This is an unpopular opinion with all of the environmental concerns we have at the moment (which are both legitimate and serious), but with advances in technology, Earth can hold a ludicrous number of people comfortably.

If AGI was here, genetic engineering of crops will be supercharged, fusion will be fast-tracked, and truly intelligent systems will be ubiquitous.

A Thanos-inspired solution would do far more harm than the overpopulation it is supposedly addressing.

This is a false dichotomy and blatantly wrong. We can help humanity thrive without mass murder or depopulation by changing the dominant system to one that serves humanity rather than a wealthy few and makes efficient use of resources. Given the massive waste and unequal distribution under our capitalist status quo we have more than enough resources to give every person a basically good life while still protecting the environment. Read Less is More by Jason Hickel for a comprehensive summary.

The problem isn't numbers. It's location. Need to move humans away from fertile places like rainforests.

I'm no rocketsurgeon, but asking an AI to remove 75% of humanity seems like a bad idea. What if it thinks that means removing 75% of each of us. We might just end up as a bunch of heads in jars. Futurama style. I guess that would sort of be a version of the singularity.

Keep this fascist bs in the burning dumpster where it belongs. The problem is not overpopulation, it's efficiently using and allocating the resources available, instead of allowing a privileged few to hoard and waste them, and manipulate essential resources like food, water, and housing, as commodities.

[removed]

How else would the wealthy continue to hoard the? Please think of the billionaire./s

That's like giving a drug addict more money. There is never gonna be "enough" for his desires can never be fulfilled.

Letting the human population breed in ever growing numbers works at cross porpose for every reasonable long term planing provide a stable enviroment.

[removed]

You could make the majority of humans sterile. That works itself out within few years.

[removed]

So instead you just want to let a computer, programmed by humans, decide which billions of humans to kill, to get down to an arbitrary number that you pulled out of your ass. Okay, fucking fascist.

The planet don't care. As long as we are keeping the minerals on it.

Will we die or flood it - planet will restore to it's original form anyway

Why would they do that? They want a vacation home over there. And a resort. A trail for Instagram photos. A safari park or whatever.

Human desires are endless. Making more people rich just creates more desires. Scaled up to 8 billion, everybody has a vacation home in the rain forrest.

And what's the point? We are basically developing the tech to kill ourselves. And it's happening right now.

PS: it was a rhetorical question

No one would survive that scenario. This thought experiment has gone really dark quickly.

Plus there is no telling how enticing an archology could be built with super intelligence. You could pack entire city's worth of people in on skyscrapper that somehow looks good, has parks and ressources in and has roomier quarters than our current appartments and houses.

"What if the super intelligence is actually stupider than ChatGPT currently is?"

​

For real? That's your concern?

I guess the AI genocidial maniac decided to delete and run.

I mean.... killing off 6 billion people would also remove those things as you wouldn't have the resource allocation to build or maintain them.

I agree entirely with what you are saying. I just think that most people talking about this greatly underestimate our available resources as technology improves.

Say we get fusion.

What does carrying capacity and farmland acreage even mean when you can create tons of starch and protein in bioreactors for pennies a pound? With the inputs being things like air, water, energy, and abundant minerals?

it was pretty fucking dark from the beginning what OP posted

Agreed. Just casually killing or sterilizing 6 billion people didn't seem like a bad idea to OP. That's pretty fucked up.

reminds me of Britta from Community lol

"I can excuse murdering 3/4 of the population of humanity, but I draw the line at forced sterilization!"

LOL. I'm guessing it was a young kid. They deleted the post quickly as soon as it it went south on them. AI in the hands of morons is not something I am looking forward to.