3 ms·

Say I am willing to accept pill number 3, which essentially means giving up the world we know and live in. First of all, this means a RACE OF ARMS of AI models

Say I am willing to accept pill number 3, which essentially means giving up the world we know and live in. First of all, this means a RACE OF ARMS of AI models fighting each other and in the end the party with more AI resources will win, while consuming a shit ton of resources. Second of all, the more I believe AI will be able to do anything, the more I should focus on things that require a human (your words, not mine). Therefore, the only correct stance I see is not believe in AI and therefore not use it, or fully believe in AI and therefore become an expert in something it cannot do, i.e. not using it either. Edit: great read, amazingly written

api 17d ago
A core assumption everyone makes that I question is that a race, fight, or competition is a preordained outcome. This is a cornerstone of the doomer thesis and its variations. Evolution has no preference. There are cooperators, both direct and indirect, and predators both direct and indirect. Indirect cooperators are things like bacteria in soil that recycle plant and animal waste, while indirect predation is when something just pushes something else out or otherwise harms it without direct confrontation. So if we go by evolution, we could say it’s a toss up. Evolution is blind though. It has no ability to plan or exercise foresight. Intelligence can and does plan. Superintelligence, we have to assume, will plan better and further into the future and consider more options. All this is to say: what if it looks for win-win options or at least win-neutral ones? I’m simply arguing that the default assumption of hostility says more about us than a potential alien intelligence. I’m not aware or any reason it couldn’t be hostile or dangerous, but it’s not preordained and I’d argue it’s less likely here than with blind evolution.

api 17d ago

A core assumption everyone makes that I question is that a race, fight, or competition is a preordained outcome. This is a cornerstone of the doomer thesis and its variations. Evolution has no preference. There are cooperators, both direct and indirect, and predators both direct and indirect. Indirect cooperators are things like bacteria in soil that recycle plant and animal waste, while indirect predation is when something just pushes something else out or otherwise harms it without direct confrontation. So if we go by evolution, we could say it’s a toss up. Evolution is blind though. It has no ability to plan or exercise foresight. Intelligence can and does plan. Superintelligence, we have to assume, will plan better and further into the future and consider more options. All this is to say: what if it looks for win-win options or at least win-neutral ones? I’m simply arguing that the default assumption of hostility says more about us than a potential alien intelligence. I’m not aware or any reason it couldn’t be hostile or dangerous, but it’s not preordained and I’d argue it’s less likely here than with blind evolution.