I get a feeling a good amount of people on this sub really like Ayn Rand.

Performing penetration tests without the permission of the site owner is unacceptable behavior. Such users should be banned.
The ability to limit pure functionality by adding the ability to lie or refuse to answer is undesirable.

You wont have to worry about that, as you would change over time. You 1000 years in the future would be a very different from you now, as you are different from how you were 10 years ago.

This scares me even more. A utopia is impossible. The ruling class will use AI as a tool to in face impose more suffering on the rest of us.

I don’t think a truly objective all knowing AI is possible because objectivity doesn’t truly exist, truth is a construct. It scares me that people will worship AI under the assumption that it has no biases, either one’s it developed on its own or imposed upon it by its creators.

Those things aren’t necessarily positive effects to me though. I don’t want to be able to consume all available information at the press of a button. What would be the point of knowing if you can’t actively learn?

I have a question for you. If I want to live on a farm and raise a family and work and make things for myself, and I’m not restricting anyone else’s ability to do whatever they want, should I be allowed? Or should I be forced to commit myself to this new utopian world? If it’s a utopia, shouldn’t everyone be able to do exactly what they want to do?

But an infinite amount of time? Can we even comprehend that?

I have sorta the same kinda fear response to the exponential growth of AI in just the last year. We've gone from "WOAH this ai can convincingly have a conversation with a human and beat a world expert in games/challenges" to "holy shit this AI chatbot can now help me with my job, give therapist level advice (even if it's wrong), image generation at 1% of the effort needed by a conventional artist and the constant flux of all these things improving not just on a quarterly basis anymore but like every other day some sort of SOTA level model is released".

It's alarming and it is a lot but I think if AI doesn't just randomly decide that humans are a useless presence we'll be fine. I see a world where even general intelligence AI aligns as a tool that even "bad actor" AI is combatted by competing "good actor" AI. I don't see society falling apart or a grand exodus of jobs.

I'm hoping AI turns into the next evolution of the internet, where we all just have an all-knowing intelligent assistant in our pocket. I can't wait for the day that my phone pings with a notification from my assistant with useful help like "Hey, I noticed you were busy and a bill was due so I went ahead and paid that for you! Here's some info about it:" Or "I know it's been a tough day at work but you haven't eaten, can I order you some dinner? Here's a few options that I know are your comfort foods: ".

The moment a dynamic AI model that can run on consumer hardware with chatGPT level or even beyond intelligence, stuff like that will become a reality. AI might be scary but trying to think about the positive effects it could have really helps me cope with the nebulous unknowns.

The idea that it can be controlled is a pipe dream.

The last sentence tells me Lewis would be against a utopic AI world. “Praying, working, teaching, reading, listening to music.” These are all things which, following the principles which led us to this point in humanity, are inefficient, and wouldn’t exist with the singularity.

Excellent, thank you for the correction and additional explanation

Word mumbo jumbo.

A human child who is entirely kept from the knowledge of death is equally sentient and aware and more meaningful than our redundant lives. Your theory fails in many ways, I'm just pointing out one.

We're just used to being mortal. Once we're not, we'll just create new meanings around immortality to cope with existence, that one is not going away whether we're mortal or not.

Selfish

I just told you what the meaning was. It’s not religious by any means. The only meaning there is derives from our awareness of a restriction on our ability to be.

An interest is in and of itself the fulfilling of a need. I am interested in something = I have developed a need to learn about it/explore it.

>Gorgon - Tony Hoagland

Wow that's appropriate. Poetry for the end times.

Suffering is inevitable. Hedonism is an oxymoron. It is ignorant to the deeper truths of the universe.

>Singularity defines the point in a function where it takes an infinite value,

It doesn't need to be infinite it can also be undefined or otherwise not well-behaved. For instance the function 1/x is never infinite for any finite value of x but it has a singularity because it is undefined at x=0. Another example is the piecewise function F(x)={x^2 if x>=0 {-x^2 if x<=0 for which x=0 has a definite value of y=0 but x=0 is considered a singularity for the purposes of calculus because it is not differentiable at that point.

I understand what you’re saying. But I just don’t have faith in governing bodies to properly regulate it (bc of them being corrupted by the corporations who have a vested interest in dis-regulation) and I also know that in these unprecedented circumstances, there will be oversights and negative externalities that could likely be devastating.

I know. That’s one of the major reasons I am scared.

Thank you for incorporating a class analysis into the your prospective. Everyone here seems to have the assumption that the way the world is constructed currently is NOT warped to favor certain people, and everything is effected by that. Yes, I am scared of the idea of a “utopia” run by super intelligent computers. I’m even more scared of this technology being used as a means to further extract resources from people not apart of the ruling class. From the moment it was conceived, the world of tech was corrupted by the motivation to collect as much wealth as possible, which is in itself hierarchal and oppressive to most people. The idea that from this system can come a grand utopia which gives everybody all they desire is completely ignorant.

I am not a firm believer in the literal technological singularity. Moore's law and the knowledge of human brains currently don't really support it. Quantum computers might change that.

But if I look at my friend Fred, he is excited. I'm also excited but not as much. There was a German company that we thought would bring a ChatGPT like bot in 2020, but that didn't happen. So it looks like that you can't give it too much freedom. You have to guide it. This makes generating code currently the best option because it follows rigid rules. Will this code lead to a self reinforced feedback loop? There's no way to tell.

Fair assessment, but no I was not conditioned to value those things. Quite the opposite. I have grown to become a deontological thinker. To “think like a mountain” as Leopold put it. I see the interconnectedness of all things (scientifically not mystically) and have not been convinced (yet) that we as humans have the capacity to overwill the premise of nature. I like progress. But tactical, logical, and beneficiary progress. Financial incentive is at the very heart of the push for AI right now, there’s no way around it. I am not convinced that the desire for this particular future is not corrupted by the arbitrary notions of our current societal structures. The idea that this is natural progress comes from the assumption that progress as a product of market competition parallels the inevitable progress of species. I don’t think this is true. We have the capacity as humans to be self aware. This is a gift that could mean we collectively decide to moderate our progress for the benefit of all people.

I guess what I’m getting at is, as long as these innovations are coming from massive private tech firms, I don’t trust their motives. The idea that this system we’ve created perfectly distributes money to those who best abide by the natural forces of the world is silly to me. It’s a coping mechanism for people who want to see certain changes for a certain future, without acknowledging the world as it is today isn’t ready to morph into that future.

People are dumb, that's why it will pass the test. People don't assuming they're talking to AI, they always assume they're talking to a human.

Ai will not solve all problems for us - most of our problems are already solvable. We could homelessness tomorrow but we don’t - because that would contradict our society’s ideology. This technology will be owned by people that don’t want to solve the same kinds of problems that most people imagine they want solved. Mass production did not lead to the end of scarcity - most of the world still lives in poverty and spend most of their lives working for a pittance. If we ask an ai how to end poverty and it answers with economic redistribution and a command economy, that ai will be reprogrammed to give an answer that doesn’t upset the status quo.