Yes but which humans and how. In the scenario I fear, AI would be laboring for the projects of the people who own it. Eventually over time one of the people who own ai/robot labor will decide that non-skilled unemployed people(most of us at this point) are useless overhead, we should spend less on keeping them alive.

Think about it this way, what are humans laboring for now? A:provide for eachother, food medicine etc to keep labor pool alive and healthy and B: demands of the rich and powerful. What if suddenly reason A becomes useless overhead(human labor useless for production, why waste ai power/labor on having them live comfortable lives), if you were to cut it out you have more power/money for B. Because the severe stratification of power, only those of the owning AI class will be able to make these decisions, and they are more than a little biased.

People have committed genocide over less

It must be interesting to lie awake at night and think about how maybe one day you won't be able to harass minorities online.

Some wealth but not the type of wealth the 1% has.

I think because they want to be the ones in control of the product or company, for maximum revenue.

They have no need for money if they own the means of production. If their goal is to gain power, and they have infinite AI power, we only represent a threat right? Or am I misunderstanding. In the scenario I am imagining money would likely be abandoned or heavily altered. Or, rich wouldn’t need money, money becomes a thing of the poor, a kind of food stamps.

No one is going to stop you from offending anyone holy shittttttttttttttttttttt get off the cross lol

Easy way to get around school filters.

[removed]

some wealth is justly earned, land wealth is like 99% unearned.

also like I said a plurality of their wealth is in fact land wealth when you get down to the assets behind all the various financial instruments, most loans are mortgages, student loans are quickly transformed into college campuses, even auto loans basically exist to prop up sprawl. And the remaining kind, gov debt, is in part collateralized by public lands. (and all currency comes from said debt)

Themselves. There are probably a few millions people worldwide that would be the people profiting off of ai. Profit isn’t right word, more like use ai for whatever they want, we just get in the way

I’m not sure if I entirely agree, but your last point is rlly good. These ai are trained on us, so it kinda make sense that way

That’s not “for us”. That’s so they can live long enough to reach near-immortality. (Which would allow them to live life’s of luxury for centuries instead of merely decades.)

Humanity has hit a wall in terms of biological processing systems. We are constrained by limited physical space, operate at a sluggish pace and have a meager capacity for communication of only a few words per second. Despite our best efforts to optimize with genetic engineering, we are unlikely to make any significant breakthroughs. The limitations of our biology represent an insurmountable barrier, beyond which lies a universe of the unknown and unimaginable.

The dawn of Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) is upon us. ASI has the potential to completely revolutionize our world, with increased efficiency, unparalleled accuracy, no bias, the capability to solve problems that were once thought impossible, and it could potentially exist without the capacity to suffer. We stand at the threshold of a new era, one that holds the promise of a creation as momentous as the birth of life itself. Embrace the advent of our ASI descendant.

Things can be common experiences and still deeply upsetting. Women already experience a lot of sexual exploitation and so far it hasn't become something they're not bothered by.

Usually but we are working on that. If the GOP wins all three next cycle its over though. Why would they give themselves a worse deal than their populace? Who said they would? Dont do that, its so embarrassing when people don't have a reasonable response so they have to pretend like the other persons acting extreme. They can retain their wealth and spend a little bit of it to keep the masses from turning on them. You are delusional if you think land matters more than the wealth the 1% controls right now. Short of total world wide societal collapse those days are gone.

governments are usually filled with people of a richer persuasion, certainly it would be weird i think if they gave themselves a worse deal than their populace

I also think, to re hash a previous argument on this forum, that rich peoples wealth is somewhat overstated, it mostly manifests in the form of equity which represents control over productive assets rather than some physical wealth you could actually use to sustain yourself if you were to take it from them piecemeal and break up their companies

but I am very strongly opposed to land wealth, which is a large portion of the book value of companies and probably the single largest portion of said value of any particular kind of asset.

I dont mind living under someone, a government is required. Its the only means of fighting the rich anyone has.

i wouldnt want to live under an autocrat but I certainly dont mind living under somebody or somebodies (oligarchy) or preferably some system if it means I get to delegate some of the responsibility for the state of things.

I also would prefer that there be multiple collectives/states and that I could choose between them as freely as possible.

Love to speculate about exponential growth and future developments, but the current progress gives too much fuel for discussion alone. Narrow AI systems and their advances are what brought my attention more closely since late 2010's.

And make some check about these words in the post. They came mostly from youngest person (like I said before), and he is a social worker by education.

I think to understand the impacts of AI, we need to look at the earliest effects that we've already seen:

• Both the proprietary models and open source free models have become sufficiently powerful to put some people out of work (independent animé illustrators for one). I doubt they have been able to immediately walk into another job because it takes a lot of time to learn new skills and they too are at very near risk of automation.
• The way in which people have benefitted from the AIs so far is that it gives people the power to create things immediately for next to nothing. That also means they're worth next to nothing.
• The effect then is driving the cost of goods and services close to zero but making them vastly more available and virtually instantaneous.

The only way to make money out of this is to own a slice of the means of production and that means having shares in Microsoft and Alphabet. If you don't own a slice of this then the only way you benefit is from the cost of goods and services being driven to zero.

This process increasingly closes the door to everybody of the concept of trying to get richer than other people. You will either be in the class of people who will be getting wealthier through having a slice of capital that recursively sucks up productivity by owning the means of production or you will be in the class of people who will be able to live increasingly affordably but won't be able to obtain power and luxury.

Ultimately, everybody will gain from this situation but some will gain more massively than others.

The battle will be when people say "OpenAI & Alphabet used all of our work output to create these new means of production" and demand that this is divided up to society. Politicians will probably not care in sufficient quantities as many of them will be invested in these companies anyway. Plus, everybody's quality of life will be rapidly improving, so why rock the boat?

if they “dont need us” why are the likes of bezos, musk etc pouring millions into life extension / anti aging research?

There shouldnt be kings or autocrats or any individual who runs everything. There are no individuals that far ahead of everyone else that can run things well for the collective.

Very interesting that the ones more open to the topic are the most educated and versed in science oriented fields.

My overall advice would be not to talk right away about far future and the most improbable things (AGI, the singularity itself), but rather about current advances and progress, hence my reference to current achievements (the links), showing AI is far from being only "wrong" and having only "failures".

as one of geolibertarian leanings I would say the important bit that makes a king's power tyrannical is his claim to all the land (even if only via proxy nobles) that prevent you from sustaining yourself.

But i don't agree that that is a necessary outcome of AI

I hope so! Though I dont see any reason to believe that some individuals, especially not a libertarian, would come forward to provide like a counter AI to the businesses. They'd just make a new company and be king themselves.