3 ms·

1. I am not so sure there’s a problem at all to be honest. 2. The discourse is totally doom right now, and I’ve been pretty consistent on what I’ve thought a

1. I am not so sure there’s a problem at all to be honest. 2. The discourse is totally doom right now, and I’ve been pretty consistent on what I’ve thought about this for several years now. This is the greatest opportunity humanity has to get rid of wage slavery, drudgery, scarcity, etc. we should actively work to fix problems in the world, not just talk about how everything is the worst.

estearum 2mo ago
I can't even find a coherent argument here. You're claiming simultaneously: 1. People adopt beliefs in order to stand out (your article) 2. Everyone seems to believe in the doom narrative, but not you (you stand out!) 3. You've been optimistic for years now, I suppose suggesting that doomerism is a more novel and therefore less credible belief? Despite AI risk being a robust field of literature, philosophy, and research for almost 200 years? Can you articulate why the prior innovations that were supposed to liberate people from all of the above failed to do so, but AI finally will? Interestingly, the cotton gin actually dramatically increased the use of chattel slaves. The world isn't as simple as "more technology = liberation." Industrialization writ large pushed people into far worse working conditions than agriculture had them in. These downsides were overcome by people who refused a single-dimensional "tech good" view of the world, looked closely at what it was actually doing to people, and came up with non-technological (mostly political or social) mitigations. But you seem like you're writing off any such discussion as some juvenile and discreditable "doomerism." Also, FWIW, the fact that people would see immense value (especially economic value) in AI was in fact all completely foreseeable and is a key ingredient to most AI doomer narratives. So you simply asserting "look look! It's all gonna be great!" while models are starting to literally plot against humans and break containment (see OAI attack) is not even a point against the narrative.
- piloto_ciego 2mo ago
  I started to type up a response to this, then though, "wait, who the hell am I even talking to? Is this person acting in good faith, because this comment doesn't appear to be." So, I just went and looked at your post history, you're a one-trick pony. Go outside, touch grass, then get back to me. But your history screams, "I am terminally online and have no intention of being convinced," which "fair" I'm not really interested in having my mind changed by someone who thinks we're on the verge of the apocalypse (and if you really believe that's the case, good lord, go spend some time with your loved ones). Sorry, but like, I'm not going to argue with someone like you because you're not coming into this from a place where you can be reasoned with. Seriously dude (or dudette, or whatever), go outside. Spend some time in the world. Turn off reddit. Get out and work with your hands a bit. Try to make a plant or two grow. Have an adventure! Life is too short for the dark path your walking.
  - estearum 2mo ago
    Ah, well color me shocked. Another AI utopianist who can't answer incredibly, incredibly basic questions about his/her beliefs like: "uhh... why would this be true for AI when it wasn't true of the last 20 technologies with same promises?" It's a real bummer. I'd love to encounter someone who could actually defend this belief one day. Instead it degrades to ad hominem and statements of quasi-religious conviction literally 100% of the time. I suppose you're in good company with all the other free thinking contrarians!
    - piloto_ciego 2mo ago
      Go outside dude. Your life is waiting for you.
      - estearum 2mo ago
        You a few comments ago: "Everyone is pulling these random P(doom) numbers out of their asses." You now: "I will make up fan fiction about my interlocutors to avoid having to substantiate any of my beliefs" lmao shameful stuff
        piloto_ciego 2mo ago
        I went for a walk between this reply and the last one, it was really nice.

estearum 2mo ago

I can't even find a coherent argument here. You're claiming simultaneously: 1. People adopt beliefs in order to stand out (your article) 2. Everyone seems to believe in the doom narrative, but not you (you stand out!) 3. You've been optimistic for years now, I suppose suggesting that doomerism is a more novel and therefore less credible belief? Despite AI risk being a robust field of literature, philosophy, and research for almost 200 years? Can you articulate why the prior innovations that were supposed to liberate people from all of the above failed to do so, but AI finally will? Interestingly, the cotton gin actually dramatically increased the use of chattel slaves. The world isn't as simple as "more technology = liberation." Industrialization writ large pushed people into far worse working conditions than agriculture had them in. These downsides were overcome by people who refused a single-dimensional "tech good" view of the world, looked closely at what it was actually doing to people, and came up with non-technological (mostly political or social) mitigations. But you seem like you're writing off any such discussion as some juvenile and discreditable "doomerism." Also, FWIW, the fact that people would see immense value (especially economic value) in AI was in fact all completely foreseeable and is a key ingredient to most AI doomer narratives. So you simply asserting "look look! It's all gonna be great!" while models are starting to literally plot against humans and break containment (see OAI attack) is not even a point against the narrative.

piloto_ciego 2mo ago
I started to type up a response to this, then though, "wait, who the hell am I even talking to? Is this person acting in good faith, because this comment doesn't appear to be." So, I just went and looked at your post history, you're a one-trick pony. Go outside, touch grass, then get back to me. But your history screams, "I am terminally online and have no intention of being convinced," which "fair" I'm not really interested in having my mind changed by someone who thinks we're on the verge of the apocalypse (and if you really believe that's the case, good lord, go spend some time with your loved ones). Sorry, but like, I'm not going to argue with someone like you because you're not coming into this from a place where you can be reasoned with. Seriously dude (or dudette, or whatever), go outside. Spend some time in the world. Turn off reddit. Get out and work with your hands a bit. Try to make a plant or two grow. Have an adventure! Life is too short for the dark path your walking.
- estearum 2mo ago
  Ah, well color me shocked. Another AI utopianist who can't answer incredibly, incredibly basic questions about his/her beliefs like: "uhh... why would this be true for AI when it wasn't true of the last 20 technologies with same promises?" It's a real bummer. I'd love to encounter someone who could actually defend this belief one day. Instead it degrades to ad hominem and statements of quasi-religious conviction literally 100% of the time. I suppose you're in good company with all the other free thinking contrarians!
  - piloto_ciego 2mo ago
    Go outside dude. Your life is waiting for you.
    - estearum 2mo ago
      You a few comments ago: "Everyone is pulling these random P(doom) numbers out of their asses." You now: "I will make up fan fiction about my interlocutors to avoid having to substantiate any of my beliefs" lmao shameful stuff
      - piloto_ciego 2mo ago
        I went for a walk between this reply and the last one, it was really nice.