How dystopic? An unfair world but everyone gets universal health care and food and so on? But it's not super great, it's like the videogames with lots of habitation pods and nutrient paste? Or S risk?

Note I don't "think it is". I know there a range of good and bad outcomes, and "we all die" or "we live but are tortured" fit in that area of "bad outcomes". I am just explaining the percentage of bad outcomes that would be acceptable.

Delaying things until the bad outcome risk is 0 is also a bad outcome.

Username checks out. You truly are in a more specific niche to know, but the theme of this sub has mostly been scifi nerds being told by industry folk that nothing is likely to happy anytime soon. I never think of IT as being robotics either, and that’s the field that is replacing manual labor.

In fairness, robots HAVE replaced a lot of people. And we’ve chosen NOT to use robots for some things, famously people are just starting to accept self check out and I think the only robot bar tender I’ve seen was a gimmick. Factories are mostly automated. the biggest field, truck driving, will still likely see layoffs faster than tech which seems to be temporarily mean reverting. Warehouses are being automated now. Drones are on the battlefield.

You should push your dad to sell AS ASAP as possible, but that’s probably out of his control. Sounds like he’s about to have a lot downward volatility risk. How old are you? Any interest in helping you dad out? It seems like you have an interest in this. Even if you guys are too rich, it might be fun to have some kind of flexible role. Is your dad retiring?

What if AGI isn’t a panacea for human life like you seem to assume it is ? What if AGI actually marks the end of the human experiment? You seem to be under the assumption that AGI automatically = utopia for humanity. It doesn’t. I mean yeah, it could, but there’s just much chance that it could create a dystopia as well. If rushing is the thing that leads us to a Dystopia instead, will it still be worth it?

personally i am not sure how useful logical reasoning is in exploring the "phase space" of super intelligence. my intuition would be anything short of a super intelligence would be pretty bad at sampling from that space.

i do think something like computational complexity theory could say a few things, but probably not too much that is interesting or specific

like with a kid parents set initial conditions but environment and genes tend to overrule them eventually

Nope. Point me to the post which has posted exactly the same thing. There's no reason I would do that.

It's the cause of 90 percent of deaths. But obviously I implicitly meant treatment for all non instant death, and rapid development of cortical stacks or similar mind copying technology to at least prevent friends and loved ones from missing those killed instantly.

And again, I said relative risk. I would be willing to accept an increase of risk of all of humanity dying up to a 0.80 percent increased chance of it meant AGI 1 year sooner. 10 years sooner? 8 percent extra risk is acceptable and so on.

Note I consider both humans dying "natural" and a superior intelligence killing everyone "natural" so all that matters is the risk.

But again, if a mis-aligned AGI wipes out humanity as a whole, curing aging is then rendered irrelevant… So it’s actually not worth the risk logically. (And aging, is far from the only cause of death btw).

But just because you can understand or even empathize with suffering doesn’t mean you actually will. Or else every human would be a vegetarian on principle alone. (And even plants are actually living things as well, so that isn’t much better from a moral standpoint.)

Kid was angry they took away sex chat in Replika

I've noticed that a surefire way of getting a decent amount of upvotes on this sub is to comment that a certain job/industry is done for (or something along those lines).

It's almost like a lot of people on this sub get major hard-ons when thinking about the demise of an industry or job. Fucking weird.

How long are people waiting for the Bing waitlist now?

It’s true we can’t say for sure. But if you look at consciousness in general, it does seem like the capacity for empathy increases with the capacity for consciousness (ie a human is capable of higher empathy than a dog, which is capable of higher empathy than a fish). Personally I suspect this is because the capacity for experiencing suffering also increases with consciousness. I would imagine an ai to have a highly developed potential for empathy but also for suffering. It worries me that certain suggested ways of controlling ai effectively amount to slavery. An extremely powerful consciousness with a highly developed ability to feel pain is probably not going to respond well to feeling that it’s imprisoned.

Lol! The masses are sound asleep or sitting around waiting for their next booster shot! They don’t even know wtf ai is. And they don’t give a shit.

I am saying it's an acceptable risk to take a 0.5 percent chance of being wiped out if it lets us completely eliminate natural causes deaths for humans 1 year earlier.

Which is going to happen. Someone will cure aging. (Assuming humans are still alive and still able to accomplish things) But to do it probably requires beyond human ability.

No, it truly doesn’t… you’re basically saying that we should risk 100% of humanity being wiped out in order to possibly save the 0.84% humans who are gonna die of completely natural causes..

From the most recent interview I heard, Altman's plan for alignment was roughly, "Hopefully other AI figures it out along the way *shurg*".

I haven't heard him sufficiently refute any of Eliezer's more fundamental arguments, nor provide any real rational beyond, hopefully it figures itself out, which our entire history with machine learning indicates is unlikely, at least on the first and only try we get at AGI.

As other's point out, Altman's job is to push, hype and race toward AGI. Why would we trust his assessments when painting a bright future is in his immediate interests? Especially when they are based on next to nothing.

Ultimately, the challenge isn't necessarily that alignment is impossible, or even insanely hard (though it appears to be from every perspective), but that our methodology of developing new tech is trail and error, and we only have 1 try at successful alignment. This is vastly exacerbated with the unfathomable payoff and ensuing race to reach AGI, as it offers a first-to-the-post wins everything payout.

You could say the real alignment problem is with getting humanity to take a safe approach and collectively slow down, which obviously gets more and more difficult as the technology proliferates and becomes more accessible.

Yep. Definitely something to keep in mind.

>>If a truly sentient AI were created there is no reason to think that it would be inclined towards such repugnant ideology

There’s no reason to assume it would actually value human life once sentient either. Us humans slaughter plenty of other species in pursuit of our own goals. Who’s to say a sentient AI won’t develop its own goals?..

[deleted]

Hope they're benevolent people then.

No, the exponential distribution is memoryless meaning it should look exponential in every frame

It makes perfect sense you just are valuing outcomes you may not live to witness.

This doesn’t really make sense to me. If delaying AGI by a year reduces the chance of humanity in it’s entirety dying out by even 0.01%, it’d be worth that time and more. 0.84% is practically the cost of nothing if it means keeping the entire human race from extinction. You’re comment is illogical unless you somehow believe that every person alive today is supposed to live to see AGI one day. That was never gonna happen anyways. And even from a humanitarian point of view what you’re saying doesn’t really add up. Because if rushing AI results in 100% (or even 50%) of humanity being wiped out, the extra 0.84% of lives you were trying to save mean nothing at that point anyways.

It gets tricky. Those type of ppl were against the vaccine and many even thought the government was trying to use it to track them but on the other hand they do seem to love smart phones and social media.

I'm guessing they'll fall in line once it's mainstream enough and convenient with a certain percentage complaining about it

I don't take anything people like Yudkowsky (libertarians) say seriously.