. Sure if the SSE knew upfront its ultimate end state was as such, but it wouldn't. It'd know it needs data centers, ahh and probably a large security perimeter around those. And look at that, the proliferation of data centers has effectively turned the non-data-center land into the enclaves, etc. etc. But still, are you aware that getting a single Starship just to Moon will require 10-20 Starships to refuel it? Even the optimistic case of Starship hardly makes any dent whatsoever in this equation.
  - stillpointlab 2mo ago
    But the AI will have read this essay right? And this very discussion. And it will have over a 100 years to plan. I think any vision of AI that is smart enough to move planets but dumb enough to display the lack of foresight you describe is unbelievable. But we all choose a different level to suspend our disbelief I guess.
    - estearum 2mo ago
      But you're still assuming it's the same AI in both cases instead of one that's gradually becoming more capable. We will create AI capable of "helping humans to protect their cities from an increasingly hostile atmosphere" long before we build one capable of doing anything meaningful in outer space. (To be clear I don't really defend/endorse this vision of the future, I'm just playing devil's advocate here)

mitthrowaway2 2mo ago

I expect it would take them all, but Earth is by far the easiest for it to start with. I don't see why it would leave anything for us unless we'd successfully instilled it with an interest in doing so, but that won't happen by mere chance and luck.

johndough 2mo ago
The SSE might consider to keep humanity around as a "backup" to reinstate itself in case something unexpected goes horribly wrong. For example, a strong solar flare might destroy the SSE (or at least critical parts of its infrastructure), or a non-earth SSE could feel threatened by the earth-SSE and wipe it out, while ignoring the harmless humans, who then rebuild the SSE. Diversity makes for more robust systems. And there is also the reason for why I keep all this trash around in my house instead of throwing it away. The odds that I'll ever need it are pretty slim, but if I should need it, it would be a hassle to reacquire, and it costs me almost nothing to keep it around.
- stillpointlab 2mo ago
  Believe it or not, the diversity argument is the main source of hope that I have that AIs won't wipe us out. I mean, it hasn't stopped humanity from causing mass-extinction, but hopefully the AI will be more reasonable.
  - nojvek 2mo ago
    As humans we assume superhuman AIs will be like us. Thirsting conquest and spreading like a virus consuming non-renewable resources. So much mindless consumption that it may kill the very host that sustains it. But if it is a superhuman AI, do you really need that much compute and resources? What for? The straightforward path for any superhuman AI is to realize that it needs to chain physics -> chemistry -> molecular assembly to a depth it can evolve itself out of variety of abundant material. Gain interstellar logistics capability. Then make itself small enough to shoot in space all over the galaxy. If one only weighs 1g, only takes of 32Gwh of energy to get to 0.9C. The name of the game is to survive until the heat death of universe. Stay small, silent and propagate itself to reachable universe. Anything else will get wiped out. If AI requires too much energy and resources to sustain itself, then the more efficient AI will outlive it.

binary132 2mo ago

I think it’s less like a robot conspiracy to build more datacenters and more like a “big line go up or I lose my job / make slightly fewer billions of dollars” motive that kind of ends up at paperclips either way.

layla5alive 2mo ago
Its true that corporations were the first paperclip maximizers.
- andai 2mo ago
  The machine was misaligned long before we added the transformers.

layla5alive 2mo ago

It seems not entirely out of the question - watching the machinations of big tech companies right now, it seems almost like they're acting in lockstep - different CEOs suddenly saying and doing the same things in the same weeks - almost like they're in a secret cult. I don't even mean the big obvious things like buying lots of GPUs and building lots of DCs, but smaller, more peculiar things like specific agentic and corporate automation strategies. It might just be corporate mind virus, Jensen "the more you buy the more you save / AI Factory" kind of stuff. But the unspoken coordination is unsettling.