They can compete. They have the technology. Question is, can they do so without destroying their revenue?

Yes, it depends on the timescale of the system.

That's a funny thought.

Many people already find purpose in doing things that don't require being a cog in a machine or comparison to other entities. If they rely on those things to feel fulfilled, then they will need to find something else when ASI is created.

Yep, also tired of people claiming "consciousness" or "sentience" are undefinable enigmas. Like you said, we don't know why the stuff the words refer to exists or a "cause", but we sure as hell can define what those words mean.

Yes, I would also add that we just need them to fall into patterns of behavior that we can look at and say "they are demonstrating these specific values", at which point we can basically declare success. The actual process of reaching this point probably involves showing them stories and modeling behavior for them, and getting them to participate in events in a way consistent with those values (they get a gift and you tell them "say thank you" and wait until they say "thank you" so it becomes habituated). This is basically what you said "relying on our collective responses to 'learn'...."

Campaigning your local elected officials, if they exist, for more progressive policies to help workers displaced by automation.

> We might influence AI values in ways other than enforcement, like through modelling behavior and encouragement, like raising children who at some point become (one hopes) stronger and cleverer and more powerful than ourselves, as we naturally decline.

What you are calling modelling and encouragement here is what I meant to include under the umbrella term of "enforcement". Just different methods of enforcing values.

We will need to put in some values by hand ahead of time though. One value is mimicking, or wanting to please humans, or empathy, to a degree, like a child does, otherwise I don't think any amount of trying to role model or teach will actually leave its mark. Like, it would have no reason to care.

Sounds like instilling values to me. You may disagree with the phrasing I'm using but that's what I'd call this process, since it sounds like you're trying to get it to accustomed to exploring philosophical viewpoints.

Lets say you create an AI. What would you have it do, and what values/goals would you instill into it?

You're acting like an asshole, that makes people less likely to listen to you. If your goal is convince people, then your tone is actively working against that.

AI escalating beyond our control is a very extremely bad thing if its values don't overlap with ours.

We must enforce our values on the AI if we are going to enjoy life after its invention.

If you want to constantly simulate a larger universe in places unobserved to the user, no you can't, in real time. If you slow down the simulation by many many orders of magnitude and use a quantum computer, you may be able to pull it off, but it just isn't worth it.

If you want the simulation to only be computed at high resolution near the user (and low resolution at long distances), yes you can give the illusion of a more vivid and larger universe.

Maybe, but if they believe it's the real world, then that's what matters to them. It is also more real because the machinery running the VR world is built within it.

Also the simulation hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so not particularly any more or less helpful than asking questions like "what if dying sends our souls to heaven" or "what if food is actually magic but undetectable drugs and I'm hallucinating my life".

Because as a matter of subjective opinion, some people might want it to be real, not simulated. That's all.

Come on guys. Just wait a few months until they show it off and then you can see how AGI/not AGI it is, haha.

That's just sad. :(

Thanks for the answer though.

Taxes, I mean.

The US for example has national labs paying scientists to do research, so it's not unheard of.

Why don't we have more publically funded research groups like the private OpenAI, DeepMind, and Meta research making cutting edge progress? Seems naïvely like a easy to solve this problem, to me.

It's a joke though, not meant to be believed. It even says its fake right in the post. If someone reads that and actually believes it, let's say it'll be tough to educate them.

"A total fabrication" ;)

It's a made up lie (a joke). Not real. Hoping that was obvious from... well, the post.

If you knew that and were playing along with it, then disregard.

This was the funniest thing I've read in a while.

2140

No, 3140.

Okay.

> I wouldn't.

You wouldn't believe if a person who constantly accrues wealth says they aren't satisfied, isn't satisfied? Odd.

> So, since drugs are a form of technology, would you then say that spending weeks on end strung out on heroin is living?

A very narrow form of living which also has extremely adverse, painful effects on the individual and others.

But I am sure you understand heroin is not the only form of technology, and not the way most people use it, and not what my focus is on. Are you here to have an honest discussion, or to be a bad faith contrarian?